Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10.25.2023@630 Regular
Wednesday, October 25, 2023 6:30 PM City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA Municipal Services Building, Council Chambers 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA City Council BUENAFLOR NICOLAS, Mayor (District 3) MARK NAGALES, Vice Mayor (District 2) MARK ADDIEGO, Councilmember (District 1) JAMES COLEMAN, Councilmember (District 4) EDDIE FLORES, Councilmember (District 5) ROSA GOVEA ACOSTA, City Clerk FRANK RISSO, City Treasurer SHARON RANALS, City Manager SKY WOODRUFF, City Attorney Regular Meeting Agenda 1 October 25, 2023City Council Regular Meeting Agenda How to observe the Meeting (no public comment, including via Zoom): 1) Local cable channel: Astound, Channel 26, Comcast, Channel 27, or AT&T, Channel 99 2) https://www.ssf.net/government/city-council/video-streaming-city-and-council-meetings/city-council 3) Zoom meeting (viewing/listening only): https://ssf-net.zoom.us/j/88636346631(Enter your email and name) Webinar ID: 886 3634 6631 Join by Telephone: +1 669 900 6833 How to submit written Public Comment before the City Council Meeting: Members of the public are encouraged to submit public comments in writing in advance of the meeting via the eComment tab by 4:30 p.m. on the meeting date. Use the eComment portal by clicking on the following link : https://ci-ssf-ca.granicusideas.com/meetings or by visiting the City Council meeting's agenda page. eComments are also directly sent to the iLegislate application used by City Council and staff. How to provide Public Comment during the City Council Meeting: COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER During a meeting, comments can only be made in person: Complete a Digital Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Council Chambers. 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 10/26/2023 2 October 25, 2023City Council Regular Meeting Agenda CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AGENDA REVIEW ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM STAFF PRESENTATIONS Presentation celebrating Fire Prevention Poster Contest Winners. (Ian Hardage, Fire Marshall) 1. Presentation recognizing CORA and the Speak-up program during domestic violence prevention month. (Karen Ferguson, Chief Executive Officer of Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse) 2. Thrive Alliance, 2023 Regional Nonprofit Landscape Report for San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. (Georgia Demetra Farooq, Executive Director, Thrive Alliance) 3. Proclamation celebrating Extra Mile Day in South San Francisco, November 1, 2023. (Flor Nicolas, Mayor) 4. Presentation from the Commission on Equity and Public Safety advocating for the City’s Community Wellness and Crisis Response Team (Krystle Cansino, Chair and Salvador Delgadillo, Commissioner) 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS 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 City Council may direct staff to investigate and/or schedule certain matters for consideration at a future Council meeting . Written comments on agenda items received prior to 4:00 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 Mayor 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 City Council's rules of decorum will be muted. COUNCIL COMMENTS/REQUESTS Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/26/2023 3 October 25, 2023City Council Regular Meeting Agenda CONSENT CALENDAR Matters under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and noncontroversial. These items will be enacted by one motion and without discussion. If, however, any Council member (s) wishes to comment on an item, they may do so before action is taken on the Consent Calendar. Following comments, if a Council member wishes to discuss an item, it will be removed from the Consent Calendar and taken up in order after adoption of the Consent Calendar. Motion to approve the Minutes for October 11, 2023. (Rosa Govea Acosta, City Clerk) 6. Report regarding a resolution authorizing the acceptance of donations from various local partners valued at $7,286 used as table and appreciation gifts, door prize opportunities, and in-kind services for the August 26, 2023 South San Francisco Women’s Leadership Conference. (Valerie Sommer, Library Director) 7. Resolution authorizing the acceptance of donations from various local partners valued at $7,286 used as table and appreciation gifts, door prize opportunities, and in-kind services for the August 26, 2023 South San Francisco Women’s Leadership Conference. 7a. Report regarding a resolution approving a Professional Services Agreement with Du-All Safety for a total amount Not to Exceed $360,000 from October 1, 2023 through September 30, 2026 for safety consulting services. (Leah Lockhart, Human Resources Director) 8. Resolution approving a professional services agreement with Du-All Safety for an amount not to exceed $360,000 from October 1, 2023 through September 30, 2026 for safety consulting services. 8a. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Report regarding a resolution approving an agreement with Orege North America and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement on behalf of the City of South San Francisco not to exceed Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars ($700,000). (Brian Schumacker, Water Quality Control Plant Superintendent) 9. Resolution approving an agreement with Orege North America and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement on behalf of the City of South San Francisco. 9a. Report regarding a resolution adopting the draft Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan. (Joshua Richardson, Parks Division Manager) 10. Resolution adopting the Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan for the City of South San Francisco. 10a. Page 4 City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/26/2023 4 October 25, 2023City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Consideration and approval of a First Addendum to the 2023-2031 Adopted Housing Element to incorporate comments from the Department of Housing and Community Development (Tony Rozzi, Deputy Economic and Community Development Director) 11. Resolution of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco Approving a First Addendum to the 2023-2031 Adopted Housing Element. 11a. Report regarding a resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to execute a legal services agreement with Sher Edling LLP regarding PCB litigation (Sky Woodruff, City Attorney) 12. Resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to execute a legal services agreement with Sher Edling LLP regarding PCB litigation 12a. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL – COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS CLOSED SESSION Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.8) Property: Vacant Property on Sylvester Rd. north of Associated Rd., APN 015031090 Agency negotiators: Nell Selander, Economic & Community Development Director and Adena Friedman, Chief Planner Negotiating parties: Unknown at this time. Property is subject to tax sale by San Mateo County. Under negotiation: Price and terms 13. Closed Session: Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8) Property: 201 Baden Avenue (APN 012-335-100 and APN 012-335-110) Agency Negotiators: Nell Selander, Economic & Community Development Director and Danielle Thoe, Housing Manager Negotiating Parties: Eden Housing, Inc Under Negotiation: Price and terms 14. ADJOURNMENT Page 5 City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/26/2023 5 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-848 Agenda Date:10/25/2023 Version:1 Item #:1. Presentation celebrating Fire Prevention Poster Contest Winners.(Ian Hardage, Fire Marshall) City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/20/2023Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™6 2023 Fire Prevention Poster Contest Winners Martin 5th Ayden Alvarez 5th Jannessy Ponce Buri-Buri 4th Isabella Chang 5th Usmaan Abdullah Noor All Souls 1st Valeria Gutrierrez 3rd Pedro DosSantos Sunshine 5th Mia Vaughan 5th Peyton Mayorga Anderson Ponderosa 2nd Ava Marie Ramirez St. Veronica Kinder James "Jamie" Francis Quinn Mills 1st Daniel Zhou 2nd Analyn Dinglasan Monte Verde 2nd Jalen Yat Tom 1st Joshua Pang Los Cerritos 4th Nabil Khan Kinder Evelyn Garcia Hillside Christian 2nd Benjamin Batlik 7 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-928 Agenda Date:10/25/2023 Version:1 Item #:2. Presentation recognizing CORA and the Speak-up program during domestic violence prevention month.(Karen Ferguson, Chief Executive Officer of Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse) City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/20/2023Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™8 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-948 Agenda Date:10/25/2023 Version:1 Item #:3. Thrive Alliance, 2023 Regional Nonprofit Landscape Report for San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. (Georgia Demetra Farooq, Executive Director, Thrive Alliance) City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/20/2023Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-925 Agenda Date:10/25/2023 Version:1 Item #:4. Proclamation celebrating Extra Mile Day in South San Francisco, November 1, 2023.(Flor Nicolas, Mayor) City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/20/2023Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™46 Dated: October 25, 2023 Recognition of Extra Mile Day November 1, 2023 WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco is a community which acknowledges that a special vibrancy exists within the entire community when its individual citizens collectively “go the extra mile” in personal effort, volunteerism, and service; and WHEREAS, the City of South San Francsico is a community which encourages its citizens to maximize their personal contribution to the community by giving of themselves wholeheartedly and with total effort, commitment, and conviction to their individual ambitions, family, friends, and community; and WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco, is a community which chooses to shine a light on and celebrate individuals and organizations within its community who “go the extra mile” in order to make a difference and lift up fellow members of their community; and WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco, acknowledges the mission of Extra Mile America to create 550 Extra Mile cities in America and is proud to support “Extra Mile Day” on November 1, 2023. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby recognize November 1st as Extra Mile Day and recommits itself to the individuals, groups, and businesses who have given time, energy, and resources to our community through volunteer service. ________________________________ Buenaflor Nicolas, Mayor ________________________________ Mark Nagales, Vice Mayor ________________________________ Mark Addiego, Councilmember ________________________________ James Coleman, Councilmember ________________________________ Eddie Flores, Councilmember 47 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-950 Agenda Date:10/25/2023 Version:1 Item #:5. Presentation from the Commission on Equity and Public Safety advocating for the City’s Community Wellness and Crisis Response Team (Krystle Cansino, Chair and Salvador Delgadillo, Commissioner) City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/20/2023Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™48 Advocating for Our City’s Community Wellness and Crisis Response Team Presented by the City of South San Francisco’s Commission on Equity and Public Safety 49 A Brief History •Commission on Racial & Social Equity (2021) •Goal 2: Strategy 2.1 •Consideration 1 •South San Francisco 2040 General Plan •Equitable Community Services (ECS): Goals 2, 3, and 6 •San Mateo County Community Wellness and Crisis Response Team (CWCRT) •Pilot Program effective January 2022 – December 2023 •Currently Practicing 50 Similar Mental Health Crisis Response Models (Bay Area): •CARE Team •CATT •CCPCFT •CCS •CCT •FFT •GART •MACRO •MCT •MET •SCRT Mental Health Clinician Trending Similar Mental Health Crisis Response Models (Nationwide): •Aurora, IL •Bangor, ME •Brunswick, OH •Eugene, OR (CAHOOTS) •Centre County, PA •Greenville, SC •Lee’s Summit, NJ •Memphis, TN •Meridian, ID •Rochester, NY 51 Benefits Our Police Officers •Frees time for crime prevention •Receives mental health and CIT training •Builds departmental financial savings •Decreases risk of critical incidents •Reflects Police Officers’ support of program continuation 52 Actual/Anticipated Benefits to Our Community •Provides those in crisis immediate care from a licensed clinician •Offers individuals additional resources after a crisis •Reduces risk of jail bookings •Diverts individuals from involvement in the criminal justice system •Decreases the frequency of use of force including potential shootings 53 In Conclusion This crisis response program solution: •Aligns with nationwide trends •Positions our city to remain at the forefront •Represents a major equity-responsive step •Supports a “win-win-win” for community, police, and especially people experiencing mental health crises 54 55 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-935 Agenda Date:10/25/2023 Version:1 Item #:6. Motion to approve the Minutes for October 11, 2023. (Rosa Govea Acosta, City Clerk) City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/20/2023Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™56 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Nicolas called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. ROLL CALL Councilmember Addiego, present Councilmember Coleman, present Councilmember Flores, present Vice Mayor Nagales, present Mayor Nicolas, present PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Nicolas requested Jeanette Acosta to lead the pledge. AGENDA REVIEW No changes. ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM STAFF • Christina Fernandez, Deputy City Manager • Greg Mediati, Director of Parks and Recreation • Sharon Ranals, City Manager PRESENTATIONS 1. Proclamation recognizing October as National Italian American Heritage Month. (Flor Nicolas, Mayor) Councilmember Addiego read the proclamation into the record and presented it to Jeanette Petroni Acosta. Jeanette accepted the proclamation on behalf of all Italians in South San Francisco and thanked the Council for the honor. 2. Proclamation recognizing October as Breast Cancer Awareness Month. (Flor Nicolas, Mayor) Councilmember Coleman read the proclamation into the record and presented it to City Manager Ranals. City Manager Ranals thanked the council and shared she is grateful to be a survivor of breast cancer. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2023 6:30 p.m. Municipal Services Building, Council Chambers 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA Via Zoom 57 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 11, 2023 MINUTES PAGE 2 3. Proclamation recognizing Code Enforcement Officer Appreciation Week, October 9-13, 2023. (Flor Nicolas, Mayor) Vice Mayor Nagales read the proclamation into the record and presented it to Code Enforcement Officer Donn Lovell. Code Enforcement Officer Lovell shared it was an honor to receive the proclamation and thanked Council. 4. Proclamation recognizing October 8-14, 2023, as Fire Prevention week. (Flor Nicolas, Mayor) Councilmember Flores presented the proclamation to Battalion Chief Fire Marshal Ian Hardage. Chief Fire Marshal Hardage thanked the Council for their recognition and shared fire safety is currently being presented to students in South San Francisco. He introduced and thanked Administrative Assistant Ronnie Leong and Deputy Fire Marshal Nelson Aranda for all their work. PUBLIC COMMENTS – NON-AGENDA ITEMS The following individual(s) addressed the City Council: In Person: • John Baker COUNCIL COMMENTS/REQUESTS Mayor Nicolas extended condolences to Israel for the life’s loss during the attack and requested a moment of silence to for the victims and families affected. She reiterated hatred has no place in South San Francisco and that civility, inclusion, and diversity are always upheld. She also provided an overview of the events attended and congratulated Mayor Karyl Matsumoto for her lifetime achievement awarded at the 50th gala of the Organization of Chinese Americans. She also expressed her gratitude toward Plant Superintendent Brian Schumacker for giving her a grand tour of the WQCP. She requested that the meeting be adjourned in memory of South San Francisco resident, Fernando Fasquelle. Councilmember Addiego provided an overview of the information obtained at his recent meeting with the SFO Roundtable group. He thanked Deputy Fire Chief Matt Samson and Police Corporal Jesse Ledesma for their city tour to visitors of our Sister City Atotonilco el Alto. He requested that the meeting be adjourned in memory of Ollie Mae Welch, Beverly Franzella, and Gloria Gil. Vice Mayor Nagales provided an overview of the events attended to include the Family Bike Ride event, historical society dinner, and Organization of Chinese Americans event. He also noted that Westborough Blvd does not qualify for speed reduction due to State law but requested staff to collaborate in exploring alternatives in working with the County and State legislatures. Councilmember Flores thanked staff for their assistance with the Sister City delegation. He thanked Assemblymember Diane Papin for recognizing the importance of bicycle ownership in young kids. He also highlighted the Economic Advancement Center for the work that continues to happen there. He provided an overview of the events he attended and thanked Deputy City Manager Fernandez and Captain Plan for supporting the Mental Health Event hosted by the Peninsula Division of the California League of Cities. He invited residents to attend a mixer at La Perla Restaurant to celebrate Latinx heritage month. 58 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 11, 2023 MINUTES PAGE 3 Councilmember Coleman noted his absence due to his visit to Singapore and Hong Kong to study housing policy. He shared he was proud that the City was able to take part in the Climate Summit and heard great reviews. He also stated the Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County will be hosting a housing leadership day on Friday, October 20th. CONSENT CALENDAR The City Clerk duly read the Consent Calendar, after which Council voted and engaged in discussion of specific item as follows. 5. Motion to approve the Minutes for September 27, 2023. (Rosa Govea Acosta, City Clerk) 6. Report regarding a second reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 1649-2023 adding Chapter 20.150 (“Lindenville Specific Plan District”), Chapter 20.160 (“Height Incentive Overlay District”), Chapter 20.190 (“Colma Creek Greenbelt Overlay District”), Chapter 20.200 (“Arts and Makers Overlay District”) Chapter 20.210 (“Active Ground Floor Use Overlay District”), making other related amendments to Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, and amending the South San Francisco Zoning Map. (Billy Gross, Principal Planner) 7. Report regarding adoption of Ordinance No. 1650-2023 adding Chapter 10.76 of the Municipal Code to establish rules of conduct for City property. (Sky Woodruff, City Attorney) 8. Report regarding adoption of Ordinance No. 1651-2023 amending South San Francisco Municipal Code Sections 2.04.020, 2.56.050 2.60.050, 2.64.050, and 2.81.050 changing the location of meetings of the City Council, Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Parking Place Commission, and Traffic Safety Commission. (Sky Woodruff, City Attorney) 9. Report Regarding Resolution No. 154-2023 approving the Second Amendment to the 2023- 2024 Wage and Salary Schedule to establish salaries for new and amended job classifications, and approving Budget Amendment No. 24.014 (Leah Lockhart, Human Resources Director) Motion – Councilmember Addiego/Second – Vice Mayor Nagales: To approve Consent Calendar 5- 9, by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Addiego, Coleman, Flores, and Vice Mayor Nagales, and Mayor Nicolas; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 10. Report regarding Resolution No. 155-2023 awarding a Consulting Services Agreement to MIG, Inc. of Berkeley, California for the Linden Avenue Park Project (project no. pk2305) in an amount not to exceed $526,920, authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement, and approving a contract contingency of $52,692 on behalf of the City. (Philip Vitale, Deputy Director of Capital Projects) Deputy Director Vitale presented the report. The council expressed their appreciation for exploring elements that speak to the neighborhood and incorporating space for residents to gather. They also noted the sensitivity due to its history and emphasized the importance of community input. The following individual(s) submitted an electronic comment: • Olga Perez, Alan Perez, and Comunidad Inmigrante del Pueblo Viejo 59 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 11, 2023 MINUTES PAGE 4 Motion – Councilmember Flores/Second – Councilmember Coleman: To approve Resolution No. 155-2023 awarding a Consulting Services Agreement to MIG, Inc. of Berkeley, California for the Linden Avenue Park Project (project no. pk2305) in an amount not to exceed $526,920, authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement, and approving a contract contingency of $52,692 on behalf of the City, by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Addiego, Coleman, Flores, and Vice Mayor Nagales, and Mayor Nicolas; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None 11. Report regarding Resolution No. 156-2023 awarding a construction contract to Andrew M. Jordan Inc. dba A & B Construction of Oakland, California for the Centennial Way Trail Park Improvements (project no. pk2302) in an amount not to exceed $4,505,417, authorizing a total construction budget including contingency of $4,955,959, authorizing the City Manager to execute agreements on behalf of the City and approving Budget Amendment# 24.015. (Philip Vitale, Deputy Director of Capital Projects) Deputy Director Vitale presented the report. The council engaged in questions and discussion surrounding the design, lighting, and balance of the project. City Manager Ranals acknowledged Director of Parks and Recreation Mediati and Director of Capital Projects Gilchrist for their work in pursuing this project. The following individual(s) submitted an electronic comment: • Guest User Motion – Vice Mayor Nagales/Second – Councilmember Addiego: To approve report regarding Resolution No. 156-2023 awarding a construction contract to Andrew M. Jordan Inc. dba A & B Construction of Oakland, California for the Centennial Way Trail Park Improvements (project no. pk2302) in an amount not to exceed $4,505,417, authorizing a total construction budget including contingency of $4,955,959, authorizing the City Manager to execute agreements on behalf of the City and approving Budget Amendment# 24.015, by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Addiego, Coleman, Flores, and Vice Mayor Nagales, and Mayor Nicolas; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None 12. Report regarding Resolution No. 157-2023 awarding a construction contract to GECMS Inc. (dba Giron Construction) of San Francisco, California for the Oyster Point Phase IIC Improvement Project (project no. pf2204/pf2205/pf2206) in an amount not to exceed $3,716,501.51, authorizing a total construction budget of $4,273,976.74, and authorizing the City Manager to execute agreements on behalf of the City. (Philip Vitale, Deputy Director of Capital Projects) Deputy Director Vitale presented the report. The council inquired about additional staffing and maintenance of the new parks, the number of trees and consideration of wind, and noted the need for additional patrol in these areas. Director of Parks and Recreation Mediati provided a response to discuss an overview of department needs while Deputy Director Vitale shared staff would provide a memo to address inquiries regarding trees. Motion – Councilmember Flores/Second – Councilmember Coleman: To approve report regarding Resolution No. 157-2023 awarding a construction contract to GECMS Inc. (dba Giron Construction) of San Francisco, California for the Oyster Point Phase IIC Improvement Project (project no. pf2204/pf2205/pf2206) in an amount not to exceed $3,716,501.51, authorizing a total construction budget of $4,273,976.74, and authorizing the City Manager to execute agreements on behalf of the 60 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 11, 2023 MINUTES PAGE 5 City, by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Addiego, Coleman, Flores, and Vice Mayor Nagales, and Mayor Nicolas; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None 13. Report regarding Resolution No. 158-2023 approving updated state-aid master agreement, program supplemental agreement (PSA) No. A292 with the State of California for HSIP 10: Curb Ramp Replacement Intersection Improvement Project (Project No. tr2202) in the amount of $249,800 and authorizing the City Manager to execute said agreements (Angel Torres, Senior Civil Engineer) Senior Civil Engineer Torres presented the report. Councilmember Flores requested attention to detail for all curbs, sidewalks, and driveways and requested that we do not impede pedestrians and continue to remain compliant with ADA. Senior Civil Engineer Torres confirmed that ADA compliance would remain during construction. Motion – Councilmember Coleman/Second – Councilmember Flores: To approve report regarding Resolution No. 158-2023 approving updated state-aid master agreement, program supplemental agreement (PSA) No. A292 with the State of California for HSIP 10: Curb Ramp Replacement Intersection Improvement Project (Project No. tr2202) in the amount of $249,800 and authorizing the City Manager to execute said agreements, by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Addiego, Coleman, Flores, and Vice Mayor Nagales, and Mayor Nicolas; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None ITEMS FROM COUNCIL – COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Nicolas invited the community to attend the Flu Shot Clinic on Sunday October 15, 2023. ADJOURNMENT Being no further business Mayor Nicolas adjourned the City Council meeting at 8:08 p.m. *** Adjourned in Memory of Fernando Fasquelle, Ollie Mae Welch, Beverly Franzella, and Gloria Gil *** Submitted by: Approved by: Jazmine Miranda Buenaflor Nicolas Assistant City Clerk Mayor Approved by the City Council: / / 61 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-920 Agenda Date:10/25/2023 Version:1 Item #:7. Report regarding a resolution authorizing the acceptance of donations from various local partners valued at $7,286 used as table and appreciation gifts,door prize opportunities,and in-kind services for the August 26, 2023 South San Francisco Women’s Leadership Conference.(Valerie Sommer, Library Director) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution accepting donations valued at $7,286 from various local partners,used as table and appreciation gifts,door prize opportunities,and in-kind services for the August 26, 2023 South San Francisco Women’s Leadership Conference. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION In support of the August 26,2023 South San Francisco Women’s Leadership Conference held at the South San Francisco Conference Center,local partners donated gift cards,gift baskets,gift products and in-kind services, providing featured speakers and facilitators as well as participants with table and appreciation gifts,and gift opportunities in a door prize drawing. The successful event drew a full house,with nearly 250 people in attendance,including local officials,civic leaders,business leaders and community members.Presenters and breakout session panelists were dynamic and inspiring,with Congressmember Jackie Speier as the keynote speaker opening the day and San Mateo County Sheriff Christina Corpus as the closing speaker. The $7,286 value of donations includes full value,estimated value and value of in-kind services,as listed below: ·$5,346:See’s Candies donated nine cartons,containing 36-8oz Silver Assorted Boxes of candy,and two gift baskets ·$800: in-kind printing of event brochure and more from Madison Street Press ·$300: Six gift bags from South San Francisco Scavenger Company ·$300:Costco El Camino,Costco South Airport Boulevard and Costco Business Center each donated a $100 gift card ·$200:two gift bags from Soroptimist International North San Mateo County via Jo and Margie/Margie and Jo ·$100: 4 - $25 gift cards from Subculture Deli ·$100: Gift card from Il Fornaio Restaurant, Burlingame ·$100: Gift certificate from Luminous Day Spa ·$40: Gift card from Lunardi’s Market, San Bruno FISCAL IMPACT Receipt of these donations has no impact to the City’s general fund. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN Acceptance of these donations will contribute to the City’s Strategic Plan under Priority #2,Quality of Life,by City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/20/2023Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™62 File #:23-920 Agenda Date:10/25/2023 Version:1 Item #:7. supporting a learning and networking opportunity for Conference attendees. CONCLUSION It is recommended that the City Council accept donations valued at $7,286 distributed at the successful South San Francisco Women’s Leadership Conference held on August 26, 2023. City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/20/2023Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™63 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-922 Agenda Date:10/25/2023 Version:1 Item #:7a. Resolution authorizing the acceptance of donations from various local partners valued at $7,286 used as table and appreciation gifts,door prize opportunities,and in-kind services for the August 26,2023 South San Francisco Women’s Leadership Conference. WHEREAS, the South San Francisco Women’s Leadership Conference was held on August 26, 2023; and WHEREAS,the City received various donations valued at $7,286 used as table and appreciation gifts,door prize opportunities,and in-kind services for the 250 people in attendance of the Women’s Leadership Conference; and WHEREAS,See’s Candies donated nine cartons,containing 36-8oz Silver Assorted Boxes of candy and two gift baskets, valued $5,346; and WHEREAS,Madison Street Press provided service of in-kind printing of event brochures and more valued $800; and WHEREAS, the South San Francisco Scavenger Company donated six gift bags valued $300; and WHEREAS,$100 gift cards were donated by each of the three SSF Costco locations of El Camino Real,South Airport Boulevard and the Business Center; and WHEREAS, Soroptomist International North San Mateo County donated two gifts bags valued $200; and WHEREAS, Subculture Deli donated four, $25 gift cards; and WHEREAS, Il Fornaio Restaurant donated a $100 gift card; and WHEREAS, Luminous Day Spa donated a $100 gift certificate; and WHEREAS, Lunardi’s Market donated a $40 gift card; WHEREAS,the acceptance of the donations in the amount of $7,286 would be used to support the South San Francisco Women’s Leadership Conference; and WHEREAS,acceptance of this donation will contribute to the City’s Strategic Plan under Priority #2,Quality of Life. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby accepts donations valued at $7,286 from various local partners,used as table and appreciation gifts,door prize opportunities,and in-kind services for the August 26,2023 South San Francisco Women’s Leadership Conference. City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/20/2023Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™64 File #:23-922 Agenda Date:10/25/2023 Version:1 Item #:7a. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/20/2023Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™65 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-857 Agenda Date:10/25/2023 Version:1 Item #:8. Report regarding a resolution approving a Professional Services Agreement with Du-All Safety for a total amount Not to Exceed $360,000 from October 1,2023 through September 30,2026 for safety consulting services.(Leah Lockhart, Human Resources Director) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving a Professional Services Agreement with Du-All Safety for a total amount Not to Exceed $360,000 from October 1,2023 through September 30,2026 for safety consulting services. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The City of South San Francisco maintains a robust,proactive employee safety program administered by the Human Resources Department in conjunction with departmental representatives of the Citywide Safety Committee.Since 2016,the City has utilized the services of a third-party safety consultant to provide training, written policy and procedure updates,safety inspections,and additional support for safety program management and regulatory compliance. In anticipation of the expiration of the City’s existing safety consultant contract,the Human Resources Department conducted a Request for Proposals (RFP)for safety consulting services for a three-year term,in order to continue and sustain program with long-term planning for future needs. The Request for Proposals (RFP)was developed and conducted in accordance with the City’s purchasing policies and procedures for professional service agreements.The RFP was advertised on the City’s website, through the Public Agency Risk Management Association (PARMA)and sent directly to ten (10)firms identified through staff research as providers of related consulting services for public sector agencies within the State of California. The City received proposals from the following firms: Barragan Corp International Du-All Safety Safety Management Group (SMG) Proposals were evaluated utilizing the “best value”method for professional services,meaning that the cost of each proposal was one factor considered alongside qualifications,experience and the ability to deliver all services as requested by the City.A review team comprised of two Human Resources staff and three departmental representatives of the Citywide Safety Committee evaluated each proposal,and unanimously selected Du-All Safety based on the depth breadth of experience specifically with Cities in the San Francisco Bay Area,the ability to conduct both remote and on-site services tailored to the City’s needs,and the lowest overall cost for a comprehensive safety program. Du-All Safety (“Du-All”)has provided consulting services to the City of South San Francisco since 2016,and is comprised of a team of safety specialists providing a variety of industries,including specialty areas specific to municipal operations.Du-All has a proven track record of providing timely and relevant training and written City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/20/2023Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™66 File #:23-857 Agenda Date:10/25/2023 Version:1 Item #:8. to municipal operations.Du-All has a proven track record of providing timely and relevant training and written program management for all City departments,contributing to an overall reduction in on-the-job injuries and Worker’s Compensation claim costs over the past five years.Under the proposed new Agreement,Du-All will provide identified routine and tentative safety training and program updates based on Cal-OSHA requirements, and conduct a safety inventory and needs assessment with each City Department to ensure each department’s needs and goals are addressed.Du-All will also continue annual environmental health and safety site inspections,emergency drills,accident investigations,hearing tests,and worksite ergonomic evaluations as needed and requested by the City.The proposed Agreement includes a budget not-to-exceed $120,000 annually through September, 2026, with the option to extend for two additional years subject to Council approval. FISCAL IMPACT The City’s Fiscal Year 2023-2024 operating budget includes $100,000 for Safety Consulting Services.The additional $20,000 will be covered by the Human Resources professional services budget.The City is a member of PLAN JPA for risk management services,which includes an annual Risk Management Grant Program.Subject to annual fund availability,a portion of the City’s Safety Consulting fees may be reimbursed by this grant program. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN The safety program supports the City Council’s strategic priorities of Workforce Development by demonstrating a commitment to facilitating a safe and healthy work environment for employees and in turn creating and maintaining a culture of safety,and Fiscal Sustainability,by reducing costs associated with workplace injuries and illnesses while increasing systemic efficiencies and productivity. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that City Council approve a resolution to approve a Professional Services Agreement with Du-All Safety,for a total contract amount not to exceed $360,000,in order to provide for safety program training and consulting services from October 1, 2023 through September 30, 2026. City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/20/2023Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™67 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-927 Agenda Date:10/25/2023 Version:1 Item #:8a. Resolution approving a professional services agreement with Du-All Safety for an amount not to exceed $360,000 from October 1, 2023 through September 30, 2026 for safety consulting services. WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco utilizes third-party consulting services to provide safety training, written programs, site inspections, and other services in support of the City-wide employee safety program; and WHEREAS, Human Resources staff, in conjunction with representatives of the City-wide safety committee, conducted a Request for Proposals (RFP) in accordance with the City’s purchasing policies; and WHEREAS, the City received proposals from Barragan Corp International, Du-All Safety, and Safety Management Group; and WHEREAS, as a result of the proposal review based on qualifications, cost, and ability to meet the specific needs of the City, staff recommends that City Council approve a professional service agreement with Du-All Safety; and WHEREAS, the proposed Agreement includes a budget not-to-exceed $120,000 annually through September, 2026, with the option to extend for two additional years subject to Council approval; and WHEREAS, the City’s Fiscal Year 2023-2024 operating budget includes $100,000 for Safety Consulting Services, and the remaining $20,000 will be covered by the Human Resources professional services budget; and WHEREAS, subject to annual fund availability, a portion of the City’s Safety Consulting fees may be reimbursed by the annual Risk Management Grant Program included in the City’s membership of PLAN JPA for risk management services. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of South San Francisco hereby approves the professional services agreement with Du-All Safety for an amount not to exceed $360,000 for October 1, 2023 through September 30, 2026. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute the professional services agreement with Du-All Safety, included as Exhibit A. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to make any revisions, amendments, corrections or modifications to the Second Amendment to the service agreement, subject to the approval as to form by the City Attorney, deemed necessary to carry out the intent of this Resolution and which do not materially alter or increase the City’s obligations thereunder; and to take any related action reasonably necessary to carry out the intent of this Resolution. City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/20/2023Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™68 Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] 09/27/2023 City of South San Francisco and Du-All Safety, LLC Page 1 of 16 CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND DU-ALL SAFETY, LLC THIS AGREEMENT for consulting services is made by and between the City of South San Francisco (“City”) and Du-All Safety, LLC (“Consultant”) (together sometimes referred to as the “Parties”) as of October 1, 2023 (the “Effective Date”). Section 1. SERVICES. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, Consultant shall provide to City the services described in the Scope of Work attached as Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein, at the time and place and in the manner specified therein. In the event of a conflict in or inconsistency between the terms of this Agreement and Exhibit A, the Agreement shall prevail. 1.1 Term of Services. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and shall end on October 1, 2026 the date of completion specified in Exhibit A, and Consultant shall complete the work described in Exhibit A prior to that date, unless the term of the Agreement is otherwise terminated or extended, as provided for in Section 8. The time provided to Consultant to complete the services required by this Agreement shall not affect the City’s right to terminate the Agreement, as provided for in Section 8. 1.2 Standard of Performance. Consultant shall perform all services required pursuant to this Agreement in the manner and according to the standards observed by a competent practitioner of the profession in which Consultant is engaged in the geographical area in which Consultant practices its profession. Consultant shall prepare all work products required by this Agreement in a substantial, first -class manner and shall conform to the standards of quality normally observed by a person practicing in Consultant's profession. 1.3 Assignment of Personnel. Consultant shall assign only competent personnel to perform services pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that City, in its sole discretion, at any time during the term of this Agreement, desires the reassignment of any such persons, Consultant shall, immediately upon receiving notice from City of such desire of City, reassign such person or persons. 1.4 Time. Consultant shall devote such time to the performance of services pursuant to this Agreement as may be reasonably necessary to meet the standard of performance provided in Sections 1.1 and 1.2 above and to satisfy Consultant’s obligations hereunder. Section 2. COMPENSATION. City hereby agrees to pay Consultant a sum not to exceed $360,000, notwithstanding any contrary indications that may be contained in Consultant’s proposal, for services to be performed and reimbursable costs incurred under this Agreement. In the event of a conflict between this Agreement and Consultant’s proposal, attached as Exhibit A, or Consultant’s compensation schedule attached as Exhibit B, regarding the amount of compensation, the Agreement shall prevail. City shall pay Consultant for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement at the time and in the manner set forth herein. The payments specified below shall be the only payments from City to Consultant for services rendered 69 Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] 09/27/2023 City of South San Francisco and Du-All Safety, LLC Page 2 of 16 pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall submit all invoices to City in the manner specified herein. Except as specifically authorized by City, Consultant shall not bill City for duplicate services performed by more than one person. Consultant and City acknowledge and agree that compensation paid by City to Consultant under this Agreement is based upon Consultant’s estimated costs of providing the services required hereunder, including salaries and benefits of employees and subcontractors of Consultant. Consequently, the parties further agree that compensation hereunder is intended to include the costs of contributions to any pensions and/or annuities to which Consultant and its employees, agents, and subcontractors may be eligible. City therefore has no responsibility for such contributions beyond compensation required under this Agreement. 2.1 Invoices. Consultant shall submit invoices, not more often than once per month during the term of this Agreement, based on the cost for services performed and reimbursable costs incurred prior to the invoice date. Invoices shall contain the following information: ▪ Serial identifications of progress bills (i.e., Progress Bill No. 1 for the first invoice, etc.); ▪ The beginning and ending dates of the billing period; ▪ A task summary containing the original contract amount, the amount of prior billings, the total due this period, the balance availa ble under the Agreement, and the percentage of completion; ▪ At City’s option, for each work item in each task, a copy of the applicable time entries or time sheets shall be submitted showing the name of the person doing the work, the hours spent by each pe rson, a brief description of the work, and each reimbursable expense; ▪ The total number of hours of work performed under the Agreement by Consultant and each employee, agent, and subcontractor of Consultant performing services hereunder, as well as a separate notice when the total number of hours of work by Consultant and any individual employee, agent, or subcontractor of Consultant reaches or exceeds eight hundred (800) hours, which shall include an estimate of the time necessary to complete the work described in Exhibit A; ▪ The amount and purpose of actual expenditures for which reimbursement is sought; ▪ The Consultant’s signature. 2.2 Monthly Payment. City shall make monthly payments, based on invoices received, for services satisfactorily performed, and for authorized reimbursable costs incurred. City shall have thirty (30) days from the receipt of an invoice that complies with all of the requirements above to pay Consultant. City shall have no obligation to pay invoices submitted ninety (90) days past the performance of work or incurrence of cost. 2.3 Final Payment. City shall pay the last ten percent (10%) of the total sum due pursuant to this Agreement within sixty (60) days after completion of the services and submittal to City of a final invoice, if all services required have been satisfactorily performed. 70 Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] 09/27/2023 City of South San Francisco and Du-All Safety, LLC Page 3 of 16 2.4 Total Payment. City shall pay for the services to be rendered by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement. City shall not pay any additional sum for any expense or cost whatsoever incurred by Consultant in rendering services pursuant to this Agreement. City shall make no payment for any extra, further, or additional service pursuant to this Agreement. In no event shall Consultant submit any invoice for an amount in excess of the maximum amount of compensation provided above either for a task or for the entire Agreement, unless the Agreement is modified prior to the submission of such an invoice by a properly executed change order or amendment. 2.5 Hourly Fees. Fees for work performed by Consultant on an hourly basis shall not exceed the amounts shown on the compensation schedule attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B. 2.6 Reimbursable Expenses. Reimbursable expenses are included in the total amount of compensation provided under this Agreement that shall not be exceeded. 2.7 Payment of Taxes, Tax Withholding. Consultant is solely responsible for the payment of employment taxes incurred under this Agreement and any similar federal or state taxes. To be exempt from tax withholding, Consultant must provide City with a valid California Franchise Tax Board form 590 (“Form 590”), as may be amended and such Form 590 shall be attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit D. Unless Consultant provides City with a valid Form 590 or other valid, written evidence of an exemption or waiver from withholding, City may withhold California taxes from payments to Consultant as required by law. Consultant shall obtain, and maintain on file for three (3) years after the termination of this Agreement, Form 590s (or other written evidence of exemptions or waivers) from all subcontractors. Consultant accepts sole responsibility for withholding taxes from any non - California resident subcontractor and shall submit written documentation of compliance with Consultant’s withholding duty to City upon request. 2.8 Payment upon Termination. In the event that the City or Consultant terminates this Agreement pursuant to Section 8, the City shall compensate the Consultant for all outstanding costs and reimbursable expenses incurred for work satisfactorily completed as of the date of written notice of termination. Consultant shall maintain adequate logs and timesheets in order to verify costs incurred to that date. 2.9 Authorization to Perform Services. The Consultant is not authorized to perform any services or incur any costs whatsoever under the terms of this Agreement until receipt of authorization from the Contract Administrator. 2.10 Prevailing Wage. Where applicable, the wages to be paid for a day's work to all classes of laborers, workmen, or mechanics on the work contemplated by this Agreement, shall be not less than the prevailing rate for a day’s work in the same trade or occupation in the locality within the state where the work hereby contemplates to be performed as determined by the Director of Industrial Relations pursuant to the Director’s authority under 71 Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] 09/27/2023 City of South San Francisco and Du-All Safety, LLC Page 4 of 16 Labor Code Section 1770, et seq. Each laborer, worker or mechanic employed by Consultant or by any subcontractor shall receive the wages herein provided for. The Consultant shall pay two hundred dollars ($200), or whatever amount may be set by Labor Code Section 1775, as may be amended, per day penalty for each worker paid less than prevailing rate of per diem wages. The difference between the prevailing rate of per diem wages and the wage paid to each worker shall be paid by the Consultant to each worker. An error on the part of an awarding body does not relieve the Consultant from responsibility for payment of the prevailing rate of pe r diem wages and penalties pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1770 1775. The City will not recognize any claim for additional compensation because of the payment by the Consultant for any wage rate in excess of prevailing wage rate set forth. The possibility of wage increases is one of the elements to be considered by the Consultant. a. Posting of Schedule of Prevailing Wage Rates and Deductions. If the schedule of prevailing wage rates is not attached hereto pursuant to Labor Code Section 1773.2, the Consultant shall post at appropriate conspicuous points at the site of the project a schedule showing all determined prevailing wage rates for the various classes of laborers and mechanics to be engaged in work on the project under this contract and all deductions, if any, required by law to be made from unpaid wage s actually earned by the laborers and mechanics so engaged. b. Payroll Records. Each Consultant and subcontractor shall keep an accurate payroll record, showing the name, address, social security number, work week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker, or other employee employed by the Consultant in connection with the public work. Such records shall be certified and submitted weekly as required by Labor Code Section 1776.” Section 3. FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT. Except as set forth herein, Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, provide all facilities and equipment that may be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement. City shall make available to Consultant only the facilities and equipment listed in this section, and only under the terms and conditions set forth herein. City shall furnish physical facilities such as desks, filing cabinets, and conference space, as may be reasonably necessary for Consultant’s use while consulting with City employees and reviewing records and the information in possession of the City. The location, quantity, and time of furnishing those facilities shall be in the sole discretion of City. In no event shall City be obligated to furnish any facility that may involve incurring any direct expense, including but not limited to computer, long -distance telephone or other communication charges, vehicles, and reproduction facilities. Section 4. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Before beginning any work under this Agreement, Consultant, at its own cost and expense, unless otherwise specified below, shall procure the types and amounts of insurance listed below against claims for injuries to persons or damages to propert y that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant and its agents, 72 Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] 09/27/2023 City of South San Francisco and Du-All Safety, LLC Page 5 of 16 representatives, employees, and subcontractors. Consistent with the following provisions, Consultant shall provide Certificates of Insurance, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit C, indicating that Consultant has obtained or currently maintains insurance that meets the requirements of this section and under forms of insurance satisfactory, in all respects, to the City. Consulta nt shall maintain the insurance policies required by this section throughout the term of this Agreement. The cost of such insurance shall be included in the Consultant's bid. Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until Consultant has obtained all insurance required herein for the subcontractor(s). 4.1 Workers’ Compensation. Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, maintain Statutory Workers’ Compensation Insurance and Employer’s Liability Insurance for a ny and all persons employed directly or indirectly by Consultant. The Statutory Workers’ Compensation Insurance and Employer’s Liability Insurance shall be provided with limits of not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) per accident. In the altern ative, Consultant may rely on a self-insurance program to meet those requirements, but only if the program of self-insurance complies fully with the provisions of the California Labor Code. Determination of whether a self-insurance program meets the standards of the Labor Code shall be solely in the discretion of the Contract Administrator (as defined in Section 10.9). The insurer, if insurance is provided, or the Consultant, if a program of self - insurance is provided, shall waive all rights of subrogation against the City and its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers for loss arising from work performed under this Agreement. 4.2 Commercial General and Automobile Liability Insurance. 4.2.1 General requirements. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall maintain commercial general and automobile liability insurance for the term of this Agreement in an amount not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence, combined single limit coverage for risks associated with the work contemplated by this Agreement. If a Commercial General Lia bility Insurance or an Automobile Liability form or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work to be performed under this Agreement or the general aggregate limit shall be at least twice the required occurrence limit. Such coverage shall include but shall not be limited to, protection against claims arising from bodily and personal injury, including death resulting there from, and damage to property resulting from activities contemplated under this Agreement, including the use of owned and non - owned automobiles. 4.2.2 Minimum scope of coverage. Commercial general coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability occurrence form CG 0001 or GL 0002 (most recent editions) covering comprehensive General Liability and Insurance Services Office form number GL 0404 covering Broad Form Comprehensive General Liability. Automobile coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Automobile Liability form CA 0001 (ed. 12/90) Code 8 and 9. No endorsement shall be attached limiting the coverage. 73 Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] 09/27/2023 City of South San Francisco and Du-All Safety, LLC Page 6 of 16 4.2.3 Additional requirements. Each of the following shall be included in the insurance coverage or added as a certified endorsement to the policy: a. The insurance shall cover on an occurrence or an accident basis, and not on a claims-made basis. b. Any failure of Consultant to comply with reporting provisions of the policy shall not affect coverage provided to City and its officers, emp loyees, agents, and volunteers. 4.3 Professional Liability Insurance. 4.3.1 General requirements. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall maintain for the period covered by this Agreement professional liability insurance for licensed professionals performing work pursuant to this Agreement in an amount not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) covering the licensed professionals’ errors and omissions. Any deductible or self -insured retention shall not exceed ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS $150,000 per claim. 4.3.2 Claims-made limitations. The following provisions shall apply if the professional liability coverage is written on a claims-made form: a. The retroactive date of the policy must be shown and must be before the date of the Agreement. b. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the Agreement or the work, so long as commercially available at reasonable rates. c. If coverage is canceled or not renewed and it is not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a retroactive date that precedes the date of this Agreement, Consultant must provide extended reporting coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of the Agreement or the work. The City shall have the right to exercise, at the Consultant’s sole cost and expense, any extended reporting provisions of the policy, if the Consultant cancels or does not renew the coverage. d. A copy of the claim reporting requirements must be submitted to the City prior to the commencement of any work under this Agreement. 4.4 All Policies Requirements. 4.4.1 Acceptability of insurers. All insurance required by this section is to be placed with insurers with a Bests' rating of no less than A:VII. 74 Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] 09/27/2023 City of South San Francisco and Du-All Safety, LLC Page 7 of 16 4.4.2 Verification of coverage. Prior to beginning any work under this Agreement, Consultant shall furnish City with complete copies of all policies delivered to Consultant by the insurer, including complete copies of all endorsements attached to those policies. All copies of policies and certified endorsements shall show the signature of a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. If the City does not receive the required insurance documents prior to the Consultant beginning work, it shall not waive the Consultant’s obligation to provide them. The City reserves the right to require complete copies of all required insurance policies at any time. 4.4.3 Notice of Reduction in or Cancellation of Coverage. A certified endorsement shall be attached to all insurance obtained pursuant to this Agreement stating that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, or reduced in coverage or in limits, except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. In the event that any coverage required by this section is reduced, limited, cancelled, or materially affected in any other manner, Consu ltant shall provide written notice to City at Consultant’s earliest possible opportunity and in no case later than ten (10) working days after Consultant is notified of the change in coverage. 4.4.4 Additional insured; primary insurance. City and its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to each of the following: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of Consultant, including the insured’s general supervision of Consultant; products and completed operations of Consultant, as applicable; premises owned, occupied, or used by Consultant; and automobiles owned, leased, or used by the Consultant in the course of providing services pursuant to this Agreement. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to City or its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. A certified endorsement must be attached to all policies stating that coverage is primary insurance with respect to the City and its officers, officials, employees and volunteers, and that no insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City shall be called upon to contribute to a loss under the coverage. 4.4.5 Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Consultant shall disclose to and obtain the approval of City for the self-insured retentions and deductibles before beginning any of the services or work called for by any term of this Agreement. Further, if the Consultant’s insurance policy includes a self-insured retention that must be paid by a named insured as a precondition of the insurer’s liability, or which has the effect of providing that payments of the self-insured retention by others, including additional insureds or insurers do not serve to satisfy the self- insured retention, such provisions must be modified by special endorsement so as to not apply to the additional insured coverage required by this agreement so as to 75 Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] 09/27/2023 City of South San Francisco and Du-All Safety, LLC Page 8 of 16 not prevent any of the parties to this agreement from satisfying or paying the self - insured retention required to be paid as a precondition to the insurer’s liabi lity. Additionally, the certificates of insurance must note whether the policy does or does not include any self-insured retention and also must disclose the deductible. During the period covered by this Agreement, only upon the prior express written authorization of Contract Administrator, Consultant may increase such deductibles or self-insured retentions with respect to City, its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers. The Contract Administrator may condition approval of an increase in deductible or self-insured retention levels with a requirement that Consultant procure a bond, guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses that is satisfactory in all respects to each of them. 4.4.6 Subcontractors. Consultant shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and certified endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein. 4.4.7 Wasting Policy. No insurance policy required by Section 4 shall include a “wasting” policy limit. 4.4.8 Variation. The City may approve a variation in the foregoing insurance requirements, upon a determination that the coverage, scope, limits, and forms of such insurance are either not commercially available, or that the City’s interests are otherwise fully protected. 4.5 Remedies. In addition to any other remedies City may have if Consultant fails to provide or maintain any insurance policies or policy endorsements to the extent and within the time herein required, City may, at its sole option exercise any of the following remedies, which are alternatives to other remedies City may have and are not the exclusive remedy for Consultant’s breach: a. Obtain such insurance and deduct and retain the amount of the premiums for such insurance from any sums due under the Agreement; b. Order Consultant to stop work under this Agreement or wit hhold any payment that becomes due to Consultant hereunde r, or both stop work and withhold any payment, until Consultant demonstrates compliance with the requirements hereof; and/or c. Terminate this Agreement. Section 5. INDEMNIFICATION AND CONSULTANT’S RESPONSIBILITIES. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, defend with counsel selected by the City, and hold harmless the City and its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers from and against any and all losses, 76 Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] 09/27/2023 City of South San Francisco and Du-All Safety, LLC Page 9 of 16 liability, claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of any personal injury, bodily injury, loss of life, or damage to property, or any violation of any federal, state, or municipal law or ordinance, to the extent caused, in whole or in part, by the willful misconduct or negligent acts or omissions of Consultant or its employees, subcontractors, or agents, by acts for which they could be held strictly liable, or by the quality or character of their work. The foregoing obligation of Consultant shall not apply when (1) the injury, loss of life, damage to property, or violation of law arises wholly from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of the City or its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers and (2) the actions of Consultant or its employees, subcontractor, or agents have contributed in no part to the injury, loss of life, damage to property, or violation of law. It is understood that the duty of Consultant to indemnify and hold harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in Section 2778 of the California Civil Code. Acceptance by City of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve Consultant from liability under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. This indemnifi cation and hold harmless clause shall apply to any damages or claims for damages whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to apply. By execution of this Agreement, Consultant acknowledges and agrees to the provisions of this Section and that it is a material element of consideration. In the event that Consultant or any employee, agent, or subcontractor of Consultant providing services under this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) to be eligible for enrollment in PERS as an employee of City, Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City for the payment of any employee and/or employer contributions for PERS benefits on behalf of Consultant or its employees, agents, or subcontractors, as well as for the payment of any penalties and interest on such contributions, which would otherwise be the responsibility of City. Section 6. STATUS OF CONSULTANT. 6.1 Independent Contractor. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall be an independent contractor and shall not be an employee of City. City shall have the right to control Consultant only insofar as the results of Consultant's services rendered pursuant to this Agreement and assignment of personnel pursuant to Subparagraph 1.3; however, otherwise City shall not have the right to control the means by which Consultant accomplishes services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Notwithstanding any other City, state, or federal policy, rule, regulation, law, or ordinance to the contrary, Consultant and any of its employees, agents, and subcontractors providing services under this Agreement shall not qualify for or become entitled to, and hereby agree to waive any and all claims to, any compensation, benefit, or any incident of employment by City, including but not limited to eligibility to enroll in the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) as an employee of City and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by City for employer contributions and/or employee contributions for PERS benefits. 6.2 Consultant No Agent. Except as City may specify in writing, Consultant shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of City in any capacity whatsoeve r as an agent or to bind City to any obligation whatsoever. Section 7. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS. 77 Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] 09/27/2023 City of South San Francisco and Du-All Safety, LLC Page 10 of 16 7.1 Governing Law. The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement. 7.2 Compliance with Applicable Laws. Consultant and any subcontractors shall comply with all laws applicable to the performance of the work hereunder. 7.3 Other Governmental Regulations. To the extent that this Agreement may be funded by fiscal assistance from another governmental entity, Consultant and any subcontractors shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations to whi ch City is bound by the terms of such fiscal assistance program. 7.4 Licenses and Permits. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant and its employees, agents, and any subcontracto rs have all licenses, permits, qualifications, and approvals, including from City, of what-so-ever nature that are legally required to practice their respective professions. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant and its employees, agents, any subcontractors shall, at their sole cost and expense, keep in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals that are legally required to practice their respective professions. In addition to the foregoing, Consultant and any subcontractors shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement valid Business Licenses from City. 7.5 Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity. Consultant shall not discriminate, on the basis of a person’s race, religion, color, national origin, age, physical or mental handicap or disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, or sexual orientation, against any employee, applicant for employment, subcontractor, bidder for a subcontract, or participant in, recipient of, or applicant for any services or programs provided by Consultant under this Agreement. Consultant shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, policies, rules, and requirements related to equal opportunity and nondiscrimination in employment, contracting, and the provision of any service s that are the subject of this Agreement, including but not limited to the satisfaction of any positive obligations required of Consultant thereby. Consultant shall include the provisions of this Subsection in any subcontract approved by the Contract Administrator or this Agreement. Section 8. TERMINATION AND MODIFICATION. 8.1 Termination. City may cancel this Agreement at any time and without cause upon written notification to Consultant. Consultant may cancel this Agreement for cause upon 30 days’ written notice to City and shall include in such notice the reasons for cancellation. 78 Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] 09/27/2023 City of South San Francisco and Du-All Safety, LLC Page 11 of 16 In the event of termination, Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for services performed to the date of notice of termination; City, however, may condition payment of such compensation upon Consultant delivering to City all materials described in Section 9.1. 8.2 Extension. City may, in its sole and exclusive discretion, extend the end date of this Agreement beyond that provided for in Subsection 1.1. Any such extension shall require a written amendment to this Agreement, as provided for herein. Consultant understands and agrees that, if City grants such an extension, City shall have no obligation to provide Consultant with compensation beyond the maximum amount provided for in this Agreement. Similarly, unless authorized by the Contract Administrator, City shall have no obligation to reimburse Consultant for any otherwise reimbursable expenses incurred during the extension period. 8.3 Amendments. The parties may amend this Agreement only by a writing signed by all the parties. 8.4 Assignment and Subcontracting. City and Consultant recognize and agree that this Agreement contemplates personal performance by Consultant and is based upon a determination of Consultant’s unique personal competence, experience, and specialized personal knowledge. Moreover, a substantial inducement to City for entering into this Agreement was and is the professional reputation and competence of Consultant. Consultant may not assign this Agreement or any interest therein without the prior written approval of the Contract Administrator. Consultant shall not assign or subcontract any portion of the performance contemplated and provided for herein, other than to the subcontractors noted in the proposal, without prior written approval of the Contract Administrator. 8.5 Survival. All obligations arising prior to the termination of this Agreement and all provisions of this Agreement allocating liability between City and Consultant shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 8.6 Options upon Breach by Consultant. If Consultant materially breaches any of the terms of this Agreement, City’s remedies shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 8.6.1 Immediately terminate the Agreement; 8.6.2 Retain the plans, specifications, drawings, reports, design documents, and any other work product prepared by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement; 8.6.3 Retain a different consultant to complete the work described in Exhibit A not finished by Consultant; or 8.6.4 Charge Consultant the difference between the cost to complete the work described in Exhibit A that is unfinished at the time of breach and the amount that 79 Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] 09/27/2023 City of South San Francisco and Du-All Safety, LLC Page 12 of 16 City would have paid Consultant pursuant to Section 2 if Consultant had completed the work. Section 9. KEEPING AND STATUS OF RECORDS. 9.1 Records Created as Part of Consultant’s Performance. All reports, data, maps, models, charts, studies, surveys, photographs, memoranda, plans, studies, specifications, records, files, or any other documents or materials, in electronic or any other form, that Consultant prepares or obtains pursuant to this Agreement and that relate to the matters covered hereunder shall be the property of the City. Consultant hereby agrees to deliver those documents to the City upon termination of the Agreement. It is understood and agreed that the documents and other materials, including but not limited to those described above, prepared pursuant to this Agreement are prepared specifically for the City and are not necessarily suitable for any future or other use. City and Consultant agree that, until final approval by City, all data, plans, specifications, reports and other documents are confidential and will not be released to third parties without prior written consent of both parties unless required by law. 9.2 Consultant’s Books and Records. Consultant shall maintain any and all ledgers, books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or relating to charges for services or expenditures and disbursements charged to the City under this Agreement for a minimum of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to the Consultant to this Agreement. 9.3 Inspection and Audit of Records. Any records or documents that Section 9.2 of this Agreement requires Consultant to maintain shall be made available for inspection, audit, and/or copying at any time during regular business hours, upon oral or written request of the City. Under California Government Code Section 8546.7, if the amount of public funds expended under this Agreement exceeds TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000.00), the Agreement shall be subject to the examination and audit of the State Auditor, at the request of City or as part of any audit of the City, for a period of three (3) years after final payment under the Agreement. 9.4 Records Submitted in Response to an Invitation to Bid or Request for Proposals. All responses to a Request for Proposals (RFP) or invitation to bid issued by the City become the exclusive property of the City. At such time as the City selects a bid, all proposals received become a matter of public record, and shall be regarded as public records, with the exception of those elements in each proposal that are defined by Consultant and plainly marked as “Confidential,” "Business Secret" or “Trade Secret." The City shall not be liable or in any way responsible for the disclo sure of any such proposal or portions thereof, if Consultant has not plainly marked it as a "Trade Secret" or "Business Secret," or if disclosure is required under the Public Records Act. 80 Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] 09/27/2023 City of South San Francisco and Du-All Safety, LLC Page 13 of 16 Although the California Public Records Act recognizes that certain confidential trade secret information may be protected from disclosure, the City may not be in a position to establish that the information that a prospective bidder submits is a trade secret. If a request is made for information marked "Trade Secret" or "Business Secret," and the requester takes legal action seeking release of the materials it believes does not constitute trade secret information, by submitting a proposal, Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its agents and employees, from any judgment, fines, penalties, and award of attorneys fees awarded against the City in favor of the party requesting the information, and any and all costs connected with that defense. This obligation to indemnify survives the City's award of the contract. Consultant agrees that this indemnification survives as long as the trade secret information is in the City's possession, which includes a minimum retention period for such documents. Section 10 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 10.1 Attorneys’ Fees. If a party to this Agreement brings any action, including arbitration or an action for declaratory relief, to enforce or interpret the provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees in addition to any other relief to which that party may be entitled. The court may set such fees in the same action or in a separate action brought for that purpose. 10.2 Venue. In the event that either party brings any action against the other under this Agreement, the parties agree that trial of such action shall be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County San Mateo or in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. 10.3 Severability. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement is invalid, void, or unenforceable, the provisions of this Agreement not so adjudged shall remain in full force and effect. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement. 10.4 No Implied Waiver of Breach. The waiver of any breach of a specific provision of this Agreement does not constitute a waiver of any other breach of that term or any o ther term of this Agreement. 10.5 Successors and Assigns. The provisions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and shall apply to and bind the successors and assigns of the parties. 10.6 Use of Recycled Products. Consultant shall prepare and submit all reports, written studies and other printed material on recycled paper to the extent it is available at equal or less cost than virgin paper. 10.7 Conflict of Interest. Consultant may serve other clients, but none whose activities within the corporate limits of City or whose business, regardless of location, would place 81 Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] 09/27/2023 City of South San Francisco and Du-All Safety, LLC Page 14 of 16 Consultant in a “conflict of interest,” as that term is defined in the Political Reform Act, codified at California Government Code Section 81000 et seq. Consultant shall not employ any City official in the work performed pursuant to this Agreement. No officer or employee of City shall have any financial interest in this Agreement that would violate California Government Code Sections 1090 et seq. Consultant hereby warrants that it is not now, nor has it been in the previous twelve (12) months, an employee, agent, appointee, or official of the City. If Consultant was an employee, agent, appointee, or official of the City in the previous twelve (12) months, Consultant warrants that it did not participate in any manner in the forming of this Agreement. Consultant understands that, if this Agreement is made in violation of Government Code §1090 et.seq., the entire Agreement is void and Consultant will not be entitled to any compensation for services performed pursuant to this Agreement, including reimbursement of expenses, and Consultant will be required to reimburse the City for any sums paid to the Consultant. Consultant understands that, in addition to the foregoing, it may be subject to criminal prosecution for a violation of Government Code § 1090 and, if applicable, will be disqualified from holding public office in the State of California. 10.8 Solicitation. Consultant agrees not to solicit business at any meeting, focus group, or interview related to this Agreement, either orally or through any written materials. 10.9 Contract Administration. This Agreement shall be administered by Leah Lockhart ("Contract Administrator"). All correspondence shall be directed to o r through the Contract Administrator or his or her designee. 10.10 Notices. All notices and other communications which are required or may be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given (i) when received if personally delivered; (ii) when received if transmitted by telecopy, if received during normal business hours on a business day (or if not, the next business day after delivery) provided that such facsimile is legible and that at the time such facsimile is sent the sending Party receives written confirmation of receipt; (iii) if sent for next day delivery to a domestic address by recognized overnight delivery service (e.g., Federal Express); and (iv) upon receipt, if sent by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested. In each case notice shall be sent to the respective Parties as follows: Consultant: City: Du-All Safety, LLC 45950 Hotchkiss Street Fremont, CA 94539 safety@du-all.com/(510) 651-8289 City Clerk City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 82 Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] 09/27/2023 City of South San Francisco and Du-All Safety, LLC Page 15 of 16 10.11 Professional Seal. Where applicable in the determination of the contract administrator, the first page of a technical report, first page of design specifications, and each page of construction drawings shall be stamped/sealed and signed by the licensed professional responsible for the report/design preparation. The stamp/seal shall be in a block entitled "Seal and Signature of Registered Professional with report/design respo nsibility," as in the following example. Seal and Signature of Registered Professional with report/design responsibility. 10.12 Integration. This Agreement, including all Exhibits attached hereto, and incorporated herein, represents the entire and integrated agreement between City and Consultant and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral pertaining to the matters herein. 10.13 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts and/or by facsimile or other electronic means, and when each Party has signed and delivered at least one such counterpart, each counterpart shall be deemed an original, and, when taken together with other signed counterpart, shall constitute one Agreement, which shall be b inding upon and effective as to all Parties.. 10.14 Construction. The headings in this Agreement are for the purpose of reference only and shall not limit or otherwise affect any of the terms of this Agreement. The parties have had an equal opportunity to participate in the drafting of this Agreement; therefore any construction as against the drafting party shall not apply to this Agreement. The Parties have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date. 83 Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] 09/27/2023 City of South San Francisco and Du-All Safety, LLC Page 16 of 16 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Consultants ____________________________ _____________________________________ City Manager NAME: TITLE: Attest: _____________________________ City Clerk Approved as to Form: ____________________________ City Attorney 2729962.1 84 Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] 09/27/2023 City of South San Francisco and Du-All Safety, LLC Page 17 of 4 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES The following scope of services is a menu of safety services that Du-All Safety will provide to the City of South San Francisco. a) Assessments of, development of, or updates to, written safety programs, policies, and procedures required by law. These include, but are not limited to: • Aerosol Transmissible Diseases (ATD), 8 CCR 5199. • Asbestos, 8 CCR 1529. • Bloodborne Pathogen, 8 CCR 5193. • Chemical Hygiene Plan, 8 CCR 5191. • Codes of Safe Practices, 8 CCR 1509. • Confined Space, 8 CCR 5157. • COVID19, 8 CCR 3205. • Emergency Action Plan, 8 CCR 3220. • Ergonomics, 8 CCR 5110. • Electrical Safety, NFPA 70E. • Fall Protection, 8 CCR 1669. • Fire Prevention Plan, 8 CCR 3221 • Hazard Communication, 8 CCR 5194. • Heat Illness Prevention, 8 CCR 3395. • Hearing Conservation, 8 CCR 5099. • Hot work, 8 CCR 4848. • Injury & Illness Prevention, 8 CCR 3203. • Lockout & Tagout, 8 CCR 3314. • Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), 8 CCR 3380. • Respiratory Protection, 8 CCR 5144. • Rigging, 8 CCR 4999 • Workplace Violence, 8 CCR 3203. b) Assist with the following safety recordkeeping requirements: • Accident Investigations • CAL/OSHA 300 Log • Required Posting • Employee Communications • Inspections & Assessments • Safety Training Records • Industrial Hygiene Surveys • Safety Committee Participation • Medical Surveillance c) Provide assessments of, development of, or updates to, written environmental health programs and related permits. The environmental services and written programs that are available include: • Air Quality Management District Air Permits, Local Regulation. • Hazardous Materials Business Plan, CH&SC 25500. • Hazardous Waste Management, 22 CCR 66261 – 66280. 85 Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] 09/27/2023 City of South San Francisco and Du-All Safety, LLC Page 18 of 4 •Medical Waste Management, CH&SC 117935 & 117960. •Spill Prevention and Countermeasures Plan, 40 CFR 112 •Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program, Order 97-03-DWQ. •Underground Storage Tank Management, 23 CCR 2600 -2715. d)Assist with the following environmental health recordkeeping requirements: e)Perform risk assessments and job hazard analysis (JHA) of statutorily defined hazardous operations. f)Conduct periodic environmental health and safety facility inspections to comply with 8 CCR 3203 (a)(4). These observed findings are provided in a checklist format with any recommended corrective actions. These inspections are valid for thirty days and designed to comply with the 8 CCR 3203 (a)(4) inspection requirements. These inspections are not engineering or structural design inspections or reviews. Client is responsible for the implementation of any recommended corrective actions. g)Provide on-site training at the written direction of the client. Topics include: 72 hours’ notice is required to cancel any scheduled training. Minimum of 4-hour charge for any class or site visit. Twenty-five percent (25%) additional charge will be added to weekend or evening training. There will be no additional charge to provide classes via webinars, including provider/Zoom Pro. license fees. •Chemical Inventory •MSDS Procurement •Spill Response Systems •Facility Mapping •CFC-12 & HFC-134 compliance •Hazardous Material Placarding •ATD Standard1,2 •Fall Protection 1 •Lane Closure 1 •Automotive Lift Safety •Fire Extinguisher 1,2 •Lead Handling 1 •Asbestos 1,2 •First Aid/CPR/AED 1 •Lockout /Tagout 1,2 •Back Safety •First Responder 1,2 •Machine Tools 1 •Bloodborne Pathogen2 •Forklift Certification 1 •Utility Location1,2 •COVID19 1 •Hazard Communication1 •PPE 1 •Confined Spaces 1 •Hazardous Waste 1,2 •Lawn Mowers1 •DOT Requirements 1 •HAZWOPER1,2 •Respiratory Protection 1,2 •Driver Safety •Heat Illness 1 •Silica Safety •OSHA 10/30 hour •Hearing Conservation 1,2 •Scaffolding Safety 1,2 •Electrical Safety 1 •Hot Work 1 •Spill Response •Emergency Response •Injury & Illness Prev.1 •Trenching & Shoring 1 •Ergonomics •Ladder Safety 1 •Workplace Violence 1 Indicates training by statute. 2 Indicates annual training requirement by statute. 86 Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] 09/27/2023 City of South San Francisco and Du-All Safety, LLC Page 19 of 4 Client has an irrevocable license to reproduce all Du-All Safety copy written materials, including training materials developed by Du-All Safety, for the Client’s internal use only. No transfer to other employers or employees of another business name is allowed. Training options: 1) Onsite instructor-led training (observing COVID protocols) 2) Live instructor-led web-based classroom via Zoom. Pre-recorded Zoom classes with 24/7 employee access, including tests and completion tracking for recordkeeping. Client will be provided with easy-to-understand webinar access navigation instructions, including links, passcodes, and live office support 7:00-4:00 PM Monday through Friday. Provide Zoom training recording, storage, and employee access for all classes requested to be recorded for an additional fee that is provided below. The fee is per class, per month. All classes will include reports of; employee attending, date/time(s) and duration of attendance/completion(s). 3) Blended training – A combination of live or pre-recorded web-based training, followed by hands-on proficiency training scheduled with each employee individually. 4) Online training – 85 general safety topics designed to provide awareness-level knowledge for new employees and employees who may have missed required safety training outlined in options 1 -3 of this section. This is provided to support supervisors’ efforts to provide awareness-level safety training prior to exposing employees to hazards associated with performing their job. List of online courses is provided in the appendix of this proposal. 5) Open enrollment classes held regularly at Du-All Safety, LLC in Fremont, CA will be provided at half price during the course of this agreement. 6) Provide general Environmental Health and Safety (“EH&S”) consultation services upon written request and direction by the client, which may include the following: • Develop and maintain an EH&S training matrix that identifies each employee group and the required training and refresher frequency for each subject. • Develop and maintain an annual EH&S plan of action that identifies the compliance tasks targeted for each month. • Assist with regular scheduled safety committee meetings and/or tailgate meetings. • Conduct JSA’s and/or AHA’s. • Conduct and evaluate emergency drills. • Maintain copies of all training records. • Prepare safety training outlines, materials, and schedule for Client approval. • Prepare materials and have specialists available to assist at special management meetings as needed. • Assist with any regulatory agency inspection (i.e., EPA, CUPA, County Health Dept., Fire Dept., Cal/OSHA, BAAQMD, DTSC, USACE, etc.). • Conduct ergonomic workstation evaluations. • Conduce accident investigations and help supervisors with their reporting requirements. 87 Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] 09/27/2023 City of South San Francisco and Du-All Safety, LLC Page 20 of 4 EXHIBIT B COMPENSATION SCHEDULE Monthly Environmental Health & Safety Service Pricing •FY24 $135/hr. •FY25 $140/hr. •FY26 $145/hr. •FY27 $150/hr. •FY28 $155/hr. Not to exceed $120,000/year. Total contract: 3 years. Hours can be used to provide any available service listed in the scope of services, whether it be for training, inspections, written programs, site assessments, special meetings, accident investigations, recordkeeping, OSHA replies, etc. Du-All Safety will not charge for copies, certificates, mileage (except medical surveillance as listed below), licenses, administrative fees, etc. Webcast Recording and Web Hosting Fees: •$350/class/month for unlimited access. Includes customized training, tests, certificates, supervisor completion confirmation reports, training material updates to meet written program requirements. Medical Surveillance and Audiogram Fees On-Site Audiometric Testing 1 (Hearing Test) 10 or Less Tests = $400 Total Fee + mileage 11 to 19 Tests = $475 Flat Fee + mileage 20 to 40 Tests = $24 per Test + mileage 41 to 60 Tests = $22 per Test + mileage 61 to 100 = $19 per Test + mileage On-Site Respirator Fitting Testing1,2 Quantitative Fit Test $35 per test + mileage Minimum TBD based on location Qualitative Fit Test: $135 per hour + travel On-Site Respiratory Medical Evaluations 1,2,3 Includes: •Pulmonary Function Test •Spirometry •Physician Review •Test Trending $65 Per Test + mileage •On-site fee of $200 will apply if 10 or less to be tested at a visit •Client understands that there is a guaranteed minimum contract charge based on 90% of the total number of employees scheduled for testing during the agreed upon testing date/time. 88 •A stand-by fee of $200.00 per hour will be charged when the van and employees remain on-site longer than scheduled to wait for client employees that are working. •Cancellations must be made within 7 working days of the original test date or a cancellation fee of 90% of the total contract will be charged. •Mileage: $0.60 per mile from Santa Cruz per round trip will apply. 89 10/31/2022 Ferguson-Leavitt Insurance 1662 US Highway 395 N. Suite 101 Minden NV 89423 Christine Emmons (775) 782-5489 (775) 782-3630 christine-emmons@leavitt.com Du-All Safety 45950 Hotchkiss Street Fremont CA 94539 Homeland Insurance Company of New York 34452 James River Insurance Company 12203 Employers Compensation Insurance Company 11512 Underwriters at Lloyds of London 15792 22-23 Master A Y Y 7930115470001 11/01/2022 11/01/2023 1,000,000 300,000 15,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 POLLUTION LIABILITY 1,000,000 B CA43601172-03 11/01/2022 11/01/2023 1,000,000 A 7930115480001 11/01/2022 11/01/2023 2,000,000 2,000,000 C Y EIG240384806 11/01/2022 11/01/2023 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 D PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY RETRO 3 APR 2013 B0621PDUAL000722 11/01/2022 11/01/2023 EACH OCCURRENCE $2,000,000 GENERAL AGGREGATE $2,000,000 City of South San Francisco, its officers, employees, agents and volunteers are included as Additional Insured with respect to General Liability, insurance is Primary and Noncontributory, and Waiver of Subrogation applies, when required in written contract per policy provisions, conditions, and exclusions. Wavier of Subrogation further applies to Work Comp when required in written contract per policy provisions, conditions, and exclusions. City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Ave Soth San Francisco CA 94080 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE INSURER F : INSURER E : INSURER D : INSURER C : INSURER B : INSURER A : NAIC # NAME:CONTACT (A/C, No):FAX E-MAILADDRESS: PRODUCER (A/C, No, Ext):PHONE INSURED REVISION NUMBER:CERTIFICATE NUMBER:COVERAGES IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. OTHER: (Per accident) (Ea accident) $ $ N / A SUBR WVD ADDL INSD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. $ $ $ $PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY (Per accident) BODILY INJURY (Per person) COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT AUTOS ONLY AUTOSAUTOS ONLY NON-OWNED SCHEDULEDOWNED ANY AUTO AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY Y / N WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? (Mandatory in NH) DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below If yes, describe under ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE $ $ $ E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE E.L. EACH ACCIDENT EROTH-STATUTEPER LIMITS(MM/DD/YYYY)POLICY EXP(MM/DD/YYYY)POLICY EFFPOLICY NUMBERTYPE OF INSURANCELTRINSR DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required) EXCESS LIAB UMBRELLA LIAB $EACH OCCURRENCE $AGGREGATE $ OCCUR CLAIMS-MADE DED RETENTION $ $PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $GENERAL AGGREGATE $PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $MED EXP (Any one person) $EACH OCCURRENCE DAMAGE TO RENTED $PREMISES (Ea occurrence) COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CLAIMS-MADE OCCUR GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: POLICY PRO-JECT LOC CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE (MM/DD/YYYY) CANCELLATION AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ACORD 25 (2016/03) © 1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. CERTIFICATE HOLDER The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD HIRED AUTOS ONLY Exhibit C 90 Policy Number: OBENV GE 320 (11 20) Contains copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc. with its permission. Page 1 of 1 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. WAIVER OF TRANSFER OF RIGHTS OF RECOVERY AGAINST OTHERS TO US This endorsement modifies coverage provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART CONTRACTORS ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART SCHEDULE Name Of Person Or Organization: The following is added to the Transfer Of Rights Of Recovery Against Others To Us condition of SECTION IV – CONDITIONS: We waive any right of recovery we may have against the person or organization shown in the SCHEDULE above because of payments we make for injury or damage arising out of your negligence during: 1.Your ongoing operations; or 2.Your work; performed under a written contract with such person or organization and included in the products-completed operations hazard. Such waiver by us applies only to the extent that the insured has waived its right of recovery against such person(s) or organization(s) in the written contract prior to loss. This waiver applies only to the person or organization shown in the SCHEDULE above. All other terms and conditions remain the same. Any person or organization that the "Named Insured" agreed to waive its rights of recovery against in a fully executed written contract. E-INSURED 793-01-15-47-0001 91 WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY WC 04 03 06 (Ed. 4-84) This endorsement changes the policy to which it is attached and is effective on the date issued unless otherwise stated. (The information below is required only when this endorsement is issued subsequent to preparation of the policy.) This endorsement, effective Policy No. Endorsement No.Issued to Premium By: Carrier Code (Ed. 4-84) Authorized Representative Countersigned at on at 12:01 AM standard time, forms a part of Of the WC 04 03 06 © 1998 by the Workers' Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau of California. All rights reserved. Schedule Person or Organization Job Description WAIVER OF OUR RIGHT TO RECOVER FROM OTHERS ENDORSEMENT-CALIFORNIA We have the right to recover our payments from anyone liable for an injury covered by this policy. We will not enforce our right against the person or organization named in the Schedule. (This agreement applies only to the extent that you perform work under a written contract that requires you to obtain this agreement from us.) You must maintain payroll records accurately segregating the remuneration of your employees while engaged in the work described in the Schedule. The additional premium for this endorsement shall be _____% of the California workers' compensation premium otherwise due on such remuneration. With respect to all employees subject to the workers' compensation laws of the state of California, any person or organization for whom the Named Insured has agreed by written contract to furnish this waiver. 2 This policy is subject to a minimum charge of $250 for the issuance of waivers of subrogation 11/01/2022 EIG 2403848 06 DU-ALL SAFETY LLC 00920 EMPLOYERS PREFERRED INS. CO. 92 Policy Number: OBENV GE 319 (11 20) Contains copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc. with its permission. Page 1 of 1 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. PRIMARY AND NONCONTRIBUTORY – OTHER INSURANCE CONDITION This endorsement modifies coverage provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART CONTRACTORS ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART The following is added to the Other Insurance Condition and supersedes any provision to the contrary: Primary And Noncontributory Insurance This insurance is primary to, and will not seek contribution from, any other insurance available to an additional insured under this policy provided that: a.The additional insured is a named insured under such other insurance; and b.The Named Insured has agreed in writing in a contract or agreement that this insurance would: (1)Act primary to any other insurance available to the additional insured; and (2)Would not seek contribution from any other insurance available to the additional insured. All other terms and conditions remain the same. E-INSURED 793-01-15-47-0001 93 Policy Number: OBENV GE 351 (09 20) Contains copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc. with its permission. Page 1 of 1 Copyright 2020, THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. ADDITIONAL INSURED – OWNERS, LESSESS OR CONTRACTORS – COMPLETED OPERATIONS This endorsement modifies coverage provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART CONTRACTORS ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART SCHEDULE Name Of Additional Insured Person(s) Or Organization(s): Location And Description Of Completed Operations: A.SECTION II – WHO IS AN INSURED is amended to include as an additional insured the person(s) or organization(s) shown in the Schedule, but only with respect to liability for bodily injury, property damage or environmental damage caused, in whole or in part, by your work at the location designated and described in the Schedule of this endorsement performed for that additional insured and included in the products- completed operations hazard. However: 1.The insurance afforded to such additional insured only applies to the extent permitted by law; and 2.If coverage provided to the additional insured is required by a contract or agreement, the insurance afforded to such additional insured will not be broader than that which you are required by the contract or agreement to provide for such additional insured. B.With respect to the insurance afforded to these additional insureds, the following is added to 1. Limits of Insurance in SECTION III – LIMITS OF INSURANCE AND DEDUCTIBLE: If coverage provided to the additional insured is required by a contract or agreement, the most we will pay on behalf of the additional insured is the amount of insurance: 1.Required by the contract or agreement; or 2.Available under the applicable Limits of Insurance shown in the Declarations; whichever is less. This endorsement shall not increase the applicable Limits of Insurance shown in the Declarations. All other terms and conditions remain the same. Intact Insurance Group USA LLC Any person or organization that the Named Insured agreed to add as an additional insured in a written contract or written agreement that was fully executed by the Named Insured prior to the performance of the Named Insured's work that is the subject of such written contract or written agreement. Any location, and completed operations at such location, where required by the written contract or written agreement in which the Named Insured agreed to add the person or organization qualifying as an additional insured under this endorsement. E-INSURED 793-01-15-47-0001 94 Policy Number: OBENV GE 346 (01 19) Contains copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc. with its permission. Copyright 2019, Page 1 of 2 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. ADDITIONAL INSURED – OWNERS, LESSEES OR CONTRACTORS – SCHEDULED PERSON OR ORGANIZATION – FORM III This endorsement modifies coverage provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART CONTRACTORS ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART SCHEDULE Name Of Additional Insured Person(s) Or Organization(s) Location(s) Of Covered Operations Information required to complete this Schedule, if not shown above, will be shown in the Declarations. A.SECTION II – WHO IS AN INSURED is amended to include as an additional insured the person(s) or organization(s) shown in the Schedule, but only with respect to liability for bodily injury, property damage, environmental damage or personal and advertising injury caused, in whole or in part, by: 1.Your acts or omissions; or 2.The acts or omissions of those acting on your behalf; in the performance of your ongoing operations for the additional insured(s) at the location(s) designated above. However: 1.The insurance afforded to such additional insured only applies to the extent permitted by law; and 2.If coverage provided to the additional insured is required by a contract or agreement, the insurance afforded to such additional insured will not be broader than that which you are required by the contract or agreement to provide for such additional insured. B.With respect to the insurance afforded to these additional insureds, the following additional exclusions apply: This insurance does not apply to bodily injury, property damage or environmental damage occurring after: 1.All work, including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work, on the project (other than service, maintenance or repairs) to be performed by or on behalf of the additional insured(s) a t the location of the covered operations has been completed; or Intact Insurance Group USA LLC Any person or organization that the Named Insured agreed to add as an additional insured in a written contract or written agreement that was fully executed by the Named Insured prior to the performance of the Named Insured's work that is the subject of such written contract or written agreement. Any location, and completed operations at such location, where required by the written contract or written agreement in which the Named Insured agreed to add the person or organization qualifying as an additional insured under this endorsement. E-INSURED 793-01-15-47-0001 95 OBENV GE 346 (01 19) Contains copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc. with its permission. Copyright 2019, Page 2 of 2 2.That portion of your work out of which the injury or damage arises has been put to its intended use by any person or organization other than another contractor or subcontractor engaged in performing operations for a principal as a part of the same project. C.With respect to the insurance afforded to these additional insureds, the following is added to SECTION III – LIMITS OF INSURANCE: If coverage provided to the additional insured is required by a contract or agreement, the most we will pay on behalf of the additional insured is the amount of insurance: 1.Required by the contract or agreement; or 2.Available under the applicable Limits of Insurance shown in the Declarations; whichever is less. This endorsement shall not increase the applicable Limits of Insurance shown in the Declarations. All other terms and conditions remain the same. Intact Insurance Group USA LLC 96 [OPTIONAL] EXHIBIT D FORM 590 97 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-782 Agenda Date:10/25/2023 Version:1 Item #:9. Report regarding a resolution approving an agreement with Orege North America and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement on behalf of the City of South San Francisco not to exceed Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars ($700,000).(Brian Schumacker, Water Quality Control Plant Superintendent) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing a services agreement between the City of South San Francisco and Orege North America Inc.for the WQCP Sludge Dewatering Improvements Project (CIP Project No. ss2302). BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Biosolids are a product of the wastewater treatment process.During the wastewater treatment process liquids are separated from solids.Those solids are then treated physically and chemically to produce a semisolid, nutrient-rich product known as biosolids.The terms biosolids and sewage sludge are often used interchangeably. Several sludge dewatering processes exist to produce biosolids depending on varying factors such as real estate space constraints and municipality size.Contractors installed the current sludge dewatering system (System)at the South San Francisco-San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP)during the 1999 plant upgrade.The System consists of two Komline-Sanderson Kompress® Belt Filter Presses (BFP) that produced biosolids. The Komline-Sanderson Kompress®Belt Filter is an industrial machine that municipalities use for dewatering municipal Biosolids and industrial sludges.A BFP is a sludge dewatering device that applies mechanical pressure to a chemically conditioned biosolids,which dewaters between two tension belts, by passing those belts through a serpentine of decreasing diameter rolls. A BFP is divided into three zones:the gravity zone,where free draining water is drained by gravity through a porous belt;the wedge zone,where the solids are prepared for pressure application;and the pressure zone, where medium, then high pressure is applied to the conditioned biosolids. Since the installation of the System,staff have continuously optimized operations efficiency.For example, converting the BFP’s from eight roll to ten roll and adjusting operational parameters to gain peak system performance.The two BFP’s currently produce an average cake of 17.25%dry solids (DS)compared to historical values averaging 14.25% DS. For over two decades,disposal of the WQCP’s biosolids proved economical because landfills provided discounted tipping fees for beneficial use as alternative daily cover (ADC).However,legislation changed the definition of biosolids from a beneficial use product to an organic waste. California’s Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction law,(SB 1383),established methane reduction targets for California.California SB 1383 sets goals to reduce disposal of organic waste in landfills,including edible food and biosolids.Wastewater professionals in the region lobbied for the removal of biosolids from the law.These City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/20/2023Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™98 File #:23-782 Agenda Date:10/25/2023 Version:1 Item #:9. and biosolids.Wastewater professionals in the region lobbied for the removal of biosolids from the law.These lobbing efforts were unsuccessful and wastewater treatment facilities began seeking other disposal options. Many municipalities in the Bay Area (including the WQCP)paid typical biosolids disposal cost of around $66 per wet ton prior to SB 1383.Because of SB 1383 changes,disposal cost increased to $166 per wet ton because of limited biosolids disposal options available to municipalities.Anticipating the fiscal challenges created by SB 1383,The Public Works Department,Water Quality Control Plant Division recommended a dewatering enhancement project to further increase the average dry solids concentration of the biosolids cake and polymer use (and therefore decrease) biosolids processing and disposal costs. The City Council approved the WQCP Sludge Dewatering Improvements Project (CIP Project No.ss2302)as part of the 2023-2024 Capital Improvement Program.This project presented three unique challenges to staff. First,the improvements must connect seamlessly to the existing BFP’s using existing piping in a modular configuration.Second,the improvements need to work with the system’s existing chemical conditioning systems and last the improvements needed to guarantee a marked biosolids processing costs reduction. Staff sought out technologies that would meet the challenges and discovered the Orege SLG®Solution.This solution satisfied all three project challenges.The innovative Orege SLG®sludge conditioning system utilizes only compressed air to modify the rheology of the sludge prior to dewatering.The plug and play technology alter the sludge structure to enhance the performance of the BFP’s while connecting directly to the existing System.The SLG®is the sole source product,manufactured,sold,and distributed exclusively by Orege SA. No other company makes a similar or competing product.Orege North America is the only provider of SLG® in North America. California Public Contract Code Section 3400(b)permits general law cities to suspend competitive bidding and to make sole source purchases of products or equipment to match other products in use on a particular public improvement either completed or in the course of completion,or to obtain a necessary item that is only available from one source.In addition,South San Francisco Municipal Code subsection (a)of Section 4.04.080 permits the city to dispense with open market procedures if a commodity can only be obtained from one vendor. The WQCP Sludge Dewatering Improvements Project will include a Try and Buy Agreement.This program extends an exclusive contractual opportunity to the city to try the cutting edge SLG®system with a performance guarantee confirmed through field testing a full-scale unit.The vendor will not invoice the project unless the manufacturer meets contractual minimum annual savings requirements.If the field test fails to meet the required savings, the units will be removed at the manufacturer’s cost. RELATIONSHIP TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN The City of South San Francisco promotes public health and environmental stewardship.Continuing to invest in wastewater infrastructure systems positively affects the quality of life for South San Francisco residents, businesses, and visitors by protecting public health and safety. FISCAL IMPACT Funding is approved in the City of South San Francisco Capital Improvement Program (CIP)for the WQCP Sludge Dewatering Improvements Project (CIP Project No. ss2302). City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/20/2023Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™99 File #:23-782 Agenda Date:10/25/2023 Version:1 Item #:9. CONCLUSION Staff recommends approving an agreement with Orege North America and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement on behalf of the City of South San Francisco for the WQCP Sludge Dewatering Improvements Project (CIP Project No.ss2302)for a price not to exceed Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars ($700,000) if manufacture meets contractual parameters pursuant to the Try and Buy Agreement. Attachment: 1)SLG Project Overview City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/20/2023Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™100 SLG ® Belt Filter Presses Flocculation Air Compressor Deaeration Sludge From Anaerobic Digester Sludge Pump Scope Of Supply: •SLG® •SLG® Control Panel (PLC and HMI) •Air Compressor •Deaerator •Polymer Injection Spools •Polymer Manifold Filtrate after SLG®SLG®NO SLG® SLG Skid Overview: •Throughput: o 125-175 GPM •Operating Pressure: o 15-45 PSI •Electrical Power: o 480V 3-phase 30 AMP •Dimensions: o 5’ x 3’ x 8’ City of South San Francisco – San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant Division SLG® Project 101 WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT WQCP SLUDGE DEWATERING IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (CIP PROJECT NO. SS2302) OCTOBER 25, 2023 Government Code Section 54957.5 SB 343 Item Agenda: 10/25/2023 REG CC - Item #9 102 PRESENTATION CONTENTS •Background •Project Scope •Project Goal •Final Overview and Conclusion 103 PROJECT LOCATION 104 BIOSOLIDS 105 PROJECT SCOPE 106 PROJECT GOALS •Increase biosolids percent solids •Decrease chemical use •Decrease hauling 107 FINAL OVERVIEW CONCLUSION 108 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-783 Agenda Date:10/25/2023 Version:1 Item #:9a. Resolution approving an agreement with Orege North America and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement on behalf of the City of South San Francisco. WHEREAS,Contractors installed the current sludge dewatering system (System)at the South San Francisco- San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP) during the 1999 plant upgrade; and WHEREAS, since the installation of the system, staff has continuously optimized operations efficiency; and WHEREAS,for over two decades rate payers benefited from the WQCP’s production of biosolids because landfills provided discounted tipping fees for biosolids diversion used by landfills as alternative daily cover (ADC); and WHEREAS,California’s Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction law,(SB 1383),established methane reduction targets for California.California SB 1383 sets goals to reduce disposal of organic waste in landfills, including biosolids; and WHEREAS,given the fiscal impact created by SB 1383,the Public Works Department’s Water Quality Control Plant Division recommended a dewatering enhancement project to further biosolids processing and disposal costs; and WHEREAS,the City Council approved the WQCP Sludge Dewatering Improvements Project (CIP Project No. ss2302) in 2023; and WHEREAS,staff sought out technologies that would meet the challenges and discovered the Orege SLG® Solution.This solution satisfied all three project challenges.The innovative Orege SLG®sludge conditioning system utilizes only compressed air to modify the rheology of the sludge prior to dewatering.The plug and play technology alter the sludge structure to enhance the performance of the BFP’s while connecting directly to the existing System.The SLG®is the sole source product,manufactured,sold,and distributed exclusively by Orege SA.No other company makes a similar or competing product.Orege North America is the only provider of SLG® in North America; and WHEREAS,California Public Contract Code Section 3400(b)permits general law cities to suspend competitive bidding and to make sole source purchases of products or equipment to match other products in use on a particular public improvement either completed or in the course of completion,or to obtain a necessary item that is only available from one source; and WHEREAS,South San Francisco Municipal Code subsection (a)of Section 4.04.080 permits the City to dispense with open market procedures if a commodity can only be obtained from one vendor; and WHEREAS,the South San Francisco City Attorney’s Office and Orege North America have pre negotiated the City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/20/2023Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™109 File #:23-783 Agenda Date:10/25/2023 Version:1 Item #:9a. Try and Buy Agreement terms and both parties agree to the terms contained therein; and WHEREAS,funding is approved in the City of South San Francisco Capital Improvement Program (CIP)for the WQCP Sludge Dewatering Improvements Project (CIP Project No.ss2302)for a price not to exceed Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars ($700,000),if manufacture meets contractual parameters pursuant to the Try and Buy Agreement. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby approves a services agreement with Orege North America and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement on behalf of the City of South San Francisco for the WQCP Sludge Dewatering Improvements Project (CIP Project No. ss2302), subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council authorizes the City Manager to take any other related actions consistent with the intention of this resolution. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/20/2023Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™110 MASTER EQUIPMENT TRIAL AND PURCHASE CONTRACT FOR “SLG®” Separation Treatment Three-Phase Solution – Solid / Liquid / Gas AT THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO __________ ____, 2023 This Trial and Purchase Contract (“Contract”), dated ______ __, 2023, is made by and between OREGE NORTH AMERICA INC., a Delaware corporation, with offices at 100 Chamisa Road, Covington, GA, 30016 (“Orege”); and The City of South San Francisco, a public utility with offices at 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, 94080 (“Customer” or “City”) Orege and Customer are sometimes referred to herein individually as “Party” and collectively as “Parties”. BACKGROUND ORÈGE SA, the parent company of Orege, specializes in the treatment of municipal and industrial effluents (wastewater and sludge) and has developed innovative solutions in this field, among which are some patent-protected technologies, based on specific scientific and technical Intellectual Property Rights. ORÈGE SA has filed several patent applications relating to the Process, covered by this Contract, and has licensed that technology to Orege. Customer owns and operates the South San Francisco – San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant at 195 Belle Aire Road, South San Francisco, CA 94080, (the “Plant”). Customer wishes to try and purchase the SLG® Solution, upon the condition that Orege demonstrates the effectiveness of the SLG® Solution at the Plant, by meeting the performance criteria set forth on Schedule A at the conclusion of the Field Test. NOW, THEREFORE, Orege and Customer agree, as follows: Article 1 – Definitions The following terms shall have the meanings ascribed to them below: “Acceptance” occurs upon the signature, or deemed signature if the Acceptance Certificate is not signed within five (5) Business Days of Orege request showing that the Satisfactory Results were reached by the Parties of an Acceptance Certificate. If Customer believes that Satisfactory Results have not been achieved, Customer shall within five (5) Business Days of Orege request provide Orege a written statement to that effect which details the reasons therefor. “Acceptance Certificate” means the certificate attached in Schedule C to this Contract that will be signed or deemed to be signed by the Parties to confirm that Satisfactory Results have been obtained in conformity with this Contract, or waived by Customer. 111 “Affiliate” means with respect to a Party, any other Person that, directly or indirectly (through one or several other entities), is controlled by, controls or is under common control with that Person. “Baseline” means the mutually agreed measured outputs of the dewatering and polymer makedown equipment when operated within the fixed Baseline Operation Parameters (BOP) and includes but is not limited to the daily, weekly, or yearly average values of the feed sludge concentration (TS), Polymer Treatment rate (lb./DT), Polymer Concentration, cake dry solids (DS), and filtrate quality (TSS). The Baseline and its stability will be confirmed by Orege during execution of this Contract in accordance with Schedule B and Article 4 of this Contract. Baseline Operation Parameters (BOP) means the Customer’s normal operating parameters (settings) of the dewatering equipment and polymer injection/mixing equipment that are fixed and the Operating Conditions that have been normally used to produce the Baseline provided to Orege by the Customer and mutually agreed in accordance with Schedule B and Article 4 of this Contract and for the purposes of this Contract are fixed. “Business Day” means any day other than (a) Saturday and Sunday and (b) any other day on which banks located in Atlanta, Georgia are required or authorized by applicable law to remain closed. “Commissioning” means the dry and wet testing which occurs after the performance of the Temporary and Final Installation obligations detailed on Schedule B “Confidential Information” means information owned by or licensed to a Party or any of its Affiliates, subsidiaries or related entities and includes, but is not limited to, any oral, written, graphic or machine-readable information including, but not limited to, information relating to patents, patent applications, research, product plans, products, prototypes, developments, inventions, processes (including in the case of Orege, the Process), designs, drawings, engineering, formulae, knowledge including know-how, markets, software (including source and object code), hardware configuration, computer programs, algorithms, logins and passwords, regulatory information, reports, studies, test data, and analysis, reagents, chemical formulas, business plans, agreements with third parties, services, customers, material and manufacturing specifications, suppliers, marketing or finances, Improvements, Results, Know-How, identified by the disclosing party orally or in writing to be confidential or proprietary, or which information, under the circumstances, might reasonably be expected by the Party to whom such information is disclosed to be confidential or proprietary. Confidential Information of Orege includes, but is not limited to, (i) Improvements derived by Customer, its Affiliates, representatives including from access to Orege’s facilities; (ii) any and all software, reports, memoranda, documents, developments, or other results that are directly related to Orege’s business, (iii) Know-How, (iv) the SLG® Solution, and; (v) results. Confidential Information which is composed of a combination, compilation or sequential arrangement of individual elements or features which individual elements are available to the general public or are or were known or become known to Customer, its Affiliates, representatives shall be considered Confidential Information with respect to such combination, compilation or sequential arrangement. These obligations of confidentiality do not apply if the Party having received the information provides proof that: 112 the information, at the time that it was provided, was already in its possession or accessible to the public in a manner that was not in violation of the provisions of these this Contract or any other confidentiality obligation, when it was provided, the information was received lawfully from a third party and was not covered by a non-disclosure agreement, the information was developed by it before it was provided, or the information must be provided to competent regulatory or judicial authorities, following a justified request from them, or pursuant to applicable law such as the California Public Records Act ; provided, however, that prompt written notice of such requirement is made to the other Party and the disclosure is limited to the minimum extent required by law. “Contract” means this Contract to try and purchase the SLG® Solution, including its Schedules and Background section, and the Project Plan, which constitute an integral part of it, as well as any amendment into which the Parties might enter from time to time. “Delivery” means the date the Equipment arrives at the Plant as indicated herein. “Dewatering Equipment” means the equipment, existing at the Plant, used for the purposes of dewatering the Sludge and includes the sludge feed pump, belt filter press, polymer preparation/makedown, maturation and pumping equipment. “Documentation” means the user’s manual(s) for the Equipment. “Documents” means designs, plans, specifications, instructions, programs, software, manuals, data, files and other documents relating to the SLG® Solution as well as the information that they contain. “Effective Date” means the date of this Contract indicated on the title page of this Contract. “Equipment” means the SLG® Unit(s) as defined on Schedule B. “Field Test” means the test to be performed as described on Schedule B to demonstrate Satisfactory Results, in conformity with Schedule A. “Implementation Stages” means Installation, Commissioning and Process Adjustment in preparation for the Field Test conformity with Schedule B. “Improvements” means any and all changes and derivative inventions, including but not limited to enhancements, process adjustments, modifications, ideas, concepts, technical requirements, developments, evolutions, adjustments and/or amendments created, acquired, developed, reduced to practice or made or related at any time to the SLG® Solution, which are patentable or entitled to copyright protection or qualify as Know-How and any other Intellectual Property Rights related to the SLG® Solution created, acquired, developed, reduced to practice or made at any time. “Installation Certificate” means the certificate annexed to the Contract that will be signed by both Parties on the Final Installation Completion Date as per Schedule D. 113 “Installation Completion” means that Orege has verified: (i) the physical integrity of the Equipment; (ii) the permanent electrical and hydraulic connections to the Equipment; and (iii) the hydraulic, electric and automation testing. “Installation Completion Date” means the date of the Final Installation Completion and is defined on the Installation Certificate. “Installation” means the performance of the obligations performed by the Parties before Final Commissioning; whose performance is certified by the signing of the certificate in accordance in Schedule D. “Installation Cost” means any and all fees and expenses incurred by Orege in the course of Installation of the Equipment and Process, including all Orege’s costs of labor, materials, expenses, allowances, and change orders. “Intellectual Property Rights” means any and all patent applications, patents, Improvements, Know-How, business and trade secrets, proprietary and other intellectual property rights, brands, trademark and copyright protection, technical documentation, computer software, hardware designs and models. “Know-How” means any and all technical data and information, assistance, practical knowledge, techniques and skill resulting from experience, testing (for Orege relating to the SLG® Solution), including but not limited to formulae, recommendations, standards, specifications, processes, methods, code books, raw materials and information, trade practices and secrets and ameliorations to any of the foregoing, including, but not limited to, non- patented, practical information resulting from experience and testing unless such information is not Confidential Information. “Material Default” means a default that is non-trivial and has a higher level of significance. By way of example only, it is a Material Default if (a) Customer breaches the restrictions on non-use or disclosure of Orege’s Intellectual Property or Confidential Information; or (b) Customer fails to pay any amounts required hereunder as and when such payment is due and such failure shall continue uncured for a period of ten (10) days after the date on which written notice thereof shall be given by Orege. “Operating Conditions” means the normal operation of the Upstream unit processes prior to the dewatering process at the Plant, as defined on Schedule B. “Orege” means Orege North America Inc. and Orège SA, as appropriate. “Orege Items” means Orege or Orège SA tools and/or materials that are not intended to be sold to or owned by Customer. “Orege Indemnifying Parties” means Orege, its workers, office clerks, employees, representatives, managers, officers, directors, agents, customers and consultants. “Orège SA” means the parent company of Orege North America, Inc. “Person” means any individual and any legal or other entity. 114 “Plant” means the wastewater treatment plant specified above in this Contract. “Preventative Maintenance and Ongoing Process Adjustment” means number of visits 4, 3 days per visit per year from Orege technical personnel, as further defined in Article 11. “Process” means the conditioning method, technology owned by Orège, SA, patented or not, and licensed to Orege, as modified, enhanced and/or improved by Orège SA or its Affiliates together with any Know-How owned by Orege and Orège SA. “Project Plan” means the document (Schedule B) that describes the required steps to be completed before, during and after the Implementation Stages and Field Test and describes the information and measurement rules necessary to calculate Satisfactory Results based on the steps set forth on Schedule A. “Process Adjustments” means the adjustments made, tested and confirmed by Orege to the Customer’s BOP for the purpose of achieving satisfactory results as defined in Schedule A. “Prior Knowledge” means any and all patentable inventions, patents, Processes, software, documents, information, data, technical knowledge or knowledge of any other nature in general, Know-How, trademark, design, model or other Intellectual Property Right which was created, acquired, first developed or reduced to practice by, or licensed by third Parties to, a Party before the date of the Contract. “Purchase” means Customer’s purchase of the SLG® Solution after Satisfactory Results are achieved including Final Installation & Project Completion. “Satisfactory Results” means the results defined in Schedule A. “Site Visits” means access to the Plant for Orege and Orege invitees to observe the Implementation Stages and Field Test and/or the SLG® Solution in operation. “SLG® Solution” means the Equipment, Process, and any Orege or Orège SA Know- How and Process Adjustments that allows the Equipment to be deployed with upstream and/or downstream technology and/or machinery and also any adaptation of, or modification to, the BOP on the dewatering equipment and operation at the Plant required in connection with the performance of the Equipment, as described on Schedule B. “SLG® Unit” means Orège SA’s proprietary SLG® technology which performs the Process, and its peripherals, as more fully described on Schedule B. “Sludge” means the organic sludge produced at the Plant at the time the Baseline Operating Parameters are identified. “Supplementary Period” means ten (10) additional Business Days to rectify a default. “Taxes” means all, sales, use, value added or similar taxes duties or other items to be paid in accordance with applicable law or regulations. “Tax Benefits” means all deductions credits and other tax benefits available to an owner of property. 115 “Term” means the term of this Contract starting on the Effective Date and concluding when the Trial Period lapses, all the obligations of the Parties hereunder have been satisfied, or the Contract is terminated in accordance with Article 8. “Trial period” means the the Implementation Stages and Field Test prior to the Purchase by Customer of the SLG® Solution(s). “Transfer” means to assign, contribute, sell, sublease or otherwise transfer. “UCC” means the Uniform Commercial Code of the jurisdiction applicable to the Contract. “Upstream Unit Processes” means the processes and/or equipment, upstream of the dewatering equipment, which are normally in service to produce the Sludge dewatered at the Customer’s facility and includes but is not limited to the Primary Clarifier, Biological Treatment Unit, Secondary Clarifier, Digesters, and sludge Blending/Storage in accordance with Schedule B “Warranty” means the undertaking defined in Article 11. “Warranty Period” means the time period set out in Article 11.2 during which Equipment is under Warranty. Article 2 – Purpose The purpose of this Contract is to set forth the terms and conditions of the Trial Period and then the Purchase by Customer of the SLG® Solution(s) after Satisfactory Results are achieved during the Field Test on the first SLG® and Customer is not obligated to purchase the SLG® Solution if Satisfactory Results are not met. Upon occurrence of the Purchase, the sale of the SLG® by Orege shall convey to Customer the non-transferable right for only Customer to use the Equipment at the Plant in compliance with the Contract. Any modification of the SLG® Solution(s) must be approved in writing signed by Orege and Customer. Article 3 – Contractual Documents The Contract consists of the following documents (which are to be read together as one document), listed in decreasing order of priority (in case of contradiction between or among any of their respective provisions): the Contract; Schedule A “Satisfactory Results”; Schedule B “Project Plan”; Schedule C ”Acceptance Certificate”; Schedule D “Final Installation Certificate”; Schedule E “ Matrix of Responsibilities” The Parties acknowledge being fully familiar with and having fully understood the Contract, including all the documents listed above. Article 4 – Trial Period 116 This Article (together with Schedule B) details the progression of activities that Orege together with the Customer will follow to complete this Contract. The Parties’ duties and responsibilities are summarized in the Matrix of Responsibilities in Schedule E. The first item begins with identifying the Equipment that will be purchased (like the SLG ®) and that which will be process adjusted (like the Customers’ belt presses). Next, it discusses how the Customer’s Baseline will be verified throughout the Field Test so that the total benefit of the SLG® Solution is accurately compared to the Customer’s Baseline. The next step is for Orege to deliver the Equipment and work with the Customer to affect a temporary installation. Once installed, Orege Commissions the Equipment and temporary piping. The Process Adjustment phase occurs next, and this will include making adjustments to the Customer’s equipment as well as adjustments to Orege’s equipment so that they all work together to achieve Satisfactory Results according to Schedule A. Following the completion of the Process Adjustment phase, the Field Test will commence. Article 4.1 Implementation Stages & Field Test – The Implementation Stages and Field Test stages are described in further detail in the Project Plan in Schedule B and shall be performed in conformity with the provisions of this Contract, and as may be further defined in Schedule B. 4.1.1 Obligations of the Parties – The Matrix of Responsibilities (including for costs) in Schedule E is agreed to by Orege and the Customer. This matrix details the responsibilities of each Party for information, materials, labor, and utilities supply required for this Contract. The Parties undertake to (i) perform their obligations as described on the Matrix of Responsibilities and the Project Plan, which is attached hereto on Schedule B, and (ii) perform the changes to the dewatering operation, at their cost and risk, as Orege deem necessary, so long as such changes will not interfere with or otherwise adversely affect Customer’s operations and in conformity with Schedule B. The Parties agree and acknowledge that the performance of the obligations listed on Schedule B, Schedule E are essential to successfully complete the Implementation Stages and Field Test. 4.1.2 Equipment Scope of Supply – The scope of equipment supply is defined in Schedule B. 4.1.3 Delivery - The Equipment will be delivered by Orege to the Plant. Delivery timeframes are provided in this Contract for informational purposes only. Under no circumstances will Orege be liable for damages, indemnities, late penalties or the like, if delivery timeframes are delayed. Upon delivery, Customer shall with Orege Representative: (i) verify the Equipment that is delivered includes all components listed in this Contract and the absence of observable damage and defects, (ii) acknowledge delivery prior to Installation and when needed provide notification about any complaint relating to quantity and observable defects of quality. Equipment is deemed to conform to the Contract and to have no observable defects, except to the extent indicated otherwise. Orege reserves the right to choose the routing and the transporter. If shipment of Equipment is delayed due to the fault of Customer, Orege will be entitled to invoice the Customer for the costs of any delay when the Equipment is available to be shipped, without prejudice to Orege’s right to bill for storage charges. 4.1.4 The Equipment – During the Implementation Stages, Equipment: (a) will be the responsibility of Customer during non-business hours, except when Orege Personnel are physically on site; (b) can be moved and serviced only by duly appointed Orege 117 employees or approved contractors; (c) are intended for exclusive use by Orege at the Plant for needs related to the Implementation Stages; (d) are intended to be the commercial unit(s) to be permanently installed if the SLG® Solution is Purchased for the Plant; and will be removed by Orege (at its own cost) at the end of the Field Test in accordance with the Contract, if Satisfactory Results have not occurred after the conclusion of the Field Test and the Purchase does not commence. Article 4.2 Baseline – The Parties agree that the Baseline is the product of the Baseline Operation Parameters (BOP) of the Customer’s equipment and Upstream Unit Processes Operating Conditions that have been in use at the plant to produce the historical performance data provided to Orege and that the BOP will remain fixed anytime that the Baseline is measured or verified. The Customer acknowledges that the historical performance data provided by the Customer has been utilized and relied upon by Orege to determine the Satisfactory Results as defined in Schedule A. However, because the Baseline can change due to no fault of Orege it is important to routinely verify the Baseline and if necessary, reset the Baseline immediately prior to the start of and during the process adjustment phase and prior to the start of and during the Field Test. The SLG® Solution sludge conditioning and the Process Adjustments made by Orege to the Customer’s Equipment work together to achieve Satisfactory Results. 4.2.1 Baseline Operating Parameters (BOP) – The Historical Baseline Operational Parameters (Settings) provided by the Customer are indicative of normal operation of the dewatering and ancillary equipment. The BOP has been utilized by the Customer to operate the existing dewatering system and the Customer further warrants and agrees that they have provided to Orege any seasonal modification to the BOP and that the BOP identified in Schedule B will be fixed for the purposes of this Contract and utilized to confirm and verify the Baseline during the term of this Contract. Should the Operating Conditions of the plant defined in Schedule B change for any reason the Customer must notify Orege within 24 hours of discovery by the Customer. 4.2.2 Customer Equipment - Customer warrants that the BFP and its wash boxes, belts, water pressure, rollers, and scraper blades are within manufacturer specification and fully functional. The Customer agrees, if required, to repair the existing dewatering equipment that is not functioning within manufacturer specifications and in a commercially reasonable manner, at its risk and cost, and at Orege’s request. 4.2.3 Baseline Verification and Measurement – The Historical and/or Current Baseline identified in Schedule B has been provided by the Customer and the Customer warrants that the Baseline was obtained using the BOP provided by the Customer. All Baseline verification sampling and measurement will be performed by Orege, full scale, bypassing the SLG® Solution and operating the Dewatering Equipment using the fixed BOP utilizing the sampling methods and measurement protocols as detailed in Schedule B. 4.2.4 Baseline Measurement Reporting – Orege will provide the Customer with notice prior to Baseline Verification and Measurement event(s) and Orege will provide the Customer a written report of the results. 4.2.5 Deviations – If during Baseline Verification and Measurement events a sustained deviation occurs indicating that the baseline has changed then Orege, at its discretion, 118 may determine that a regular daily Baseline measurement utilizing the BOP is required during the Process Adjustment Phase and Field Test. In the event that the Baseline Verification and Measurement events confirm that the baseline has changed, the Parties agree, that prior to the execution of the Field Test, the Baseline will immediately be reset for the purposes of confirming Satisfactory results solely based upon the Baseline Verification and Measurement performed and reported by Orege. 4.2.6 Operating Conditions – Customer agrees and acknowledges that all the Upstream Unit Process Operating Conditions indicated in Schedule B must be met for the SLG® Solution to operate at optimal capacity. The Customer, therefore, represents and warrants that all the Upstream Unit Process Operating Conditions identified on Schedule B will be maintained at the Plant during the Implementation Stages and Field Test and the Supplementary Period. 4.2.7 Change in Upstream Unit Process Operating Conditions – Customer and Orege agree to renegotiate, in good faith, the terms of Schedules A and B in particular the dry solids increase, if there is a change to the Operating Conditions at the Plant upstream from the Equipment that could reasonably adversely affect the Implementation Stages or Field Test and the achievement of Satisfactory Results. Customer further agrees to inform Orege of any difference or change to the Operating Conditions as soon as practicably possible. If no alternative is reasonably agreed by the Parties within twenty (20) Business Days from the receipt of a written notification from Orege requesting that Customer ensure that the Operating Conditions are reinstated at the Plant, Orege shall have the right, at its own discretion, to remove the Equipment, together with any other Orege property, from the Plant and terminate the Contract. In the event that either of the conditions listed in (i) or (ii) above occur and the Contract is terminated, Customer shall reimburse Orege in accordance with the principles set forth Article 8.3.2 if Orege can reasonably establish that such changes in conditions hindered the possibility for Orege to achieve the Satisfactory Results in Schedule A. Article 4.3 Temporary Installation & Commissioning 4.3.1 SLG® Solution Temporary Installation for the Process Adjustment and Field Test Phase - Temporary Installation of the SLG® Solution shall be performed by Orege with the support of the Customer as defined in Schedule E the Matrix of Responsibilities. For the Process Adjustment and Field Test, the SLG® will be installed and connected to the BFP on a temporary basis. If Customer delays the Process Adjustment or Field Test for any reason, not in connection with Orege, then Customer agrees to pay Orege an additional daily rate of $500 per person per day of delay during which Orege personnel are at the Customer’s Plant beyond the days expected. 4.3.2 SLG® Temporary Installation Description – Installation includes placement and connection of the SLG® Equipment including but not limited to the following: SLG® skid, compressor, temporary polymer System (if required), deaeration unit, feed Sludge piping (flexible or fixed), conditioned Sludge piping (Flexible) from SLG® to the deaeration unit, conditioned Sludge piping (flexible) from deaeration unit to the belt filter press, all temporary pipe supports and restraints and connection to existing utilities (electrical water), connection to existing sludge piping, and integration of E-Stop controls with belt filter press and the existing Sludge pumps (if required). 119 In addition, Customer will be responsible for any required regulatory permitting, providing adequate site utilities to the SLG® installation location, structural and/or site facility improvements, instrumentation and control improvements, and/or programming of facility control systems, and appropriate use of licensed personnel such as electricians and mechanics. 4.3.3 Commissioning – Commissioning of the SLG® Equipment shall be performed by the Parties as defined in Schedule E the Matrix of Responsibilities. Commissioning will include the dry and wet testing of the system and confirmation of motor rotation and E- Stop controls. 4.3.4 Notifications – At the conclusion of Installation and Commissioning the Parties agree to note any reservations within 48 hours (about 2 days) of the Customer receiving notification from Orege that the Commissioning of the SLG® Solution is complete. Article 4.4 – Process Adjustment Phase During the Process Adjustment phase Orege will perform full scale operational evaluation of the individual and combined equipment, further detailed in Schedule B, including but not limited to the following: SLG®, Polymer Type, Polymer Preparation, Treated Sludge piping from the SLG® Equipment to the belt filter press. The Parties agree that the Process Adjustment Phase is essential to determine the optimal; (a) SLG® Equipment settings, (b) polymer type preparation and injection, (c) treated sludge piping hydraulics and (d) dewatering and ancillary equipment operational parameters, the SLG® Solution, that will be utilized during the Field Test and ongoing operations after the achievement of the Satisfactory Results as defined in Schedule A. 4.4.1 Customer Equipment Operation: The Parties agree that Orege will be granted full control of the Operational Parameters of the Dewatering Equipment. 4.4.2 Modifications to the BOP: Customer agrees and acknowledges that, for Orege to obtain Satisfactory Results as described in Schedule A, changes to the existing BOP as identified in Schedule B may be required. Customer therefore agrees to undertake to perform the parameter changes requested by Orege, and at its own cost and risk, or allow Orege to make changes, including but not limited to: ‐ Belt Speed ‐ Belt Tension ‐ Polymer choice ‐ Sludge entrance into the belt filter press ‐ distribution of the thickened sludge in the pressure zone 4.4.3 Orege Supply of Temporary Equipment – Orege may supply temporary equipment, at Orege’s cost, that will be deployed during the Process Adjustment and Field Test Phases. The equipment that may be supplied is as follows: - Polymer Make down Equipment - Sludge Pump 4.4.4 Notifications – During the Process Adjustment Phase Orege will provide a wee kly report to the Customer for the purpose of reporting status and any modification to the Process Adjustment Plan. The Customer agrees to notify Orege in writing and within 48 120 hours of receipt of the weekly report of any reservations. After the conclusion of the Process Adjustment Phase, Orege will notify Customer in writing and the intent to proceed with the Field Test. 4.4.5 SLG® Solution and Dewatering Process Operation Procedure – At the conclusion of the Process Adjustment Phase Orege will prepare the standard operation procedure that outlines the SLG® Solution Operation Parameters and that will be utilized during the Field Test defined in Article 4.5. Article 4.5 – Field Test & Satisfactory Results - The purpose of this phase is to demonstrate the SLG® Solution has achieved Satisfactory Results as defined in Schedule A. 4.5.1 Field Test Operation Parameters - The Field test will be conducted utilizing SLG® Solution and Dewatering Process Operation Procedure. 4.5.2 Field Test Term - The Field Test will be performed for a period of approximately 5 Days. 4.5.3 Field Test Sampling and Measures - The sampling procedures and analysis methods that will be used to measure the performance of the SLG® Solution such as TS, DS, TSS of the Filtrate, and the Polymer Treatment rate are defined in Schedule B. 4.5.4 Field Test Report – Orege will provide the Customer at the conclusion of the Field Test with the results of the Field Test as defined in Schedule B. 4.5.5 Customer Evaluation- the Customer will evaluate the Field Test Report with the operational expenses to evaluate if they are acceptable to its Plant and municipal operations. 4.5.6 Acceptance Certificate – Upon achievement of Satisfactory Results, the Parties must sign the Acceptance Certificate, Schedule C which confirms that (a) Satisfactory Results have been obtained; (b) the Warranty applies and; (c) Customer is solely responsible for the operation of the SLG® Solution. 4.5.7 Failure to achieve Satisfactory Results -Subject to Articles 4.5 and 7.3, the Purchase of the Equipment will not occur and this Contract will be terminated, if Satisfactory Results are not achieved at the conclusion of the Field Test, in which case, Customer shall allow Orege to proceed with the removal of the Equipment from the Plant within 60 days, along with any other Orege property, at Orege’s cost. Customer may, however, choose to Purchase the SLG® Solution, at Customer’s sole discretion. 4.5.7 Training - Customer training by Orege, will occur during the availability of a representative of the Customer after the satisfactory completion of the Field Test, and is included in the price of the SLG® Solution. If there is no Field Test, the Customer training will take place as soon as practically possible after the Delivery date, or at a time mutually agreed, in writing, by the Parties. Article 5 Purchase– The Parties agree that upon conclusion of the Field Test and achievement of Satisfactory Results from the Temporary Installation, Final Installation shall be performed 121 by Customer if the Customer chooses to purchase the SLG® Solution. Orege shall provide planning and supervision. 5.1.1 Final Installation Description - Final installation will include connection of the SLG® Solution(s) to the Customer’s BFP as detailed in the Final Installation Plan prepared by Orege. The Final installation will also include a bypass line that allows the BFP to operate with or without the SLG®. 5.1.2 Final Installation Responsibility – Final Installation of the SLG® Solution at the Plant will be performed in accordance with Schedule E, the Matrix of Responsibilities and in accordance with the final installation plan provided by Orege. Customer will take reasonable measures to provide Orege with site specific requirements and support to ensure Final Installation is completed- within sixty (60) days after the successful Field Test. If Customer delays installation for any reason, not caused by Orege, then Customer agrees to pay Orege an additional daily rate of $500 per person per day of delay during which Orege personnel are at the Customer’s Plant beyond the days expected. 5.1.3 Installation Certificate - On the Final Installation Completion Date of each the Equipment, Customer will sign the Final Installation Certificate, Schedule D, which confirms that (a) if Customer elects not to have a Field Test, that (i) the SLG® Unit is operating (ii) Orege has delivered to Customer the Documentation; (iii) the Warranty applies and (iv) Customer is solely responsible for the operation of the SLG® Unit, or, (b) if there is going to be a Field Test, that (i) the SLG® Unit is operating (ii) Orege has delivered to Customer the Documentation. 5.1.4 Care of the Equipment– Customer is responsible for the care and safety of the Equipment once it arrives at the Plant, except Customer will not be responsible for an SLG® Unit before its Acceptance when Orege Personnel are on-site or from any damage which results from the negligence of Orege or its employees, agents. Upon Customer’s acceptance of the Equipment, and subject to the limitations set forth in this Section, Customer assumes and shall bear the risk of loss, destruction, theft, taking of, or damage to the Equipment, unless any of the foregoing were caused by Orege, its employees or agents, in which case Customer shall have no liability to Orege. Customer shall be responsible for the reasonable cost of repairing any damage to the Equipment while in its care custody, and control, normal wear and tear aside. Subject to the provisions set forth in this Article 17.7, in the event that the Equipment is lost, destroyed, stolen, or damaged to such an extent that repair thereof is impractical, at Orege's discretion, Orege or its assignee shall be entitled to receive all applicable insurance proceeds due hereunder to the extent of Orege's interest in the Equipment or the cost for replacement of such Equipment (“Replacement Cost”). To the extent that any such loss, damage or taking is covered by insurance, all proceeds of such insurance shall be first applied by Customer toward satisfaction of the Purchase payments required to be made to Orege or its assignee. 5.1.5 Reservations - Should the Parties observe defects, issues, and/or problems with any of the Equipment at Acceptance or Final Installation, they undertake to include all observable defects and problems on the Acceptance Certificate , or Installation 122 Certificate, which must be signed by both Parties and will serve as conclusive evidence of the observable defects, issues and/or problems with the Equipment at the time that Acceptance took place. The Parties will resolve all reservations listed on the Installation or Acceptance Certificate to the extent reasonably possible and as quickly as is practicable, in accordance with their responsibilities under the Contract. Article 6 – Purchase Article 6.1 Satisfactory Results - When Satisfactory Results are demonstrated at the end of the Field Test, the Customer shall have the option to Purchase the Equipment pursuant to this Contract, and Orege shall make the installation of the Equipment permanent Customer shall pay the price in accordance with Article 7, and send a signed version of the Acceptance Certificate attached hereto on Schedule C to Orege. Article 6.2 Title to the Equipment - Customer acknowledges and agrees that (i) ownership of and title to the Equipment and all accessions thereto remain with Orege until the Purchase price is paid in full; (ii) Customer will make no claim or assert any right to any such Equipment inconsistent with Orege’s ownership, and will make appropriate entries upon the books and records disclosing Orege’s title to the Equipment, and if Orege so requests, Customer will specifically identify the Equipment in a manner acceptable to Orege as being owned by Orege and sold to Customer; (iii) Customer will not permit any action which would cause the Equipment to be subject to any lien, security interest or similar third party claim; (iv) Customer will, upon reasonable request by Orege, execute and deliver to Orege all agreements, instruments and documents reasonably necessary for the protection of Orege's title to the Equipment; and (v) Customer shall give Orege immediate notice in the event the Equipment is levied upon or becomes subject to seizure. The Equipment shall remain personal property regardless of whether it becomes affixed or attached to real property or any improvement thereof. Customer will not permit any Equipment to become so related to any particular real estate so as to become a fixture on such real estate or to be installed in or affixed to other goods so as to become an accession to such other goods. Article 6.3 Use of the Equipment - Customer’s use and operation of the Equipment shall be in material compliance with the terms and conditions of this Contract, the provisions of all applicable insurance policies, all pertinent rules, regulations, permits, certifications, ordinances, and laws of all governmental or regulatory bodies having jurisdiction over Customer, the Equipment or the use or operation thereof by Customer. Customer shall use and operate and ensure that its employees and subcontractors shall use and operate, the Equipment in a careful and proper manner, in compliance with normal and safe operating procedures for such Equipment, and in conformance with Orege’s recommended engineering and maintenance standards and Documentation. Except for the Preventive Maintenance and On-Going Process Adjustment Services (PM&OPAS) provided by Orege pursuant to Section 7.2: (a) Customer shall, at its own cost and expense, maintain the Equipment in the same condition as when delivered (in good, safe and satisfactory operating order and appearance), subject only to ordinary wear and tear; and (b) Customer shall perform all necessary preventative maintenance, adjustments, repairs and parts replacement for the Equipment in accordance with the Documentation and directions furnished by Orege or the manufacturer of components of the Equipment. Customer shall not alter, modify, and make additions or improvements to the Equipment without prior written 123 approval of Orege. Customer further agrees not to alter any accessories, remove or deface anything affixed to the Equipment, or add other devices or mechanisms to the Equipment without the prior written consent of Orege. Customer shall not remove, alter, disfigure, or cover up any numbering, lettering or insignia displayed on the Equipment without prior written approval of Orege. Article 6.4 Samples - Customer warrants and represents to Orege that all samples and materials sent to Orege relating to the SLG® Solution are safe and in a stable condition and undertakes to indemnify Orege Indemnified Parties and/or Orege Affiliates for any losses, injuries, claims and costs which the Orege Indemnified Parties: or Orege Affiliates may suffer as a result of any sample or materials not being in a safe or stable condition, notwithstanding that Customer may have given an indication on the sample or materials or any order form of any perceived problem with the sample. All samples and materials become the property of Orege to the extent necessary for the performance of the Contract. Orege will dispose of or destroy samples and materials thirty (30) days after the analysis has been performed. Orege may dispose of or destroy the samples and materials after the agreed upon retention period, without further notice and, at Customer’s cost, should an extra cost for Orege arise to comply with any regulation (for example, with respect to disposal of hazardous waste). Orege will not return unneeded samples or materials. Article 7 – Price Article 7.1 Total Price - The total price for the SLG® Solutions being pPurchased pursuant to this Contract is not to exceed Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars ($700,000), where the price of the equipment being purchased pursuant to this contract is not to exceed Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) is X and the amount for other services is not to exceed Two Hundred Thousand Dollas ($200,000).X: Included in the total not to exceed Price are two (2) installed SLG® Solutions, purchased by (Customer), along with one year of Preventative Maintenance/On-going Process Adjustment. SLG® Purchase pricing does not include operations after turnover to the client, or repair as a result of negligence or willful misconduct by Customer. Article 7.2 Payment Terms:- Equipment value not to exceed Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) paid upon delivery terms net 60. Final Installation will be invoiced through progress payments with an agreed upon schedule of values. The payments specified in 7.2(a)-(d) shall be the only payments from City to Orege for equiptment and services rendered pursuant to this Agreement after Satisfactory Results are demonstrated. Orege shall submit all invoices to City in the manner specified in Article 7.2(a). Except as specifically authorized by City, Orege shall not bill City for duplicate services performed by more than one person. Orege and City acknowledge and agree that compensation paid by City to Orege under this Agreement is based upon Orege’s estimated costs of providing the services required hereunder, including salaries and benefits of employees and subcontractors of Consultant. Consequently, the parties further agree that compensation hereunder is intended to include the costs of contributions to any pensions and/or annuities to which Orege and its employees, agents, and 124 subcontractors may be eligible. City therefore has no responsibility for such contributions beyond compensation required under this Agreement. (a) Invoices. Orege shall submit invoices, not more often than once per month during the term of this Agreement, based on the cost for services performed and reimbursable costs incurred prior to the invoice date. Invoices shall contain the following information: Serial identifications of progress bills (i.e., Progress Bill No. 1 for the first invoice, etc.); The beginning and ending dates of the billing period; A task summary containing the original contract amount, the amount of prior billings, the total due this period, the balance available under the Agreement, and the percentage of completion; At City’s option, for each work item in each task, a copy of the applicable time entries or time sheets shall be submitted showing the name of the person doing the work, the hours spent by each person, a brief description of the work, and each reimbursable expense; The amount and purpose of actual expenditures for which reimbursement is sought; (b) Monthly Payment. City shall make monthly payments, based on invoices received, for installed equiptment and/or services satisfactorily performed, and for authorized reimbursable costs incurred. City shall have thirty (30) days from the receipt of an invoice that complies with all of the requirements above to pay Orege. City shall have no obligation to pay invoices submitted ninety (90) days past the performance of work or incurrence of cost. (c) Final Payment. City shall pay the last ten percent (10%) of the total sum due pursuant to this Agreement within sixty (60) days after completion of the services and submittal to City of a final invoice, if all services required have been satisfactorily performed. (d) Total Payment. City shall pay for the services to be rendered by Orege pursuant to this Agreement. City shall not pay any additional sum for any expense or cost whatsoever incurred by Orege in rendering services pursuant to this Agreement. City shall make no payment for any extra, further, or additional service pursuant to this Agreement. In no event shall Orege submit any invoice for an amount in excess of the maximum amount of compensation provided above either for a task or for the entire Agreement, unless the Agreement is modified prior to the submission of such an invoice by a properly executed change order or amendment. Article 7.32 SLG® Solution Preventative Maintenance and On-going Process Adjustment – For an additional fee equal to $40,000 per year after the first year, Orege agrees to provide and the Customer agrees at their sole discretion and option to purchase the SLG® Solution Preventative Maintenance and On-going Process Adjustment, which includes ongoing operations training, with each SLG® Solution Purchased at the price provided in the table above. The Preventative Maintenance and On-going Process Adjustment Services include a total of up to 4 visits per year, lasting up to three (3) days per visit and not to exceed a total of 12 days per calendar year by an Orege certified technician. It is understood that this service does not constitute a performance guarantee of any kind. It is also understood that this Service does not include any corrective maintenance and repair after the Warranty Period (other than on the 125 Orege manufactured components) or any repair work required as a result of Customer’s negligence in operating the SLG® Solution. Article 7.43 Late payment, payment default - If payment is not paid when due, and Orege has provided a written thirty (30) day notice to pay, Orege will have the right recover the Equipment pursuant to Article 8, without prejudice to any other rights Orege may have and actions Orege may take. Interest at the rate of eighteen percent (18%) per annum (but not more than the maximum interest permitted by applicable law) will accrue on all amounts not paid when due, starting the day following the due date, without prejudice to Orege’s right to terminate the Contract pursuant to Article 8. Article 8 – Termination, Cancellation & Removal Article 8.1 Cancellation - Customer may not cancel this Contract after the Effective Date. Article 8.2 Term of the Contract -The Term will commence on the Effective Date and will continue for one (1) year until such time as all of rights and obligations of both of the Parties under the Contract have been fully performed and/or expired, unless terminated sooner or extended in accordance with the terms hereof. Article 8.3 Termination 8.3.1 Permitted Termination – The Contract may be terminated by either Party on notice to the other Party, in the case of (a) prior to Acceptance if an event of force majeure which has existed for at least ninety (90) days and is continuing; (b) by Customer if after the Field Test, Satisfactory Results have not been achieved due solely to Orege’s fault; (c) the occurrence of a Material Default under the Contract by the other Party, which unless defined otherwise has existed for at least thirty (30) days after written notice from the non-defaulting Party and is continuing; or (d) Customer or Orege makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, whether voluntary or involuntary, or if a petition is filed by or against Customer or Orege under any bankruptcy, insolvency or other consumer legislation. Failure by the defaulting Party to satisfy its obligations in conformity with Schedule B, Schedule E, will entitle the other Party to provide written notification of such failure(s) to the defaulting Party. The defaulting Party shall rectify all such failures within the Supplementary Period. In this case, if the obligations listed on Schedule B, Schedule E are not fully satisfied by the end of the Supplementary Period, the Parties agree that non-defaulting Party will have the right to terminate this Contract by sending written notification to defaulting Party. Upon any such termination, Customer will allow Orege to remove the Equipment, together with any other Orege property, from the Plant. If Customer is the defaulting party under this Article 8.3.1, it shall reimburse Orege for its actual, reasonable costs related to the Implementation Stages and Field Test, including removal of its Equipment following termination in accordance with Article 8.3.2. 8.3.2 Upon Termination By Orege Due to Customer Material Default or Change in Operating Conditions – In the event of the termination of the Contract by Orege pursuant to Article 7.4; 8.3.1 (c) or (d): (a) the full Contract price shall be immediately paid; and (b) each Party shall promptly return or destroy all Confidential Information of the other Party, provided that each Party may retain one copy of the Confidential Information of the other Party in its archives solely for the purpose of establishing the 126 contents thereof and ensuring compliance with its obligations hereunder; and (c) if the full Contract price is not paid, then title shall not pass and Customer shall return the Equipment to Orege in accordance with Article 8.4.1 and all of the licenses and rights granted by Orege to Customer pursuant to the Contract shall immediately terminate. 8.3.3 Upon Termination By either Party Due to Force Majeure – In the event of the termination of the Contract by either Party pursuant to Article 8.3.1(a): (a) all of the licenses and rights granted by Orege to Customer pursuant to the Contract shall immediately terminate; (b) all amounts due to Orege for mobilization, demobilization and work performed up an until the Force Majeure occurred shall be immediately paid by Customer; and (c) each Party shall promptly return or destroy all Confidential Information of the other Party, provided that each Party may retain one copy of the Confidential Information of the other Party in its archives solely for the purpose of establishing the contents thereof and ensuring compliance with its obligations hereunder; and (d) Customer shall return the Equipment to Orege in accordance with Article 8.4.3. 8.3.4 Upon Termination By Customer Due to Orege Failure to Achieve Satisfactory Result at conclusion of the Field Test or Material Default by Orege – In the event of the termination of the Contract by Customer pursuant to Article 8.3.1 (b), (c) or (d) : (a) all of the licenses and rights granted by Orege to Customer pursuant to the Contract shall immediately terminate; (b) No further payments shall be due to Orege from Customer; (c) each Party shall promptly return or destroy all Confidential Information of the other Party, provided that each Party may retain one copy of the Confidential Information of the other Party in its archives solely for the purpose of establishing the contents thereof and ensuring compliance with its obligations hereunder; and (d) Customer shall return the Equipment to Orege in accordance with Article 8.4.2. Article 8.4 Recovery of Equipment– 8.4.1 If Orege is entitled to recover any of the Equipment pursuant to Article 8.3.2, Customer will return that Equipment in good working order promptly to or as directed by Orege at Customer’s expense and risk and Orege will be entitled to retain, without obligation or liability to Customer and without prejudice to it right to damages from Customer, all amounts Orege has already received from Customer. In addition, Customer also agrees to reimburse Orege for the costs of its reasonable labor as well as mobilization and demobilization of the Equipment. Customer hereby authorizes and empowers Orege to enter any place where any of the Equipment may be found to take possession and carry away and remove the Equipment with or without legal process and thereby terminate Customer’s rights to retention and use of the SLG® Solution. Customer agrees to indemnify and pay to Orege the reasonable costs of repossession, including, without limitation, attorney’s fees and costs. Customer is required to permit Orege to pick up Orege Items when Orege determines they are no longer necessary for Orege’s performance of the SLG® Solution. 8.4.2 If Orege is entitled to recover any of the Equipment pursuant to Article 8.3.4, Orege will be permitted to pick up and return the Equipment at Orege’s sole expense and will not refund to Customer any payments made after Acceptance that Orege has already received from Customer. This is Customer’s sole and exclusive remedy. In 127 addition, Customer hereby authorizes and empowers Orege to enter any place where any of the Equipment may be found to take possession and carry away and remove the Equipment and thereby terminate Customer’s rights to retention and use of the SLG® Solution. 8.4.3 If Orege is entitled to recover any of the Equipment pursuant to Article 8.3.3 due to either party terminating this Contract due to Force Majeure, Orege will be permitted to pick up and return the Equipment (demobilization) at the equally shared expense of both Parties. Customer also agrees to reimburse Orege for half the costs of mobilization of the Equipment. Subject to Orege’s receipt of half the mobilization and demobilizations costs, Orege will refund to Customer all amounts Orege has already received from Customer as Customer’s sole and exclusive remedy. In addition, Customer hereby authorizes and empowers Orege to enter any place where any of the Equipment may be found to take possession and carry away and remove the Equipment and thereby terminate Customer’s rights to retention and use of the SLG® Solution Article 9 – Notices Notifications under this Contract must be in English and delivered by hand, email, registered letter or envelope delivered by an internationally recognized transporter. Notices will be effective when received and will be deemed to have been received (i) on the date of receipt when it is delivered by hand, (ii) on the date of first presentation when it is delivered by registered letter or transporter, or (iii) on the date of issue when it is sent by email, provided that it is confirmed by registered letter with confirmation of receipt within the three (3) following Business Days. The addresses and fax numbers of the Parties for the purposes of this Contract are: If to Orege: Orege North America Inc. 100 Chamisa Road Covington, GA 30014 Fax: (404) 445-0651 Email: Eddie.Johnson@orege.com Attention: Eddie Johnson (CEO with Copy to) GC Consulting Solutions 3333 Allen Parkway Suite 2601 Houston, TX 77019 Email: Athomas@GCCS1.com Attention: Alvin L. Thomas, Esq. If to CUSTOMER: Fax: Attention: 128 Article 10 – Force Majeure No Party will be held responsible for non-performance of its contractual obligations, except for its obligation to pay money when due, if and to the extent that this non-performance is due to a case of force majeure. Cases of force majeure are considered to be events that are external, unforeseeable, unavoidable and which render it impossible to fulfil the contractual obligations even with reasonable diligence of the Party responsible for performing, and include the following events: (i) acts of war, rioting, social demonstrations, insurrection or revolution; (ii) floods, storms, inclement weather, cyclones; (iii) extended electrical outage of the public electricity network; or (iv) strike on a national scale (to the express exclusion of a strike by only the personnel of Customer). Upon the occurrence of an event of force majeure, performance of the Contract will be suspended, but the suspension will concern only the obligations directly affected by this event. The Party that invokes the case of force majeure must (i) notify the other Party in writing by registered letter with confirmation of receipt as soon as it becomes aware of the occurrence or end of such an event, within the five (5) days following the occurrence of said event, by providing the reasons, foreseeable consequences and likely duration of the consequences of the event in question, (ii) put forth its best effort, nonetheless, to try to respect its contractual obligations, (iii) take all measures that could be of a nature to limit, restrict or stop the consequences of the event of force majeure, (iv) keep the other Party regularly informed about all actions taken in conformity with items (i), (ii) and (iii), and (iv) immediately inform the other Party about the end of the force majeure event. In any event, each Party will be required to take all reasonable measures to lessen the effects and consequences of the suspension of performance of the Contract and its likely duration of suspension, so as to end this situation as quickly as reasonably possible and resume regular performance of their respective obligations as soon as the event of force majeure has ended. Article 11 – Warranty Article 11.1 Extent of Warranty 11.1.1 - Equipment that is Purchased as part of the SLG® Solutions are warrantied against defect in materials or manufacturing during the Warranty Period, which starts on the Delivery date, or if there is a Field Test, upon Acceptance. Services related to the Purchase of the SLG® Solution are warrantied to be performed in a professional manner with due care. Under the Warranty, Orege’s only obligation will be, at Orege’s discretion, replacement or repair or refund of the price of the Equipment recognized as defective by Orege. The application of the Warranty must be confirmed in writing by Orege and shipment to Orege must be approved in writing, in advance, by Orege. Customer will be responsible for the cost and risk of shipping and will not be entitled to any damages related to loss of use of the Equipment. The Warranty is not a guarantee of results, including the volumes that could be treated or the performance of the treatment with the Equipment. The Warranty will be subject, under penalty of forfeiture, to Customer informing Orege about the defect in materials or manufacturing or the services related to the sale of the SLG® Solution within five (5) Business Days following its discovery by Customer. 129 11.1.2 - EXCEPT FOR THE EXPRESS WARRANTIES SET FORTH IN ARTICLE 11.1.1 AS FURTHER LIMITED BY ARTICLE 11.2 AND ARTICLE 11.3 OREGE MAKES NO WARRANTY WHATSOEVER WITH RESPECT TO THE SLG® SOLUTIONS OR SERVICES, INCLUDING ANY (a) WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY; (b) WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE (c) WARRANTY AS TO THE MANNER, QUALITY AND TIMING OF THE EQUIPMENT, SLG® SOLUTION,SERVICES OR RESULTS, PRODUCTS OR DATA SUPPLIED BY OREGE; WHETHER ARISING BY LAW, COURSE OF DEALING, COURSE OF PERFORMANCE, USAGE OF TRADE OR OTHERWISE. CUSTOMER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT HAS NOT RELIED UPON ANY REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY MADE BY OREGE, OR ANY OTHER PERSON ON OREGE'S BEHALF, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE SET FORTH IN THE CONTRACT. Article 11.2 Warranty Period - Orege will warrant the Orege manufactured components for a period of twelve (12) months following the Delivery date, or if there is a Field Test, for a period of (12) months following the signing of the Acceptance Certificate and will not be extended for any reason. However, the Warranty Period for goods included in the SLG® Unit(s) which were not manufactured under Orege’s responsibility will be the duration of warranty provided by the supplier of said equipment to Orege. The services related to the SLG® Solution are warrantied for a period of thirty (30) days following the completion of the specific service task. Article 11.3 Exclusions from the Warranty and from responsibility - Orege will have no obligation or liability, and there will be no Warranty with respect to any (a) SLG® Solution which have not been Purchased (for example, there will be no Warranty with respect to an SLG® Solution that is (a) not timely paid for by Customer, or (b) of the following: a case of force majeure as defined in Article 10; any fact, event, act or omission attributable to Customer (including breach of its obligations), or to its personnel, its subcontractors or suppliers, or to any person intervening on its behalf, making it substantially impossible for Orege to fulfil its contractual obligations; any fact, event, act or omission by Orege based upon false or inaccurate information provided to it by Customer; any interruption of services for the distribution of water or electricity at the site of Customer, that is of a nature to render it impossible for Orege to adequately honour its commitments; lack of contractually required maintenance or repair by Customer for the Equipment; replacement of components or parts of the Equipment with items not provided or otherwise specified by Orege; maintenance of the Equipment by personnel of Customer not having been trained by Orege or by external service providers not authorized by Orege; misuse of the Equipment by Customer; use of the Equipment in a manner that does not comply with the instructions or directions from Orege or that does not correspond to its intended use; wear and/or damage of the Equipment linked to problems of abrasion or corrosion, the appearance of which was not communicated by Customer to Orege within five (5) Business Days following its discovery by Customer; use, transfer or installation of the Equipment to a site other than the one agreed by the Parties and without express prior, written approval from Orege; failure by Customer to notify Orege about the existence of a situation triggering a warranty claim within five (5) Business Days following its discovery; 130 intentional damage to the Equipment; damage or loss caused by items external to the Equipment, for example, the presence in the Equipment or inputs of pieces of wood, plastic, metal or generally any foreign bodies; non-conformity of the sludge or effluents to the Contract; delay or absence of installation in breach of Customer’s obligations; and late payment for any reason by Customer to Orege. Article 11.4 Responsibility - Orege Indemnifying Parties will be liable only for the proven direct and immediate damage caused by the Orege Indemnifying Party’s negligent or wilful misconduct in connection with the performance of the Contract and then, only if Orege has received written notice thereof not later than six (6) months after the date of Customer’s knowledge of the relevant claim (unless any longer period is prescribed under applicable law and cannot be contractually limited). In all cases (whether arising under Contract, tort, negligence, strict liability, through indemnification or otherwise), the Orege Indemnifying Parties’ total liability (which are governed by Article 11.1), and Customer’s exclusive remedy, with respect to the SLG® Solution will be limited to the lesser of (i) the direct and immediate loss or damage caused by the Orege Indemnifying Party’s negligence or wilful misconduct in connection with the performance of the Contract or (ii) the Contract’s value. The Orege Indemnifying Parties will not be liable for any indirect or consequential loss or damage (including, but not limited to, loss of business, profits, goodwill, business opportunities or similar) incurred by Customer or by any third party. Article 12 – Confidentiality & Cooperative Purchasing Article 12.1 Confidentiality - Each of the Parties hereby: (a) declares to the other that it owns all property rights and data relating to the Confidential Information communicated to, or observed by, the other Party; (b) agrees that the Confidential Information in any way relating to the Contract observed by it or communicated by the other Party shall not be used, in all or in part, for any purpose other than as permitted by the Contract; (c) agrees that termination of the Contract shall not, under any circumstances, relieve either Party from its confidentiality obligations regarding the protection, the use, and/or the disclosure of Confidential Information under this Contract. Any information, regardless of the form, provided by Orege or any of its Affiliates to Customer, its Affiliates, its Affiliates, representatives, relating to the Equipment, the Process, the SLG® Solution or the Contract, or to which the Customer, its Affiliates, its Affiliates, representatives could have access in connection with its access to the SLG® Solution, is deemed to be Orege Confidential Information and may only be used by Customer, its Affiliates, representatives or agents within the framework of the Contract, and communication of this information by Customer, its Affiliates, its Affiliates, representatives except as required by law including the California Public Records Act, in any form to a third party is prohibited. Customer, its Affiliates, representatives recognizes that any disclosure not required by law, even partial, to third parties of any item of Confidential Information without obtaining express approval in writing beforehand from Orege, or any use of said information for purposes other than those specified in the Contract, would seriously harm the interests of Orege. Consequently, Customer, its Affiliates, representatives guarantee the confidentiality of Confidential Information and agrees that it will disclose it only to its personnel who need to know it to perform their duties and as required by law. Customer, its Affiliates and representatives guarantee that their personnel will respect this Article 12. Customer, its Affiliates and representatives also 131 undertake to immediately inform Orege of all and any breaches of the obligations under this Article 12 of which Customer, its Affiliates and representatives become aware, and furnish all reasonable assistance in minimizing and limiting the effects of such a breach. Orege will endeavour to include in its Confidential Information, information which Orege believes to be relevant to the Contract and undertakes to provide such Confidential Information in good faith. Nevertheless, Orege makes no representations or warranties as to Confidential Information. Orege shall have no liability resulting from the use of Confidential Information by Customer or from any other information (oral or written) provided or alleged to have been provided by Orege. 12.2 Cooperative Purchasing Agreement – Notwithstanding the Confidentiality requirements of Article 12.1 above, this Contract may be shared with and expanded to include other governmental agencies provided an appropriate relationship (i.e., a cooperative purchasing agreement or an inter-local agreement for joint purchasing) exists between the Customer and other public agencies. Orège may agree to allow other public agencies the same items at the same terms and conditions as this Contract, during the period of time that this Contract is in effect. Each political entity will be responsible for the execution of its own requirements with Orège. Article 13 Intellectual Property Article 13.1 - All Know-How, Intellectual Property Rights and Documents that may be provided by Orege or made available to, or accessed by, Customer remain the entire and exclusive property of Orege SA. Improvements belong or will belong exclusively to Orege SA. Customer, its Affiliates and representatives agree that it will not reverse engineer or copy SLG® Solution, and unless explicitly stated herein, this Contract does not transfer of any Intellectual Property rights to Customer, its Affiliates or representatives. The Intellectual Property Rights, Documents and Improvements will remain the exclusive property of Orege, which is solely responsible for deciding on the appropriateness of the measures of protection to be taken. Orege will be solely free to protect and exploit the Improvements to the SLG® Solution. As may be needed, Customer, its Affiliates and representatives renounce any rights over the Intellectual Property Rights, Documents or Improvements and agrees to transfer to Orege or its Affiliates, if necessary, any rights that it could come to hold over the Intellectual Property Rights, Documents and Improvements. Customer, its Affiliates and representatives are prohibited from reproducing or using the Documents for purposes other than execution of the Contract relating to the SLG ® Solution, unless it has obtained express approval in writing beforehand from Orege. Customer, its Affiliates and representatives agree not to reproduce, imitate, manufacture or have manufactured, disassemble or attempt to disassemble all or a portion (even for its own needs) of the SLG® Solution. Article 13.2 - Each Party remains the sole owner of its Prior Knowledge; shall be responsible to decide whether and what kind of protection measures (patent application, deposit under sealed cover, etc.) would be appropriate, and to initiate the proper corresponding procedures in its name and at its own cost. Neither Party shall claim any intellectual property rights or any right of possession (nor any right of prior possession as defined under French, US or other applicable Patent Law) based on the communication – when relevant – of Prior Knowledge of the other Party, including, but not limited to, for the purpose of performing the Contract. Each Party agrees that it has no right or interest in the other Party’s Prior Knowledge. However, each Party grants to the other a non-exclusive, fully paid license to use such granting Party’s Prior Knowledge during the Term solely with respect to the Contract, to the extent that such other 132 Party requires such granting Party’s Prior Knowledge to perform its obligations under the Contract. Article 13.3 - The SLG® Solution is reserved for use at the Plant and may not under any circumstances be installed at another site, even if used by the Customer, or made available by the Customer to a third party (including its Affiliates and representatives), without obtaining Orege’s express, prior written approval and a new site license. Customer, its Affiliates and representatives recognize having been informed about the necessity of protecting access to the test units, products and Equipment intended for the SLG® Solution to protect the Intellectual Property Rights and Improvements. To the extent allowable by law, Customer agrees to only permit access to its own personnel for needs that are strictly limited to the performance of the SLG® Solution and to prohibit access to any external person, other than Customer’s consultants and other government officials. Customer guarantees that its personnel will respect this Article 13. Article 13.4 - Customer agrees that none of Customer, its Affiliates or its representatives or agents will develop a prototype similar or identical to the SLG® Solution or the Process, such Process being protected by patents and patent applications as modified, enhanced and/or improved by Orege SA or file for any patent application, license or any other Intellectual Property Right, based on the Process or any Improvements arising from or connected to the Process, or claim any Intellectual Property Rights over the Process and/or Improvements and/or SLG® Solution or assist any third party with respect to any of the foregoing. Customer, its Affiliates and representatives undertake not to challenge the validity or enforceability of the patents and/or patent applications held or filed by Orege related to the Equipment, the SLG® Solution, the Process or Improvements in front of any Courts or Patent Offices, nor to impede or otherwise attempt to prevent Orege from filing any patent application relating to or arising from the SLG® Solution, the Process or Improvements. Article 13.5 - No trademark license is intended or created by operation of the Contract. The Customer, its Affiliates and representatives recognize and acknowledge that Orege is the sole and exclusive owner of Orege SA’s marks and Orege recognizes and acknowledges Customer is the sole and exclusive owner of the Customer marks. Neither Party shall acquire or derive as a result of the execution or performance of the Contract any right, title or interest in any trademark owned, licensed to or used by the other Party, nor shall either Party adopt any trademark which is deceptively similar to or likely to cause confusion with any trademarks owned, licensed or used by the other Party. No use will be made of the other Party’s marks without the prior permission of the other. Article 13.6 - If an action or claim is made against Customer, its Affiliates and representatives that the Process infringes any United States or foreign patent, trade secret, trademark, or copyright: (a) Customer, its Affiliates and representatives must promptly notify Orege in writing of such action or claim and give Orege full and complete authority, information, and assistance to settle or defend such action; and (b) in satisfaction of any and all obligations and liabilities that Orege might have with respect to infringement claims relating to the Process, including the SLG® Solution Orege may, at Orege’s option: (i) procure for Customer the right to continue using the Process; (b) replace or modify the Process so that the Process becomes non-infringing; and/or (c) terminate the Contract, recover the Equipment and refund to Customer the price actually paid to Purchase the SLG® Solution less twenty percent (20%) per year for each full or partial year from the Delivery date to the date of Orege recovers the Equipment. 133 Article 13.7 - The Parties will jointly own the Results. However, Customer’s property right is expressly limited to the Results in conformity with this Contract, and no license or other right, expressed or implied, is granted to Customer or its Affiliates, with respect to any Intellectual Property Rights of Orege relating to the Process, Improvements, SLG® Solution or otherwise. The Parties have the following rights with respect to Results: (a) Orege shall have the right to use Results for research and development purposes; (b) Customer has the right to use the Results for its own internal business purposes at a Customer owned and/or operated plant; and (c) the Parties shall have the right (i) to store, copy and reproduce Results using any medium and in any form, including software and technical support (current or future) by any means, with an unrestricted number of copies, for the purpose of using or exploiting the Results. Provided that the other Party gives its prior approval in writing (which shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed), each Party shall be able to communicate and/or publicly present the Results and/or their related secondary developments to the general public or to experts, by any means currently recognized, including but not limited to broadcasting and/or communication through analogical means and/or digital computer networks, or any other open and/or private media, and domestic and/or international networks. 14 Transfer of Rights & Licenses and Servicing Article 14.1 - The purchase of the SLG® Solution from Orege only conveys to the Customer the non-transferable right and Plant specific non-exclusive license for only the Customer to use the SLG® Solution, as the case may be, in compliance with the applicable intended use and license in this Contract. Unless otherwise authorized, no right to resell the SLG® Solution, or any portion of them, or to make any of the SLG® Solution available to a third party, or to copy or use any of the SLG® Solution at a research facility or for research and development purposes is conveyed by the Contract. Such resale or use will require a separate license from Orege. Article 14.2 - Customer agrees that (i) it is Customer’s sole responsibility to ensure that Customer’s continued operation of the SLG® Solutions conforms to applicable law and regulations; (ii) once the Purchase has occurred, any obligation or liability that Orege may have relating to performance of the SLG® Solutions has definitively ended except as otherwise stated in this Contract; and (iii) it will contact Orege exclusively for service of the Equipment, excepting any situation in which Orege fails to service the Equipment in a reasonably timely manner following request by Customer. Article 14.3 - Customer may not Transfer all or a portion of the SLG® Solutions or its rights and obligations under the Contract unless the purchaser obtains a license from Orege which cannot be unreasonably withheld. This licensing post transfer requirement shall survive termination of this Contract indefinitely. This restriction also applies at the time of a demerger, absorption, partial contribution of assets or sale of business or assets or change of control of Customer. If this Transfer prohibition is violated due to the acquirer failing to obtain a license from Orege, then Orege has the right to unilaterally recover the Equipment. If Orege approves a Transfer by granting a license, then if applicable, this Contract will remain in full force and effect. Article 15 Customer Rules and Site Visits Article 15.1 Rules - Orege Personnel shall comply with all of Customer’s material published rules of conduct for the Plant. If any Personnel fails to observe Customer’s rules and that non- 134 observance is solely Orege’s fault, Customer shall have the right to suspend Orege’s performance at the Plant until Orege gives reasonable assurance that Customer’s rules will be observed by all Personnel. Article 15.2 Site Visits – Customer agrees that Orege is entitled to perform site visits at the Plant with its invitees (including customers, potential customers or advisors of customers or potential customers of Orege) for a period of two (2) years after the Effective Date and will have reasonable access to the Plant for that purpose. Orege will schedule Site Visits during normal business hours at the Customer’s convenience and provide at least three (3) business days’ notice in advance and shall conduct the Site Visits without disrupting Plant operations. Customer shall have the right to reasonably postpone a Site Visit due to unanticipated circumstances at the Plant or to refuse, for good reason, access to certain Orege proposed invitees, but Customer agrees to make all reasonable efforts to accommodate all Orege requests for Site Visits and represents that it has all necessary authorizations to do so. Article 16 Applicable Law Jurisdiction & Dispute Article 16.1 Applicable Law - The Parties stipulate that this Contract shall be interpreted under and governed by California law without resort to conflicts of laws. The Parties agree that the State and Federal Courts, as appropriate, located in San Mateo County shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any dispute or disagreement relating to this Contract. Article 16.2 Jurisdiction/ Dispute - The Parties recognize that disputes may from time to time arise between the Parties during the term of this Contract. It is the objective of the Parties to establish procedures to facilitate the resolution of disputes arising under the Contract in an expedient manner by mutual cooperation and without resort to litigation. To accomplish this objective, the Parties agree to follow the procedures set forth in this Article 16 to resolve any dispute arising under the Contract prior to initiating legal action. In the event of such a dispute between the Parties, each Party shall designate their respective executive officers and attempt to reach a resolution by good faith negotiations within thirty (30) days after written notice is received from either of the Parties. In the event the designated executive officers are not able to resolve such dispute after such thirty (30) day period, then the Parties may elect to participate in mediation proceedings or undertake further legal actions. Article 17 – Miscellaneous Article 17.1 Negotiation - The Parties acknowledge and confirm that all provisions of this Contract have been negotiated and each Party was able to influence the substance of each provision. Since the Contract was prepared by both Parties hereto, it shall not be construed against any one Party as the drafting party. The Parties also confirm that, in their reasonable opinion, no condition of this Contract damages unreasonably any of the rights and obligations of the Parties under this Contract, all of which are balanced. The Parties expressly state that they consider all the terms and conditions of this Contract reasonable and undertake to comply with them. Article 17.2 Headings - Section and subsection headings have been inserted for convenience of reference only and do not form a part of this Contract. 135 Article 17.3 Expenses - Except as specifically provided in this Contract otherwise, the Parties will pay all of their respective costs and expenses related to this Contract and the transactions contemplated hereby. Article 17.4 Further Assurances - From time to time, at the request of either Party hereto and without further consideration, the other Party will execute and deliver to such requesting Party such documents and take such other action (but without incurring any financial obligation) as such requesting Party may reasonably request in order to consummate more effectively the transactions contemplated hereby. Article 17.5 Integration - The Schedules and the documents referred to in this Contract form an integral part of this Contract. This Contract and all documents referred to herein, constitute the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter of this Contract and supersede any and all prior agreements, negotiations, correspondence, undertakings, understandings and communications of the Parties with respect to the subject matter of the Contract. The Contract may be executed simultaneously in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original. No officer, employee, agent or subcontractor of Orege has the authority to alter or waive any of these Contract provisions or to make any representation which conflicts with or purports to override any of these terms; and no such modification, alteration, waiver or representation will be binding upon Orege, unless it has been approved and signed by Orege’s Chief Executive Officer. Unless specifically approved in writing and signed by Orege’s Chief Executive Officer, any terms proposed or submitted by Customer at any time (including, but not limited to, terms or provisions in Customer’s purchase order, instructions or other document) which differ from this Contract are rejected as a material alteration of this Contract and will be of no force or effect. Article 17.6 Risk of Loss - Customer agrees to take all necessary steps after the Delivery date: (a) to prevent vandalism to or theft of (i) the Equipment and (ii) Orege Items and (b) to maintain in place any and all data plates, images or prints indicating that the Equipment are the property of Orege. Customer will be responsible for the cost of any damage or loss of or to the Equipment and Orege Items, other than that which results from the actions of Orege or its employees, agents or subcontractors. Article 17.7 Insurance - Orege shall not commence work under this Agreement until Orege has obtained, and agrees to maintain at its expense, all insurance required under this paragraph, and such insurance has been approved by the City Attorney as to form, amount and carrier, nor shall Orege allow any contractor or subcontractor to commence work until all similar insurance required of the contractor or subcontractor has been so obtained and approved, as such approval not to be unreasonably withheld. All requirements shall appear either in the body of the insurance policy or in endorsements and shall specifically bind the insurance carrier. Orege shall take out and maintain during the life of this Agreement the following policies of insurance: (a) Worker’s Compensation and Employers’ Liability Insurance in the statutory coverage. In signing this Agreement, Orege makes the following certification: “I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for Worker’s Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of the Code, and I will 136 comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this Agreement.” (b) Commercial General Liability Insurance: In an amount not less than TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000) for injuries including, but not limited to, death to any one person and subject to the same limit for each person; in an amount not less than FIVE MILLION DOLLARS ($5,000,000) combined single limit per occurrence and in the aggregate per policy period for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. (c) Automobile Liability (Code 1) Insurance: In an amount not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) combined single limit per accident and in the aggregate per policy period for bodily injury and property damage. (e) It is agreed that the insurance required by Subsection (b) shall be in an aggregate amount of not less than Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000) and shall be extended to include as additional insureds the City of South San Francisco, its elective and appointive boards, officers, agents, employees and volunteers, with respect to services performed by the Orege pursuant to this Agreement. Evidence of the insurance described above shall be provided to City upon execution of this Agreement and shall be subject to approval by the City Attorney as to form, amount and carrier, as such approval not to be unreasonably withheld. The policy of insurance shall also contain a provision indicating that such insurance shall not be reduced or canceled except upon thirty (30) days written notice to City. In addition, the following endorsement shall be made on the policy of insurance: “Notwithstanding any other provisions in this policy, the insurance afforded hereunder to the City of South San Francisco shall be primary as to any other insurance or reinsurance covering or available to the City of South San Francisco, and such other insurance or reinsurance shall not be required to contribute to any liability or loss until and unless the approximate limit of liability afforded hereunder is exhausted.” Customer agrees to obtain and maintain, at its expense, the insurance necessary to cover the risks related to its activities including but not limited to fire, theft, and comprehensive general liability insurance in the amount of the replacement cost of the Equipment and public liability and property damage insurance covering the Equipment in an amount satisfactory to Orege from an insurance company reasonably satisfactory to Orege. During the time that Customer bears the risk of loss, the insurance required to be maintained by Customer must contain a provision providing that such insurance shall not be cancelled until the insurer has provided not less than thirty (30) days’ notice to Orege. The insurance policies obtained by Customer and/or Owner shall name Orege an additional insured or loss payee as may be reasonably required by Orege. Article 17.8 Retention of ownership - Orege retains ownership of the Equipment Purchased as part of the SLG® Solution, until payment in full to Orege of the corresponding Purchase price by the Customer, in conformity with Article 7. Article 17.9 No Third-Party Beneficiaries - Unless explicitly agreed in writing by the Parties, this contractual relationship will be between Customer and Orege. There will be no third-party beneficiary or collateral warranty relating to any Contract. 137 Article 17.11 Continuation - The commitments set forth under Articles 12, 13, 14 and 16 of this Contract survive any termination of the Contract by the Parties and shall continue for a period of one (1) years following the termination of this Contract. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Contract to be executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the date first written above. OREGE NORTH AMERICA INC. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BY: BY: NAME: NAME: TITLE: TITLE: 138 LIST OF SCHEDULES Schedule A: “Satisfactory Results”; Schedule B: “Project Plan”; Schedule C: “Acceptance Certificate”; Schedule D: “Installation Certificate”; Schedule E: “Responsibility Matrix”; 139 SCHEDULE A – SATISFACTORY RESULTS The primary process objectives are to measure and evaluate the performance (Satisfactory Results) based on achieving a predetermined; total minimum savings target of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) annually. The following parameters will be evaluated to determine the total annual cost savings produced by the SLG® Solution: 1. The increase in dewatered cake dryness, 2. The reduction in polymer costs, and If the Field Test indicates that the improvement of one or a combination of the parameters listed above achieves the minimum annual savings target of $100,000 then the trial will be deemed a success, at which point the Customer will evaluate the Field Test Report with the operational expenses to evaluate if they are acceptable to its Plant and municipal operations and have the option to buy the SLG® Solution. If Customer determines, at its sole discretion and judgment, that the Field Test results are not acceptable, including but not limited to significant administrative cost and expenses to achieve Field Test results, then Satisfactory Results shall be deemed as not achieved and Customer will not proceed with the Purchase. 140 SCHEDULE B – PROJECT PLAN SECTION 1: EQUIPMENT SCOPE OF SUPPLY & DESCRIPTION: Orege will provide for the implementation Stages and Field Test the following: SLG® skid, compressor, polymer manifolds, and all required interconnection piping, valves, from the Customer supplied connection points. A temporary polymer system and other ancillary equipment may be supplied for the Implementation Stages and Field Test only and will not be a part of any final SLG® Solution. Supplied equipment. o SLG o Compressor o Polymer Unit o Deaerator o Temp Piping o Pipe supports. o Polymer pump o Polymer Flow Meter o All wiring to power Orege equipment o Hoses and piping and ancillary hardware to install sludge line o Sludge pump (If necessary) SECTION 2: IMPLEMENTATION STAGES Figure 1- Implementation Stages 2.1 DELIVERY: Orege will arrange and pay for all deliveries of equipment provided by Orege as outlined in Section 2. Deliveries will be made to the plant Monday – Friday between the hours of 8-2 local time. The primary contact for deliveries coordination for Orege will be Jammie Vincent. The primary contact for deliveries coordination for the Customer will be Nicholas Talbot. The Customer will unload and store the Equipment outlined in Section 2.2 in a covered area. 2.2 TEMPORARY INSTALLATION: The SLG® Equipment and temporary Piping will be installed upstream of BFP 2 during the Implementation Stages and Field Test. The purpose of the temporary installation is to allow for easy changes in piping configurations between the SLG® Equipment and the BFP during the Process Adjustment Phase of the Project. Installation will be performed by Orege in accordance with the P&ID provided by Orege. Mechanical Piping Connections: 141 o The Customer will provide the following points of Connection (POC) on their piping Feed sludge POC which will include a Tee and valving to allow the SLG® to receive feed sludge POC to the BFP for the treated sludge connection. Tee & valves into the polymer supply before the injection ring on BFP 2 Water source for Orege Polymer make down system (Potable if available) o Orege will provide all temporary piping (rubber pressure hose w/Camlock, flexible piping for polymer) from the SLG to the Customer provided POC. Electrical Connections o The following are provided by the Customer: 480v 3ph 150A Disconnect 120c 1ph 20A plug for the following (1) 110 20A (Emulsion Polymer Mixing Unit) Termination of wiring from disconnect to Orege Supplied Distribution Panel o The following are provided by Orege Power Distribution panel SO Cable from 150A disconnect to Distribution Panel SO Cabel from the temporary Distribution Panel to each 480v 3ph connection 480V 30A (Compressor) 480V 10A (SLG) 480V 3ph 30A (Sludge Pump) 2.3 COMMISSIONING: The SLG®, Ancillary Equipment and temporary Piping will be dry and wet commissioned. Commissioning will include Electrical Testing, Motor Rotation Testing, E-Stop connection testing (if required), and confirmation of flow meters (if required). The Customer will need to provide an electrician or maintenance staff member to assist with connection testing of electrical connections, rotation testing etc. The Customer will also provide an operator to assist with BFP start and stop and control of sludge and polymer flow start and stop. Estimated time for commissioning is typically 2 to 3 Hrs. 2.4 PROCESS ADJUSTMENT: The Process Adjustment phase of the project is comprised of the following steps and is best represented by Figure 2. SLG Operational Parameters: o During the Process Adjustment phase Orege will determine the optimal SLG Operations parameters. Those parameters include the following, to modify these parameters no assistance is required from the Customer. Reactor Pressure Air/Sludge Ratio Polymer o Polymer Jar Testing 142 Orege has completed a series of polymer jar tests in our lab and therefore has recommended some alternative polymers that should be tested on a full scale. During the demonstration, Orege may perform additional jar testing to confirm polymer effectivity with the SLG emulsified sludge. Orege may perform viscosity testing on the polymer to determine optimum aging time. No assistance required from the Customer. o Full Scale Polymer Testing Orege will test full scale, using Orege’s polymer make down system, any alternative polymers suggested/recommended so that normal operations are not interrupted. Therefore, when operating Orege’s polymer system Orege will not require any assistance from the Customer except for a reliable potable water source. During Full Scale polymer testing Orege will work with the SSF polymer. During this stage we will normally vary polymer concentrations and post dilution water consumption. If it is preferred for Orege to maintain the Customer’s polymer system without modification to any operational settings of the polymer system, then Orege will use their polymer system to test different polymer concentrations and variation of post dilution water. The Customer’s staff may need to be available to assist with necessary adjustments. Typically, in hourly intervals. BFP o Start up and shut down operations will be jointly performed by Orege and the Customer. Each Day Orege will provide a run plan detailing the need and timing for the Customer to change belt speed and/or belt tension. o In the event of an overflow/spill during Orege operations Orege staff will clean. Sludge Line SLG – BFP o If required, the location of the Pressure Regulating Valve and polymer injection point on the SLG treated sludge line may need to be moved. If this occurs, Orege staff will perform the required modifications. Baseline Measurements (Operation without SLG), further described in Section 3 o Orege will perform baseline measurements for confirmation purposes daily. For each Baseline measurement the BFP must be operated within the Baseline Operating Parameters provided by SSF. One baseline measurement in the morning prior to start of the SLG. One baseline measurement in the evening after normal operations of the BFP have been restored. Baseline samples will be processed in an oven overnight. 143 Figure 2 : Process Adjustment SECTION 3: FIELD TEST: The Field-Test stage is designed to demonstrate the achievement of the Satisfactory Results as defined in Schedule A. The Field Test will be performed for a period of 5 days. All testing, during the Field Test, will be conducted by Orege, unless specified otherwise by Orege, in writing. Sampling and analysis will be done by Orege in the onsite laboratory. The Customer may obtain split samples from Orege for analysis at their discretion. If Customer does not elect to have split samples taken and tested, then it agrees to be bound by Orege’s samples and analysis. Table 1 summarizes the data which will be collected during the Field-Testing period from the SLG® and BFP. The data collection will occur at each sampling event as outlined in Section 4 of the Contract. Testing and data collection will only occur after stable operation of the SLG® + BFP has been achieved, typically one hour after startup of the system. Table 1: Observation parameters SLG-BFP Operational Parameter Location Units Frequency Measuring Device Feed Sludge flow rate SLG®GPM Continuous Magnetic flow meter Air Flow Rate SLG®SCFM Continuous SLG ® Control Panel Polymer Flow Rate SLG GPM Continuous IFM Flowmeter (inline) Air Pressure SLG®PSI Continuous SLG ® Control Panel Polymer Treatment Rate Polymer Skid kg/TDS or lbs./dry ton 4/Day Calculated Polymer Concentration Polymer Skid % 4/Day Calculated Belt Speed BFP FPS 4/Day BFP Control Panel Belt Tension BFP PSI 4/Day BFP pressure gauge 144 Operational Parameter Location Units Frequency Measuring Device Feed Sludge Concentration TBD % 4/Day Oven Dewatered Cake Dry Solids BFP Outlet % 4/Day Oven 3.1 SATISFACTORY RESULTS: Defined in Schedule A SECTION 4: EXISTING CUSTOMER OPERATION 4.1 OPERATING CONDITIONS “Operating Conditions” are the normal operations of the Upstream unit process prior to the dewatering process at the plant. This information is used to establish a baseline definition of Normal Operations and to provide Orege and the Customer with a basis to define if there are any process variations upstream during the Implementation and Field Test. Table 2: Operating Conditions Parameter Average Value Range Unit Primary /Secondary Blend 70/30 70/30 % Primary TS 4% 2-6 % Primary VS 88% 70-99 % Sec. TWAS Sludge TS 7.5% 4-10 % Sec. TWAS Sludge VSS 81% 70-90 % WAS Flow 500 300-650 gpm WAS Flow Duration TBD TBD Nonstop RAS Flow 5.4MGD 5-8 MGD RAS Flow Duration 24/7/365 24/7/365 MGD Digester SRT 70 50-120 Days Digester HRT 70 50-120 Days Blend Tank TS TBD TBD % Blend Tank VS 84.7 TBD % Blend tank Sludge Flow to Digesters 46,600 TBD Gpd Digester 1 TS Out 5 TBD % Digester 1 VS Out 69 TBD % Digester 1 VSR 55 TBD % Digester 3 TS Out 3 TBD % Digester 3 VS Out 68 TBD % Digester 3 VSR 57 TBD % Digester 4 TS Out 2 TBD % Digester 4 VS Out 70 TBD % Digester 4 VSR 55 TBD % 145 Parameter Average Value Range Unit Digester 5 TS Out 3 TBD % Digester 5 VS Out 72 TBD % Digester 5 VSR 47 TBD % ** Normal Operating conditions must be established, agreed upon and maintained throughout the process adjustment and trial phases of the project before commissioning. SSF agrees that should something occur at the plant that causes and upset that changes the Baseline Operating Conditions they will notify Orege promptly. Furthermore, both Parties agree to maintain a normal ratio of sludge and inert solids blend so that the sludge is representative throughout the daily operation of the SLG. 4.2 BASELINE OPERATING PARAMETERS (BOP): The Baseline Operating Parameters are the Customer’s normal operating parameters (settings) of the dewatering equipment and polymer injection/mixing equipment that are fixed and the Operating Conditions that have been normally used to produce the Baseline provided to Orege by the Customer and mutually agreed in accordance with Schedule B and Article 4 of this Contract and for the purposes of this Contract are fixed. Table 2 will be completed after historic data analysis provided by SSF. Once it is filled, the fixed value will be used to operate the existing equipment during each Baseline Verification and Measurement event. Table 3: Baseline operating parameters (BOP) Parameter Average Value Range Unit Belt Speed 30 27-35 % Belt Tension 650 600-750 psi Polymer Flow per 8-10 hr Shift 22 20-30 GPD Polymer Make down Water Flow 7 6-9 GPM Polymer Mixing Valve Position Dose At Sludge Pump Dose At Sludge Pump Dose At Sludge Pump Polymer Injection Point Sludge Pump Sludge Pump Sludge Pump Polymer Concentration 42 Active 42 % 4.3 BASELINE The Baseline is the mutually agreed measured outputs of the dewatering and polymer make down equipment when operated within the fixed Baseline Operation Parameters (BOP) and includes but is not limited to the daily, weekly, or yearly average values of the feed sludge concentration (TS), Polymer Treatment rate (lb./DT), Polymer Concentration, cake dry solids (DS), and filtrate quality (TSS). The Baseline and its stability will be confirmed by Orege during execution of this Contract in accordance with Schedule B and Article 4 of this Contract. 146 Table 4: Baseline Parameter Average Value Range Unit Dewatered Cake (DS) 18 16-20 % Filtrate (TS) 0.70 0.4-1.8 % Feed Sludge (TS) 3.3 2-4 % Polymer Treatment Rate (lb./DT Commercial) 16 13-25 lb./DT Hours of Operation 8 6-10 hours Sludge Flow 95 90-100 GPM Volatile Solids 70 % The historical Baseline data provided by SSF will be verified and measured during the Temporary Installation and Commissioning phases for verification and daily during the Process Adjustment and Demonstration Field Test Phases. Each Time Baseline measurements are made the SLG will be bypassed, and the Baseline operating parameters (Table 2) will be used to Operate the BFP. The purpose of this confirmation is to make sure that the historical baseline remains representative during the Process Adjustment and Field Test Phases. Baseline Verification and Measurement data will be evaluated as follows: Each daily value will be grouped according to similar operating conditions – operating BFP, Sludge, flow, Feed sludge TS, and Polymer Treatment Rate. Mean values and standard deviation will be calculated for the data in each operational group. Values for which abnormal operating conditions are identified will not be used; Orege and Customer will mutually agree on abnormal operating conditions that impact data, Mean values calculated from acceptable data will be considered the performance results obtained by Orege. SECTION 5: SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS: The following table provides the sampling media, frequency, sampling methodology, and testing protocol for the samples collected during the entirety of Process Adjustment and Field Test Stages: Table 5: Sampling Realization Process Media Test Analysis Units Frequency Sampling Methodology Testing Protocol Dewatered Sludge for baseline from BFP[s] Percent Solids by Weight % Minimum of 4 events/day (1 composite sample taken from 3 locations on the belt Refer to Note 1) Grab SM2540G SLG® Percent Solids by Weight % Minimum of 4 campaigns/day Grab SM2540G 147 Media Test Analysis Units Frequency Sampling Methodology Testing Protocol Dewatered Sludge from BFP[s] (1 composite sample taken from 3 locations on the belt Refer to Note 1) Primary Sludge Total Solids Total Solids (TS) % And g/L One @ Each Sampling Event Grab SM2540B Secondary Sludge Total Solids Total Solids (TS) % And g/L One @ Each Sampling Event Grab SM2540B Blended Feed Sludge Total Solids Total Solids (TS) % And g/L Minimum of 1/day Grab SM2540B Feed Sludge VSS % As needed Grab SM2540E SLG® processed Sludge (before dewatering) Jar Testing NA As needed Grab OREGE Proprietary Testing Procedures Filtrate TSS mg/L Minimum of 4/day Grab SM2540D Polymer Concentration % As needed Measured Measured Treatment Rate lb./DT One @ each Sampling Event Measured & calculated Measured & calculated Other Chemical Usage Concentration % As Needed Measured Measured Treatment Rage lb./DT As Needed Measured & calculated Measured & calculated Note: 1. The dewatered sludge will be sampled on 3 points at the BFP outlet: 1 right side sample, 1 middle sample and 1 left side sample and combined to form one composite sample per sampling event. Therefore, 3 samples are taken at a minimum of 4 times per day (8 hours). 2. Jar testing of sludge and polymer will be conducted as needed throughout the Process adjustment and Field Test phases. 3. Adapted testing protocols may be defined between Customer and Orege and added to the Project Plan should Customer/Orege methods differ significantly from listed testing methods. SECTION 6: DATA EVALUATION Data collected the Process Adjustment Phase listed in Table 1 & Table 5 will be compiled in an Excel spreadsheet for evaluation and comparison. The performance data will be evaluated and compared against Customer’s Baseline reference data as described below for the purpose of determining the best operational settings and process improvements to be utilized during the Demonstration Field Test. 148 6.1 Evaluation of SLG® performance data during the Process Adjustment: SLG® performance data collected during the performance of this Demonstration will be evaluated as follows. Performance data will be collected at frequencies indicated in Table 1 and 5. The data will be grouped according to the operating BFP. Average values will be calculated for the cake Dry Solids (DS) and polymer treatment rate (lbs./DT). Operational data evaluation The SLG® operational data collected will be evaluated against the Customer Baseline data, including sludge dry solids, polymer treatment rate and filtrate quality to determine the optimum overall SLG® Solution operating parameters that achieve the best overall performance. This will allow selection of process operating parameters for the permanent SLG® installation at the WWTP. SECTION 7: DATA EVALUATION DURING FIELD TEST Performance data collected during the Field Test listed in Table 1 & Table 5 will be compiled in an Excel spreadsheet for evaluation and comparison. The performance data will be evaluated and compared against Customer’s Baseline reference data as described below. 7.1 Evaluation of SLG® performance data during the Field Test: SLG® performance data collected during the Field Test will be evaluated as follows. Performance data will be collected at frequencies indicated in Table 1 and 5. The data will be grouped according to the operating BFP. Mean values and standard deviation will be calculated for the cake Dry Solids (DS) and polymer treatment rate (lbs./DT). Mean values calculated from acceptable data will be considered the performance results. 149 SCHEDULE C – ACCEPTANCE CERTIFICATE Certificate of Acceptance To be completed after achieving Satisfactory Results and Final Installation Reference is made to the Trial and Purchase Contract, dated as of ________ __ 2023 (the “Contract”) between Orege North America Inc. (“Orege”) and ________________ (“CUSTOMER”). All definitions used in the Contract shall also apply herein. The Parties hereby certify that the Performance Test has been completed and that Satisfactory Results have been achieved, or waived by CUSTOMER, that the SLG® Solution is in all respects satisfactory to the undersigned and comply with all terms of the Contract. This certificate supplements, but does not alter, construe or amend the terms of the Contract between the Parties. Acceptance location: Acceptance date: CUSTOMER: _________________________ (Date and duly authorized signature of CUSTOMER) Name: Title: Date: OREGE: ________________________ (Date and duly authorized signature of OREGE representative) Name: Title: Date: 150 SCHEDULE D- INSTALLATION CERTIFICATE Certificate of Installation To be completed after Final Installation Reference is made to the Trial and Purchase Contract, dated as of ________ __ 2023 (the “Contract”) between Orege North America Inc. (“Orege”) and ________ __ (“CUSTOMER”). All definitions used in the Contract shall also apply herein. The Parties hereby certify that the Equipment has been fully and satisfactorily installed at the Plant, in conformity with any and all instructions given by Orege that the Equipment has been calibrated, and wet and dry tested. This certificate supplements, but does not alter, construe or amend the terms of the Contract between the Parties. Installation location: Installation date: CUSTOMER: _________________________ (Date and duly authorized signature of CUSTOMER) Name: Title: Date: OREGE: ________________________ (Date and duly authorized signature of OREGE representative) Name: Title: Date: 151 SCHEDULE E – MATRIX OF RESPONSIBILITIES Area Description Responsible for Design Responsible for Material Supply Responsible for Installation Labor Mechanical Equipment Mechanical design OREGE N/A N/A Tee and isolation valve @ Sludge Feed POC OREGE SSF SSF Piping and valve from Sludge feed POC to SLG OREGE OREGE OREGE Piping from SLG to deaerator OREGE OREGE OREGE Air piping between compressor skid and SLGTM skid OREGE OREGE OREGE Ancillaries (valves, Tees …) OREGE OREGE OREGE Provide temporary Polymer make down system OREGE OREGE OREGE Electrical, Instrumentation, Control and Automation (EICA) Equipment Control and Automation (EICA) Equipment Electrical & Control Drawings for Orege Supplied equipment. OREGE OREGE Design and/or connection between Orege supplied equipment and Plant SCADA SLG Power Supply Disconnect located within close proximity of SLG location. 480v, 3Ø, 10A SSF SSF SSF SLG Power from 10A disconnect to SLG OREGE OREGE OREGE Compressor power Supply & Disconnect located within close proximity of Compressor location: Supply power cable & disconnect for 480V, 3Ø, 30A feed SSF SSF SSF Compressor Power from 40A disconnect to compressor OREGE OREGE OREGE Sludge Pump power 480V, 3Ø, 30A SSF SSF SSF Pull power wires for Orege equipment to OREGE Supplied Power Distribution Panel Both Orege Orege Terminate wires in SSF power source SSF SSF SSF Terminate power wires in Orege equipment OREGE OREGE OREGE Temporary and Final Installation Mechanical equipment installation (excluding items otherwise mentioned) Both Both Both Supply and installation of ductile iron pipe, valves and fittings for sludge feed to SLGTM, tie- in to SSF provided Point of Connection OREGE OREGE OREGE 152 Area Description Responsible for Design Responsible for Material Supply Responsible for Installation Labor Supply and installation of flexible hose and fittings, polymer injection rings, and mixing valves, OREGE OREGE OREGE EICA equipment installation (excluding items otherwise mentioned) SSF SSF SSF Installation of electrical cables 3rd Party Design and Engineering for the final installation OREGE 3rd Party Final Installation for Mechanical Piping and Electrical OREGE OREGE OREGE Orege supplied Equipment grounding OREGE OREGE OREGE Offloading, lifting, and handling equipment and materials Both Both Technical staff support BOTH BOTH Utilities Identification of required Utilities POC for SLGTM equipment OREGE OREGE OREGE Service water supply for Field Test/Proving Period For Polymer SSF SSF SSF Electrical power supply for Field Test/Proving Period SSF SSF SSF Pneumatic air supply for Field Test/Proving Period OREGE OREGE OREGE Polymer selection BOTH BOTH BOTH Polymer supply for Field Test/Proving Period SSF SSF SSF Commissioning & Proving period Dry commissioning OREGE OREGE OREGE Wet commissioning OREGE OREGE OREGE Process Adjustment OREGE BOTH Process trials/Proving Period OREGE OREGE Laboratory Sludge analyses BOTH BOTH BOTH Orege operations personnel for Process trials/Proving Period OREGE Access to site laboratory for Orege technician SSF SSF Health and Safety Site HSE requirements and constraints BOTH BOTH Daily safety meetings as Required Changing room, toilet, showers access for OREGE personnel SSF Office space with internet connection SSF Available space for equipment storage SSF 153 Area Description Responsible for Design Responsible for Material Supply Responsible for Installation Labor Final Installation Final installation complete OregeOrege Orege 5436272.1 154 • Orege North America Inc. • 100 Chamisa Road • Covington, GA 30016 • September 29, 2023 The City of South San Francisco-San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant c/o Brian Schumacker, Plant Superintendent 195 Belle Aire Road South San Francisco, CA 94080 Re: Orege North America SLG® Sole Source Dear Mr. Schumacker, This letter is to confirm that the SLG® is the sole source product, manufactured, sold, and distributed exclusively by Orege SA. No other company makes a similar or competing product. Orege North America is the only provider of SLG® in North America. Orege North America, Inc is a wholly owned subsidiary of Orege SA, a French company, that specializes in the development of innovative and patented sludge conditioning equipment known as the SLG®. Should you have any additional questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Eddie Johnson Chief Operating Officer Orege North America, Inc. 155 • Orege North America Inc. • 100 Chamisa Road • Covington, GA 30016 • September 29, 2023 The City of South San Francisco-San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant c/o Brian Schumacker, Plant Superintendent 195 Belle Aire Road South San Francisco, CA 94080 Re: Orege North America SLG® Sole Source Unique Product and Patents Dear Mr. Schumacker, Orege North America, Inc is a wholly owned subsidiary of Orege SA, a French company, that specializes in the development of innovative and patented sludge conditioning equipment known as the SLG®. Orege North America is the only provider of SLG® in North America. As stated above the SLG® system is a patented technology that has no known competition in the municipal marketplace to enhance the dewaterability and physically alter the rheological properties of municipal sludge. The SLG® is unique because it transforms the sludge by using a combination of velocity, compressed air, patented and proprietary process piping, and pressure to alter the rheological properties of the sludge so that the existing dewatering system can be further optimized to achieve the cake dryness improvement required. The improved cake dryness equates to a reduction in the total wet tons of sludge disposed of and therefore a substantial annual reduction in the cost of sludge disposal for our clients. Please refer to Schedule One (attached) for a list of patents covering the SLG® equipment and process. Should you have any additional questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Eddie Johnson CEO Orege North America, Inc. 156 • Orege North America Inc. • 100 Chamisa Road • Covington, GA 30016 • SCHEDULE 1: LIST OF PATENT APPLICATIONS RELATING TO PHYSICO- CHEMICAL SLUDGE PRETREATMENT 1/ PATENT: "SLG": METHOD FOR SEPARATING LIQUID FROM SUSPENDED MATERIEL IN A SLUDGE AND DEVICE FOR SAME GRANTED (FILING DATE / FILING REFERENCE NUMBER) ARGENTINA (28/10/2011 / -), TURKEY (28/10/2011 / 13/5045). PUBLISHED (PUBLICATION DATE / FILING REFERENCE NUMBER) FRANCE (04/05/2012 / 41033), PCT (03/05/2012 / 41032), EURO/PCT (04/09/2013 / 41521), GERMANY (04/09/2013 / 41521), SPAIN (04/09/2013 / 41521), FRANCE (04/09/2013 / 41521), GREAT BRITAIN (04/09/2013 / 41521), GRECE (04/09/2013 / 41521), ITALY (04/09/2013 / 41521), ALBANIA (04/09/2013 / 41521), AUSTRIA (04/09/2013 / 41521), BULGARIA (04/09/2013 / 41521), CROATIE (04/09/2013 / 41521), CHYPRE (04/09/2013 / 41521), BELGIUM (04/09/2013 / 41521), DENMARK (04/09/2013 / 41521), ESTONIA (04/09/2013 / 41521), FINLAND (04/09/2013 / 41521), HUNGARY (04/09/2013 / 41521), IRELAND (04/09/2013 / 41521), SWEEDEN (04/09/2013 / 41521), ICELAND (04/09/2013 / 41521), LATVIA (04/09/2013 / 41521), LUXEMBURG (04/09/2013 / 41521), LITHUANIA (04/09/2013 / 41521), REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA (04/09/2013 / 41521), NORWAY (04/09/2013 / 41521), MALTA (04/09/2013 / 41521), MONACO (04/09/2013 / 41521), NETHERLANDS (04/09/2013 / 41521), POLAND (04/09/2013 / 41521), PORTUGAL (04/09/2013 / 41521), CZECH REPUBLIC (04/09/2013 / 41521), ROMANIA (04/09/2013 / 41521), SERBIA (04/09/2013 / 41521), SLOVAKIA (04/09/2013 / 41521), TURKEY (04/09/2013 / 41521), SLOVENIA (04/09/2013 / 41521), SWITZERLAND (04/09/2013 / 41521), EURO/DIVISION (11/02/2015 / 42046), SOUTH AFRICA (22/10/2013 / 41569), CANADA (23/09/2015 / 42270), CHINA (18/09/2013 / 41535), CHILE (04/11/2013 / 41582), INDIA (21/11/2014 / 41964), USA (05/09/2013 / 41522), INDONESIA (20/02/2011 / 40594), JAPAN (07/11/2013 / 41585), NEW ZEALAND (26/03/2014 / 41724), MEXICO (12/09/2013 / 41529), HONG-KONG (13/06/2014 / 41803). FILED PENDING EXAMINATION (FILING DATE / FILING REFERENCE NUMBER) AUSTRALIA (28/10/2011 / 2011322381), BAHREIN (28/10/2011 / BP46/2013), BRAZIL (28/10/2011 / BR112013010304-3), SOUTH KOREA (28/10/2011 / 10-2013-7012177), EURASIA (28/10/2011 / 201300407), UNITED ARAB EMIRATES (28/10/2011 / 474/2013), ISRAEL (28/10/2011 / 225998), MALAYSIA (28/10/2011 / PI2013001538), AFRICAN ORGANIZATION (28/10/2011 / 1201300175), QATAR (28/10/2011 / QA/201304/00069), SINGAPORE (28/10/2011 / 201303397-2), THAILAND (28/10/2011 / 1301002257), VIETNAM (28/10/2011 / 1-2013-01362). 2/ PATENT: "SLG bis": WATER CLARIFICATION METHOD AND DEVICE GRANTED (FILING DATE / FILING REFERENCE NUMBER) 157 • Orege North America Inc. • 100 Chamisa Road • Covington, GA 30016 • ARGENTINA (28/10/2011 / -), SINGAPORE (28/10/2011 / 201303354-3). PUBLISHED (PUBLICATION DATE / FILING REFERENCE NUMBER) FRANCE (04/05/2012 / 41033), PCT (03/05/2012 / 41032), EURO/PCT (04/09/2013 / 41521), GERMANY (04/09/2013 / 41521), SPAIN (04/09/2013 / 41521), FRANCE (04/09/2013 / 41521), GREAT BRITAIN (04/09/2013 / 41521), GRECE (04/09/2013 / 41521), ITALY (04/09/2013 / 41521), ALBANIA (04/09/2013 / 41521), AUSTRIA (04/09/2013 / 41521), BULGARIA (04/09/2013 / 41521), CROATIE (04/09/2013 / 41521), CHYPRE (04/09/2013 / 41521), BELGIUM (04/09/2013 / 41521), DENMARK (04/09/2013 / 41521), ESTONIA (04/09/2013 / 41521), FINLAND (04/09/2013 / 41521), HUNGARY (04/09/2013 / 41521), IRELAND (04/09/2013 / 41521), SWEEDEN (04/09/2013 / 41521), ICELAND (04/09/2013 / 41521), LATVIA (04/09/2013 / 41521), LUXEMBURG (04/09/2013 / 41521), LITHUANIA (04/09/2013 / 41521), REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA (04/09/2013 / 41521), NORWAY (04/09/2013 / 41521), MALTA (04/09/2013 / 41521), MONACO (04/09/2013 / 41521), NETHERLANDS (04/09/2013 / 41521), POLAND (04/09/2013 / 41521), PORTUGAL (04/09/2013 / 41521), CZECH REPUBLIC (04/09/2013 / 41521), ROMANIA (04/09/2013 / 41521), SERBIA (04/09/2013 / 41521), SLOVAKIA (04/09/2013 / 41521), TURKEY (04/09/2013 / 41521), SLOVENIA (04/09/2013 / 41521), SWITZERLAND (04/09/2013 / 41521), EURO/DIVISION (21/01/2015 / 42025), SOUTH AFRICA (31/10/2013 / 41578), CHINA (25/09/2013 / 41542), CHILE (27/09/2013 / 41544), INDIA (21/11/2014 / 41964), USA (29/08/2013 / 41515), JAPAN (07/11/2013 / 41585), NEW ZEALAND (26/03/2014 / 41724), MEXICO (12/09/2013 / 41529), HONG KONG (13/06/2014 / 41803). FILED PENDING EXAMINATION (FILING DATE / FILING REFERENCE NUMBER) AUSTRALIA (28/10/2011 / 2011322382), BAHREIN (28/10/2011 / BP47/2013), BRAZIL (28/10/2011 / BR112013009994-1), CANADA (28/10/2011 / 2815958), SOUTH KOREA (28/10/2011 / 10-2013-7012175), EURASIA (28/10/2011 / 201300406), UNITED ARAB EMIRATES (28/10/2011 / 476/2013), INDONESIA (28/10/2011 / W-00201301770), ISRAEL (28/10/2011 / 225999), MALAYSIA (28/10/2011 / PI2013001537), AFRICAN ORGANIZATION (28/10/2011 / 1201300174), QATAR (28/10/2011 / QA/201304/00070), THAILAND (28/10/2011 / 1301002258), TURKEY (28/10/2011 / 13/5044), VIETNAM (28/10/2011 / 1-2013-01363). 3/ PATENT: "SLG HC": METHOD FOR RECOVERING HYDROCARBONS FROM A SLUDGE AND DEVICE FOR SAME GRANTED (FILING DATE / FILING REFERENCE NUMBER) PUBLISHED (PUBLICATION DATE / FILING REFERENCE NUMBER) FRANCE (08/11/2013 / 41586), PCT (07/11/2013 / 41585). FILED PENDING EXAMINATION (FILING DATE / FILING REFERENCE NUMBER) 4/ PATENT: "SLG PRESSURE": ROCESS AND DEVICE FOR TREATING LIQUID SLUDGES, AND SLUDGE CAKES OBTAINED WITH SUCH A PROCESS 158 • Orege North America Inc. • 100 Chamisa Road • Covington, GA 30016 • GRANTED (FILING DATE / FILING REFERENCE NUMBER) LEBANON (26/11/2014 / 4223). PUBLISHED (PUBLICATION DATE / FILING REFERENCE NUMBER) FRANCE (29/05/2015 / 42153), PCT (04/06/2015 / 42159). FILED PENDING EXAMINATION (FILING DATE / FILING REFERENCE NUMBER) ARGENTINA (26/11/2014 / P140104421), KUWEIT (27/11/2014 / PA162/2014), VENEZUELA (27/11/2014 / 2014-001392), PAKISTAN (22/05/2015 / 295/2015). 5/ PATENT: "SLG POROUS": METHOD FOR DEODERIZING SLUDGE AND DEVICE FOR IMPLEMENTING SUCH A METHOD GRANTED (FILING DATE / FILING REFERENCE NUMBER) LEBANON (26/11/2014 / 4222). PUBLISHED (PUBLICATION DATE / FILING REFERENCE NUMBER) FRANCE (29/05/2015 / 42153), PCT (04/06/2015 / 42159). FILED PENDING EXAMINATION (FILING DATE / FILING REFERENCE NUMBER) ARGENTINA (26/11/2014 / P140104422), KUWEIT (27/11/2014 / PA163/2014), VENEZUELA (27/11/2014 / 2014-001388), PAKISTAN (22/05/2015 / 293/2015). 6/ PATENT: "SLG SPEED": PROCESS AND DEVICE FOR TREATING LIQUID SLUDGES AND SLUDGE CAKES OBTAINED WITH SUCH A PROCESS GRANTED (FILING DATE / FILING REFERENCE NUMBER) LEBANON (26/11/2014 / 4225). PUBLISHED (PUBLICATION DATE / FILING REFERENCE NUMBER) FRANCE (29/05/2015 / 42153), FRANCE (29/05/2015 / 42153), PCT (04/06/2015 / 42159). FILED PENDING EXAMINATION (FILING DATE / FILING REFERENCE NUMBER) ARGENTINA (26/11/2014 / P140104424), KUWEIT (27/11/2014 / PA164/2014), VENEZUELA (27/11/2014 / 2014-001390), PAKISTAN (22/05/2015 / 294/2015). 7/ PATENT APPLICATION: "IMPROVED PURIFICATION": PROCESS FOR RECIRCULATING PURIFIED WATER UPSTREAM OF AN AEROBIC BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT BASIN, AFTER SEPARATION OF THE WATER FROM THE BIOLOGICAL SLUDGE THAT HAS BEEN PRODUCED BY THIS BASIN AND THEN DECANTED. THIS SEPARATION OCCURS AFTER FLOCCULATION OF AN AIR/SLUDGE EMULSION PRODUCED BY A CONTINUOUS PROCESS ENABLING THE INTERACTION OF SLUDGE AND AIR IN AN ENCLOSED SPACE ALTERNATING AT LEAST ONE SEQUENCE OF COMPRESSION/DEPRESSION. THE WATER HAS THE BENEFICIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF A SUSPENDED MATTER CONTENT LESS THAN 100 MG/L AND A REDOX POTENTIAL GREATER THAN 100 MV. 159 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-883 Agenda Date:10/25/2023 Version:1 Item #:10. Report regarding a resolution adopting the draft Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan.(Joshua Richardson,Parks Division Manager) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council be apprised of the updates to the draft Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan since it was last presented to the City Council and approve a resolution adopting the draft Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan which will guide future activities,improvements and maintenance on Sign Hill. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION In June 2023,staff presented a progress report regarding the development of the Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan before the City Council.Staff gave a presentation highlighting the public outreach efforts and feedback that the community had provided.Additionally,staff sought feedback and guidance from City Council regarding the efforts that had been undertaken.At that time,wayfinding signage,parking,and accessibility were discussed by City Council as areas to further explore.These recommendations were studied and incorporated into the Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan. The Master Plan serves as a guiding document with conceptual ideas that may need more in-depth studies, however,provides a framework to strive toward.Parking and additional access areas are examples where a comprehensive design process is required.An additional round of outreach was also requested by the City Council and was conducted via a town hall format and survey in both English and Spanish. This additional survey was conducted in July 2023.Forty-three residents responded to the survey.Bilingual notification of that survey was distributed via social media,e-blasts,printed media,flyers and by hosting a table at the local Farmer’s Market with bilingual staff. Additionally,on July 12,Parks Division staff hosted a town hall listening event at the Municipal Service Building.This event was advertised via the same media formats as the survey.Residents attended the event and provided robust discussion and feedback on the options presented.Both the survey and the town hall posed the same questions and were seeking further feedback on the topics refined from the initial phase of outreach. For trail alignments,residents preferred trail option 3,which provides the greatest number of trails for users while accommodating sensitive habitat.Residents were also most interested in volunteering in the field by restoring native habitat.In terms of amenity materiality,the most popular choice was reclaimed wood. Residents also preferred modern signage made of wood or metal (a close second)that focused on topics including native plants,history,and scenic views.A detailed summary of the results of the second phase of outreach are attached to this report and can be found within the master plan as well. After the second round of outreach concluded,the consultant team worked to create a rough draft which staff then thoroughly reviewed and returned for final comment incorporation. With the final review process concluded,staff have brought the draft Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan beforeCity of South San Francisco Printed on 10/20/2023Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™160 File #:23-883 Agenda Date:10/25/2023 Version:1 Item #:10. With the final review process concluded,staff have brought the draft Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan before the Parks and Recreation Commission for their review,and now the City Council for adoption.The Parks and Recreation Commission unanimously approved the plan on October 17, 2023. This master plan will serve as the guiding document for activities and maintenance on Sign Hill for the next 25 years and may be periodically updated as needed as conditions on the hill may change over time. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The master plan being presented to the City Council is setting forth guiding policies,anticipated goals and planned programs,but do not actually commit the City to adopt or fund any projects or programs.The City is able to revisit the master plans and the programs contained therein and make subsequent revisions as desired. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)Guidelines Section 15061,environmental analysis requirements only apply to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment as it is only a master visioning document,the activity is not subject to CEQA.Additionally,under CEQA Guidelines section 15262,a feasibility or planning study for possible future actions which the City has not approved or funded does not require the preparation of an EIR or negative declaration.In reviewing the proposed master plan,the approval of guiding policies,anticipated goals and planned programs by the City Council does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment as no project commitment or funding has been made,and individual improvement projects,should they be undertaken by the City,will be evaluated for environmental effects and applicable mitigation during their respective design and approval phases.Therefore,approval of the proposed master plan is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and no further CEQA action would be required at this time. FISCAL IMPACT Funding for the Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan is provided entirely by a Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)grant and will have no impact on the General Fund.Future initiatives to address recommendations in the plan may be funded as budget allows.These will be considered separately,outside of the plan adoption. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN The Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan supports the City’s Strategic Plan Priority #2:Quality of Life by providing safe and sustainable open space recreation opportunities;Priority #4:Public Safety by providing a guiding document to create more accessible and safer pathways while also helping address wildfire fuel load reduction;and Priority #6:Community Connections by providing conceptual plans for a trail system that connects multiple neighborhoods and restoration work that provides a significant opportunity for volunteerism for residents. CONCLUSION It is recommended that the City Council review and adopt the draft Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan as presented.Adoption of this master plan will mark the first time a master plan has been created for Sign Hill and will exemplify the City’s dedication to preserving the most ecologically important site in the City as well as providing healthy and accessible open space to all residents of and visitors to South San Francisco. City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/20/2023Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™161 Sign Hill Master Plan John Baas (WRA) Robin Graham (WRA) JUNE 2023 Daniel Shafir-Schorr (Gates + Associates) 162 2 163 Overview •Recap •Expanded Outreach •Key Results •Priority Recommendations 3 164 Previously on Sign Hill Master Plan… •Cultural - low likelihood of buried resources •Biological – High potential for special status species •Trail Condition - erosion and visitor created trails •Trail Use – Local visitors hiking and dog walking 4 165 Previously on Sign Hill Master Plan… •Community Outreach (Round 1) – •Preferences for opportunities for exercise, native plants and animals •Desired trail improvements, interpretive signage, and seating 5 166 Updates •Refined trail reroute concepts •Hosted an in-person Town Hall event and online survey for feedback •Identified priority locations for restoration •Prepared final Open Space Master Plan 6 167 Expanded Community Outreach Round 2 Promotion •Social Media posts to City channels •Email to Round 1 respondents •Table at farmers’ market 7 In-person Town Hall (July 12) •Approx. 13 participants Online Survey (July 12-27) •Survey received 43 responses English and Spanish Language Materials 168 8 Community Outreach Town Hall and Survey Results Furnishings and Engagement Preferences •Preferred volunteer program: native habitat restoration •Preferred interpretive topics: native plants and animals •Preferred materials: wood (reclaimed) •Preferred style: modern •Volunteer opportunities •Interpretive signage topics •Signage and seating styles/materials 169 9 Community Outreach Town Hall and Survey Results Trail Concepts Preferences •Trail Option 3 (66%) •Trail Option 2 (17%) •Trail Option 1 (7%) •3 trail concepts •Which option do you prefer •What do you like/don’t like 170 10 Results and Findings Community Outreach TRAIL CONCEPT COMMUNITY FEEDBACK Trail Option 1 Trail Option 2 Trail Option 3 Most Liked (Pro) •Minimally disruptive to the natural habitat •Good preservation of open space •Reduction of grades •Switchbacks •More accessible trails, easier to walk/hike •Less features, easier to maintain •Eucalyptus Trail Least Liked (Con) •Not enough improvement of site accessibility •Doesn’t add much to site •Not much variety or enhancement of features •Letters trail still too steep Most Liked (Pro) •Steps are a great addition •Combination of stairs and switchbacks improves accessibility •Minimal impact on natural environment Least Liked (Con) •Stairs are not needed •Stairs are harder to maintain •Stairs could be a tripping hazard Most Liked (Pro) •Expanded trail options allows more exploration •Trail variety •Improved access •Seubert/Iris extension •Liberty Trail •Stairs and switchbacks make trails easier and safer Least Liked (Con) •Too many trails, too complicated •Trail configuration too invasive, will negatively impact the natural environment •Stairs •Impact on neighborhood 171 172 Priority Recommendations •Conduct protocol-level surveys for special-status species. •Stabilize letters with guidance from architectural historian. •Repair trail erosion in current alignments. •Remove regrowing acacia and eucalyptus. •Realign and construct new trails. •Habitat restoration and fire fuels management. 12 173 Priorities for Habitat Restoration •Target rock outcroppings and less disturbed areas for expansion of golden violet. •Plant native nectar plants around existing larval host plant populations. •Continue invasive plant removal in grasslands. •Remove previously cut down acacia and eucalyptus that are regrowing . 13 174 175 15 Next Steps •Plan approval and adoption •Some recommended actions may require permits and/or CEQA review 176 Thank You! QUESTIONS / COMMENTS? 177 SIGN HILL PARK Draft Open Space Master Plan 178 PREPARED FOR: City of South San Francisco 33 Arroyo Dr. South San Francisco, CA 94080 Joshua Richardson; Parks Division Manager Joshua.Richardson@ssf.net PREPARED BY: WRA, Inc. 2169 G East Francisco Boulevard San Rafael, CA 94901 John Baas, Senior Public Access Planner baas@wra-ca.com IN COORDINATION WITH: Gates + Associates 1655 N Main St, Ste 365 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Casey Case casey@dgates.com Tom Origer & Associates P.O. Box 1531 Rohnert Park, CA 94927 Julia Karnowski julia@origer.com WRA#320458 | September 2023 179 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 i Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................ 1 1.2.1 Objectives ......................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................ 4 1.3.1 Federal and State Regulations ........................................................................ 4 1.3.2 City of South San Francisco Parks & Recreation Master Plan ....................... 4 1.3.3 Shape SSF: 2040 General Plan ........................................................................ 6 1.3.4 City of South San Francisco Urban Forest Master Plan ................................. 8 1.3.5 City of South San Francisco Policies ............................................................... 9 2.0 HISTORY OF SIGN HILL ........................................................................................................... 10 2.1 Cultural Resources Assessment ................................................................................. 10 2.2 Prehistoric Era ............................................................................................................. 10 2.3 Historic Era ................................................................................................................. 11 2.3.1 Spanish Explorers and the Ohlone ................................................................ 11 2.3.2 The City of South San Francisco ................................................................... 11 2.3.3 Hillside Sign .................................................................................................... 12 2.3.4 Former structure: The World’s Largest Electric Sign ................................... 12 2.4 Present Day ................................................................................................................. 13 2.4.1 Parks and Recreation Acquisition ................................................................. 13 2.4.2 Tree Planting and Endangered Butterflies .................................................... 13 2.4.3 Current Structures .......................................................................................... 13 2.5 Cultural Resources Assessment Findings .................................................................. 14 3.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................................ 14 3.1 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types ..................................................... 14 3.1.1 Tree Groves .................................................................................................... 15 3.1.2 Shrubland ....................................................................................................... 16 3.1.3 Native Grassland ............................................................................................ 16 3.1.4 Non-native Grassland .................................................................................... 17 3.1.5 Developed Land ............................................................................................. 17 3.2 Soils ............................................................................................................................. 19 3.3 Sensitive Plant Species............................................................................................... 21 3.4 Sensitive Wildlife Species ........................................................................................... 22 3.5 Wildlife Corridors ........................................................................................................ 24 180 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 ii 4.0 WILDFIRE HAZARDS ................................................................................................................ 25 4.1.1 Fire History and Hazards ............................................................................... 25 4.1.2 Fuels Management ........................................................................................ 25 5.0 TRAILS AND VISITATION ........................................................................................................ 27 5.1 Facilities ...................................................................................................................... 27 5.2 Trail Condition ............................................................................................................ 27 5.3 Visitation and Activity Type....................................................................................... 31 6.0 CURRENT OPERATIONS .......................................................................................................... 32 6.1 Letters Maintenance................................................................................................... 32 6.2 Trail Maintenance ....................................................................................................... 32 6.3 Vegetation Management and Habitat Restoration .................................................. 32 6.3.1 Invasive Plant and Fuel Removal .................................................................. 33 6.3.2 Native and Butterfly Habitat Restoration .................................................... 33 6.3.3 Sensitive Species Monitoring ......................................................................... 33 7.0 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ................................................................................................... 33 7.1 Current Engagement Programs .................................................................................. 33 7.2 Master Planning Outreach ......................................................................................... 34 7.2.1 Round One ...................................................................................................... 34 7.2.2 Round Two ..................................................................................................... 38 8.0 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................... 41 8.1 Identify Focus Areas for Restoration ......................................................................... 41 8.1.1 Expand Native Vegetation Restoration Areas .............................................. 41 8.1.2 Enhance and Protect Butterfly Habitat ......................................................... 44 8.2 Improve Trail Safety and Ease of Use ....................................................................... 46 8.2.1 Repair Current Alignments ............................................................................ 46 8.2.2 Re-route Alignments and Construct New Trails ........................................... 47 8.2.3 Decommission Trails ...................................................................................... 48 8.3 Maintain Letters ......................................................................................................... 49 8.3.1 Maintenance of Historic Letters .................................................................... 49 8.4 Improve Visitor Experience and Increase Public Awareness.................................... 51 8.4.1 Improve Visitor Experience ............................................................................ 51 8.4.2 Improve Public Awareness ............................................................................ 52 8.5 Increase Resiliency Against Wildfire.......................................................................... 54 8.5.1 Wildfire Fuel Hazard Reduction .................................................................... 55 8.5.2 Neighbor Education ....................................................................................... 56 181 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 iii 9.0 IMPLEMENTATION PRIORITIES AND TIMING ........................................................................ 57 9.1 Priority Actions ........................................................................................................... 58 9.2 Timing ......................................................................................................................... 60 9.3 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 64 10.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 64 List of Tables Table 1. Protected Trees ....................................................................................................................... 9 Table 2. Land Cover Types on Sign Hill ............................................................................................. 15 Table 3. Special-Status Plant Species ............................................................................................... 21 Table 4. Definitions of Trail Erosion Categories ................................................................................ 29 Table 5. Trail Slopes ............................................................................................................................ 29 Table 6. Community Outreach Results for Round One ...................................................................... 35 Table 7. Top Community Preferences from Pop-up Event ................................................................ 36 Table 8. Community Outreach Results for Round Two ..................................................................... 38 Table 9. Trail Concept Community Feedback from Town Hall ......................................................... 39 Table 10. Trail Concept Slopes ........................................................................................................... 48 Table 11. Recommendation Implementation Timing ........................................................................ 60 List of Figures Figure 1. Sign Hill Area and Regional Location .................................................................................... 3 Figure 2. Vegetation Communities ...................................................................................................... 18 Figure 3. Soils ....................................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 4. Trail Condition Assessment .................................................................................................. 30 Figure 5. Priority Restoration Areas .................................................................................................... 43 Figure 6. Conceptual Trail Plan (Trail Option 3)................................................................................. 50 182 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 iv List of Appendices APPENDIX A. SUPPLEMENTAL BIOLOGICAL SITE ASSESSMENT APPENDIX B. CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY APPENDIX C. TRAILS AND VISITATION ASSESSMENT APPENDIX D. COMMUNITY OUTREACH MATERIALS APPENDIX E. RESTORATION WORK SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES List of Preparers WRA, INC. Leslie Lazarotti Principal in Charge John Baas Project Manager Robin Graham Public Access Planner Liv Niederer Associate Environmental Planner Brian Freiermuth Terrestrial Biologist Ivy Poisson Plant Biologist Neal Jander GIS Analyst GATES + ASSOCIATES Casey Case President Rebecca Flanegan Outreach Coordinator Daniel Shafir-Shor Landscape Designer Alexa Hozouri Junior Landscape Designer TOM ORIGER & ASSOCIATES Julia Karnowski Senior Associate Eileen Barrow Senior Associate CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Josh Richardson Parks Division Manager, Parks and Recreation Candace LaCroix Natural Resources Specialist, Parks and Recreation Greg Mediati Director, Parks and Recreation 183 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 v List of Acronyms and Abbreviations BCC USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern BGEPA Bald & Golden Eagle Protection Act BIOS Biogeographic Information & Observation System BMP Best Management Practice BRA Biological Resources Assessment CALFIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CCR California Code of Regulations CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CE Categorical Exemption CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California Endangered Species Act CFGC California Fish and Game Code CFR Code of Federal Regulations CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNPS California Native Plant Society Corps United States Army Corps of Engineers County County of San Mateo CRLF California Red-Legged Frog CRPR California Rare Plant Ranking CWA Clean Water Act EPA Environmental Protection Agency FE Federally Endangered FESA Federal Endangered Species Act MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark OSMP Open Space Master Plan PCA Priority Conservation Area PROS Parks Recreation and Open Space Rank California Rare Plant Rank RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SE State Endangered SOC Species of Concern SOD Sudden Oak Death SSC Species of Special Concern SSF City of South San Francisco SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board UFMP Urban Forest Master Plan USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey 184 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 vi Executive Summary The need for an Open Space Master Plan (OSMP) for Sign Hill is demonstrated by the unique history, wildlife, and habitats and corresponding management and maintenance needs. The City of South San Francisco’s (SSF) Sign Hill’s need for specialized management techniques is identified in Recommendation R-10.2 from the SSF’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2015), which is to “actively manage Sign Hill habitat for protection and restoration of its unique habitat.” Specific items relevant to Sign Hill under R-10.2 include: • Protect and restore essential habitat for special-status species • Protect and restore native grasslands • Provide ongoing management of invasive plant species • Balance retention of non-native trees with native habitat restoration • Determine if designation of Sign Hill as a Priority Conservation Area is appropriate To prepare this OSMP, WRA Inc. (WRA) relied on Gates + Associates (Gates) to conduct all public outreach and Tom Origer & Associates (Origer) to conduct a cultural resource study. WRA conducted several technical studies to better understand existing conditions on Sign Hill, which included an update to a 2015 Biological Resources Assessment (BRA), a trail condition assessment and a visitor use study. Preparing this OSMP is partially funded by and must meet the requirements of a grant from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). EXISTING CONDITIONS Updating the BRA involved conducting a site visit to map land cover types, document plant and wildlife species present, and evaluate on-site habitat for the potential to support special-status species. Prior to the site visit, WRA biologists reviewed literature resources and performed database searches to assess the potential for sensitive biological communities (e.g., wetlands) and special-status species (e.g., threatened and endangered flora and fauna). Land Cover In addition to several relatively small, developed areas (e.g., water tanks) four land cover types were found including tree groves, native grassland, non-native grassland, and scrubland. Three soil series are mapped within Sign Hill; Candlestick-Kron-Buriburi complex, 30–75 percent slopes; Orthents, cut and fill, 15–75 percent slopes; and Urban land-Orthents, cut and fill complex, 5 –75 percent slopes. Each of these soil series are described in greater detail below and are shown on Figure 3. Generally, the soils within Sign Hill are slightly acidic and non-saline to very slightly saline. Special-status Species Sign Hill provides habitat for the federally endangered mission blue and callippe silverspot butterflies and has the potential for various species of wildlife to occur. Several special-status and common bat species -including pallid bat, fringed myotis, and western red bat- have potential to occur in large trees in the Study Area. Dusky footed woodrat has potential to occur in forested areas, especially where dense undergrowth is present and in areas with dense brush. Olive-sided flycatcher and white-tailed kite have a limited potential to nest within Sign Hill, but nesting cannot be ruled out. 185 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 vii Of the 89 special-status plant species documented within Sign Hill and its vicinity, 10 have at least moderate potential to occur in Sign Hill. These species include: • Bent flowered fiddleneck • Coast rockcress • Coastal triquetrella • Diablo helianthella • San Francisco collinsia • San Francisco wallflower • San Francisco gumplant • San Francisco campion • San Francisco owl’s clover • Scouler ’s catchfly Cultural Resources The cu ltural resources study conducted by Origer and found no history of structures beyond the concrete letters of the historic hillside sign, and that Sign Hill has low sensitivity for buried resources. Origer contacted the Native American Heritage Center (NAHC) to determine if any tribes might have an interest in the OSMP for Sign Hill. The NAHC replied with a letter dated April 3, 2023, which indicated that the Sacred Lands File had no information about the presence of Native American cultural resources in the project area. Any work that might be needed to maintain the hillside sign, which is on the National Register and the California Register of Historic Places, should be first evaluated by an architectural historian. The hillside sign reads “South San Francisco The Industrial City,” and is a series of painted concrete letters that face south along the San Francisco Peninsula. This evaluation would be done to ensure whatever work may be performed would meet the guidelines described in The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings. As noted in the cultural resources study, a few remains of the former electrical sign that once stood on the ridge of Sign Hill and some glass fragments were observed. These remains were not considered to be important when Goldenberg and Carroll (1996) were conducting their evaluation of the hillside sign. Thus, no recommendations are required for the remains of the former electrical sign that are located on the ridge top. Trail Conditions Evaluation of trail conditions was conducted during two site visits. The first visit involved applying a quantitative erosion ratings system to all official trails. The second evaluation was qualitative and focused on specific trail segments where improvements could be made. During the first site visit, three areas of significant erosion were found on the Ridge Trail, Iris Trail, and Letters Trail. Visitor-created trails and trail “braids” were mapped and found in multiple locations, notably around and accessing the letters comprising the hillside sign. During the second site visit, areas along the Ridge Trail were identified where trail re-routing or improved erosion control are needed. The second site visit also involved assessing conditions along the Eucalyptus Loop and Seubert Trail. 186 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 vii Visitor Data: Collecting visitor data was done with automated counters that were installed at the Ridgeview Court and Poplar Avenue trailheads for two weeks in March plus one day of manual counts near the Spruce Ave trailhead on April 1, since one of the automated counters was stolen. Estimated use is 100 visits on weekdays, and 170 visits on weekends. Around 1/3 of visitors counted were observed participating in dog walking, while the majority were hiking. The specific assumptions used to integrate the manual counts with automated counts can be fo und in Appendix C. PUBLIC OUTREACH Public outreach for the OSMP was conducted in two rounds by Gates with outreach materials provided in both English and Spanish. Round one was conducted early in the planning process (initiated March 13, 2023) to better understand what people liked about Sign Hill and what they desired to see improved or added. An online survey, as well as an in-person pop-up event (April 1, 2023), at Sign Hill was used to collect public feedback during round one. The online survey received 428 responses over the course of three weeks, with 422 in English and six in Spanish. The one-day pop-up event had 28 participants with two participants speaking Spanish. One SSF staff member spoke Spanish and conversed with the two individuals who spoke Spanish. Results of the survey and pop-up event showed that the elements people like the most about Sign Hill were the trails and opportunity for exercise, views, and the native flora and fauna . Survey respondents indicated the conditions of the trails, signage about flora and fauna , and availability of seating could be improved. Round two of public outreach was conducted mid-way through the planning process (initiated May 5, 2023) to gather feedback on proposed improvements based on the topics identified in round one. SSF’s Park and Recreation Commission was briefed on the planning process and draft OSMP status on May 16, 2023, and City Council was briefed on June 28, 2023. Through an in- person town hall event (July 12, 2023) and an online survey, people identified what they liked or disliked about potential trail realignments, interpretive signage topics, signage materials, and seating styles. At the town hall event community members were presented with three hypothetical trail re-routing scenarios, each of which included the addition of new trails. The most popular scenario featured larger trail reroutes and the greatest addition of new trails. However, some participants expressed their opposition to the addition of new trails in favor of habitat preservation. Participants also expressed their preferences for interpretive signage to cover a variety of topics including cultural and natural history as well as views from Sign Hill. Finally, the style of signage and seating people preferred was modern but using natural materials like wood. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations in this OSMP are a compilation of the processes previously noted as well as information provided by SSF staff. Key, time-sensitive recommendations for the management of Sign Hill include performing a geotechnical evaluation with oversight by an architectural historian of the historic hillside letters. This is considered urgent because of the areas of erosion that formed between the letters during the winter storms of 2022-2023. An additional time-sensitive recommendation focuses on habitat restoration for locations where non-native trees were burned in the 2020 wildfire or cut down as a result of fire damage and are now regrowing. The next steps of complete removal of invasive trees and tree regrowth and the installing of native species should be implemented as soon as possible. The longer these areas 187 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 ix are left to regrow, the more challenging and costly the full removal of the trees will be. SSF staff have been managing this regrowth to the greatest extent possible, but more resources are needed. Finally, there is a need for protocol level surveys for all special-status species with at least moderate potential to occur on Sign Hill, in particular, the above referenced butterfly special- status species. This is a critical recommendation and should precede any habitat restoration, as recommended below. Additional key recommendations centered on habitat restoration include ongoing habitat enhancement and monitoring of the mission blue butterfly and the callippe silverspot butterfly, their host plants, and several rare plant species, as well as continuation of fire fuel reduction efforts. Key recommendations for improving visitor experiences include reducing erosion on the trail and addressing locations identified as having high erosion, in some cases this includes trail realignment. Other key recommendations include the installation of improved wayfinding and interpretive signage, seating, and the construction of new trails. 188 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 x THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 189 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION Sign Hill is made up of 65 acres of grassland and scrub brush and is managed by the City of South San Francisco’s Parks and Recreation Department. Sign Hill is situated in the northern end of the City of South San Francisco (SSF) and overlooks a residential neighborhood and downtown area (Figure 1). A large hillside sign of painted concrete letters has been the namesake for Sign Hill for nearly 100 years. In a 1928 special election, SSF voters approved a property tax raise to fund the construction of huge concrete letters on the side of the San Bruno Mountains proclaiming, “SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO THE INDUSTRIAL CITY.” The Chamber of Commerce- proposed sign was intended to attract businesses and homeowners to San Francisco’s industrial suburb. Sign Hill features approximately two miles of hiking trails that showcase views of the San Francisco Bay and surrounding areas. Visitors to Sign Hill can enjoy activities such as hiking, on-leash dog walking, sightseeing, bird watching, and photography. 1.1 Background Sign Hill provides important habitat for wildlife species, including the endangered mission blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides missionensis) and callippe silverspot butterfly (Speyeria callippe callippe). Existing vegetation at Sign Hill reflects past practices of cattle grazing, with many non- native grasses dominating large swaths of land punctuated by non-native and highly invasive forbs and shrubs; however, native grasslands that provide high quality habitat for special-status butterfly species continue to occupy most of the upper elevations of Sign Hill’s ridgeline and extend onto both the public and private parcels to the north and northeast. Larval host plants of these butterfly species are scattered through these grasslands. Host plants consist of silver bush lupine (Lupinus albifrons var. collinus) and Lindley’s varied lupine (Lupinus variicolor) for the mission blue butterfly and golden violet (Viola pedunculata) for the callippe silverspot butterfly. For years, non-native and invasive trees were planted intentionally on Sign Hill either by residents or through city-led programs. At the time, these plantings were well intentioned, but the detrimental impacts to the native habitat and increased wildfire risks were not realized until many years later. Recently, SSF has been removing trees from Sign Hill to proactively reduce wildfire fuels while also serving as part of native habitat restoration for resident endangered butterflies. The historic sign is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historic Resources. Recent extreme storms caused erosion threatening the stability of the letters. Existing trails around the letters are also experiencing erosion due to their locations on steep slopes. 1.2 Purpose and Need The need for an OSMP for Sign Hill is demonstrated by the distinctive history, wildlife, and habitats and corresponding unique management and maintenance needs. Sign Hill’s need for unique management needs is identified in SSF’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan (City of South San Francisco, 2015) and the City of South San Francisco Urban Forest Master Plan (City of South San Francisco, 2020).This OSMP will be the first master plan prepared for Sign Hill. Once adopted, the OSMP will provide guidance over a 20-year period and be reassessed when required as goals are achieved. It is important to note that this OSMP is conceptual. Any recommendations implemented may be subject to additional environmental analysis or other 190 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 2 review processes. For any recommendations regarding trail improvements or for stabilizing the letters, geotechnical and structural engineering evaluations will likely be required. The purpose of Sign Hill’s OSMP is to: 1) Identify the need to protect and restore habitat features required by endangered butterfly species, 2) identify opportunities to create and/or improve appropriate forms of public access; focusing on accessibility, 3) highlight the need to continue the management and mitigate of wildfire hazards, and 4) support further study into whether designation as a Priority Conservation Area (PCA) under the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is appropriate for Sign Hill. In recent years, SSF has focused on mitigating wildfire hazards and enhancing and restoring habitat for the endangered species on Sign Hill. SSF Parks and Recreation staff are also aware that accommodating and improving public access is critical to residents enjoying the open space, while ensuring sensitive habitat areas are protected. The Covid-19 pandemic highlighted how critical outdoor recreation is, especially for residents of more urbanized places. Sign Hill is surrounded by residential neighborhoods and serves as a resource not only for those residents, but also for residents of neighboring cities with fewer open spaces and outdoor recreation opportunities. Sign Hill is South San Francisco’s only true remaining “open space” and as such is an invaluable resource to residents and visitors. As participation in outdoor recreation and visitation to open spaces increases, careful planning and management of these places is needed. For example, t he existing trail system needs to be improved in multiple locations; some locations were impacted by recent large scale tree removal efforts which buried portions of trail and unusually heavy rainstorms causing erosion. Other areas have been degraded over time due to human use and natural weathering. Finally, this OSMP will support the potential acquisition of adjacent private parcels and provide guidance for their future management. Acquiring the undeveloped parcels on the northern slopes of the hill adjacent to the existing park boundary has been a goal described in both the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and the Shape SSF: 2040 General Plan (City of South San Francisco 2022). 1.2.1 Objectives For Sign Hill to be maintained into the future, this OSMP has been developed with public input to enhance the restoration of sensitive biological resources, protect cultural resources, mitigate wildfire risk, guide trail improvements, and enhance visitor experiences. Based on the needs and purpose, this OSMP was designed to guide SSF’s management of Sign Hill focusing on five primary objectives: 1. Identify key areas for focusing future restoration efforts; 2. Improve trail safety and ease of use; 3. Maintain the historic sign letters; 4. Improve visitor experiences and increase public awareness; and 5. Increase resiliency against wildfire. In sections eight and nine of this OSMP existing operations and future considerations related to each objective are also addressed to provide a sense of the magnitude of recommendations. 191 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 3 Figure 1. Sign Hill Area and Regional Location 192 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 4 1.3 Regulatory Setting The Sign Hill OSMP has been developed to comply with relevant federal and state regulations as well as existing general and master plans of SSF. Ensuring the draft OSMP is consistent with these regulations and plans provides the foundation for any future environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), or any potential project permitting. 1.3.1 Federal and State Regulations Specific species of plants, fish, and wildlife may be designated as threatened or endangered by the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), or the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). The ESA also provides for designation of critical habitat, which are specific geographic areas containing physical or biological features “essential to the conservation of the species.” A species’ designation under one law does not automatically provide protection under the other. Special protections for nesting birds and breeding bats are also provided by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code. Under the California Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has listed 64 “rare” or “endangered” plant species, and prevents “take,” with few exceptions, of these species. Plant species on the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare and Endangered Plant Inventory (Inventory; CNPS 2023a) with California Rare Plant Ranks (Rank) of 1 and 2, as well as some Rank 3 species, are also considered special-status plant species. Sensitive natural communities include habitats that fulfill special functions or have special values. Natural communities considered sensitive are those identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW. The CDFW ranks sensitive communities as “threatened” or “very threatened” (CDFW 2023a) and keeps records of their occurrences in its California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFW 2023b). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulates “Waters of the U.S.” under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as waters susceptible to use in commerce, including interstate waters and wetlands, all non-wetland waters (intrastate waterbodies, including wetlands), and their tributaries (33 CFR 328.3). The term “Waters of the State” is defined by the Porter-Cologne Act as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) protect waters within this broad regulatory scope through many different regulatory programs. 1.3.2 City of South San Francisco Parks & Recreation Master Plan The Parks and Recreation Master Plan (PRMP) provides an inventory of all SSF’s parks and open spaces (as of 2015) and establishes goals and recommendations based on a trends analysis and community feedback (City of South San Francisco, 2015). The PRMP recommendation R-10.1 under Goal 10 is to “improve access to Sign Hill, San Bruno Mountain and the Bayfront.” Specific items relevant to Sign Hill under R-10.1 include: • Improve access points to Sign Hill. Improve the informational and wayfinding signage at the Poplar Avenue, Spruce Avenue, Diamond Avenue and Ridgeview Court trai l heads. Explore possible enhanced parking/access via an easement off Diamond Avenue and 193 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 5 parking at Spruce Avenue. Provide additional wayfinding signage to direct users to access points and parking. • Expand the area of Sign Hill by acquiring the privately owned parcels adjacent to City- owned land. Acquisition of these parcels would double the size of Sign Hill and provide additional access points from Larch Avenue and Ash Avenue.1 • Improve Sign Hill trails to reduce erosion and discourage off-trail use. Recommendation R-10.2 is to “actively manage Sign Hill habitat for protection and restoration of its unique habitat.” Specific items relevant to Sign Hill under R-10.2 include: • Pursue designation of Sign Hill as a Priority Conservation Area.2 o Expand the areas eligible for this designation by acquiring the privately held parcels adjacent to City-owned land. The two privately held parcels on the north side of Sign Hill contain some of the most pristine areas of highest habitat value. • Protect and restore essential habitat for special-status species. o Identify and protect suitable habitat for special-status plant species and listed invertebrate species, including mission blue butterfly, San Bruno elfin butterfly, and callippe silverspot butterfly. o Coordinate future sign maintenance, trail construction and decommissioning, and other improvements with resource agencies to ensure compliance with the state and federal Endangered Species Acts. o Pursue funding and implement habitat restoration to improve conditions for special-status species, including invasive species control and eradication, public access controls, and native revegetation. • Protect and restore native grasslands. o Identify, protect, and restore native grasslands as a sensitive natural plant community type with higher biological resource values. o Ensure future trail construction and other improvements are designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts on remaining native grasslands. o Pursue funding and implement habitat restoration to replace native grasslands damaged and lost as a result of past disturbance, trampling from informal trail use, and stands of invasive species. • Provide on-going treatment of invasive plant species. o Monitor and treat invasive plant species that would otherwise compromise natural habitat values. Problematic invasive species currently include sweet fennel, Italian thistle, short-pod mustard, French broom, and non-native tree species. o Target invasive species may change over time and include other species rated as having a “high” risk to natural habitat by the California Invasive Plant Council o Use a combination of available treatment practices to control and eradicate invasive species, while ensuring protection of sensitive biological resources including essential habitat for special-status species and native grasslands. • Balance retention of non-native trees with native habitat restoration. o Retain snags as potential habitat for cavity nesting birds and raptors 1 SSF acquired the private “Liberty” parcel near Larch Ave and Ash Ave in 2018. 2 Bulleted language is taken verbatim from the PRMP; however, the objective in regard to Priority Conservation Areas is to consider whether this designation is appropriate for Sign Hill. 194 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 6 o Control further spread of non-native trees given their exclusionary effect on the remaining native grasslands and endangered species habitat for the mission blue and callippe silverspot butterflies. o Consider removing non-native trees to expand and enhance native grasslands and habitat for special-status species. 1.3.3 Shape SSF: 2040 General Plan SSF’s 2040 General Plan establishes goals, policies, and action items related to parks and recreation (City of South San Francisco, 2022). A variety of goals, policies, and action items which are relevant to Sign Hill are summarized below from the Parks and Recreation, Community Resilience, Environmental Stewardship and Sub-areas sections of the General Plan. PARKS AND RECREATION GOAL PR-1: South San Francisco equitably provides improved parkland, recreational facilities, and services for all residents Policy PR-1.3: Design parks and facilities to meet universal access standards. Policy PR-1.4: Ensure equitable distribution of park and recreation opportunities. Policy PR-1.7: Identify needs of underserved groups. Policy PR-8.7: Expand environmental stewardship programs. Recognize the unique ecological resources in the city through expanded recreational programing about ecology and environmental stewardship. GOAL PR-3: South San Francisco maintains a network of open spaces that provide recreational opportunities and are managed to encourage healthy ecosystems, improve air and water quality, and adapt to a changing climate. Policy PR-3.1: Meet open space standard: Maintain a network of open spaces that achieves a standard of 1.5 acres of open space per 1,000 residents, preserving and seeking opportunities to expand open spaces areas like Sign Hill, along the San Francisco Bay and Colma Creek, and in other areas identified on Figure 31, while ensuring open spaces are accessible to people of all ages and abilities and support urban ecology. Policy PR-3.2: Minimize environmental impact of support facilities. Limit the construction of facilities in open space areas and design necessary improvements, such as fire roads, access roads, and parking facilities, to minimize environmental impacts and maintain the visual qualities of the open space. Policy PR-3.3: Create new public access points to open spaces. Seek opportunities to create new public access points to Sign Hill, San Bruno Mountain State and County Park, and the San Francisco Bay Trail and parks. GOAL PR-8: 8: Parks and recreational facilities have the appropriate staffing to offer high- quality recreational programs and offerings for residents of all ages. Policy PR-8.11: Explore park stewardship. Explore creating a program to train and hire SSF residents for maintenance and stewardship of open spaces. 195 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 7 COMMUNITY RESILIENCE GOAL CR-5: The City minimizes the risk to life and property from wildfire in South San Francisco. Policy CR-5.1: Implement Sign Hill wildfire mitigation measures. Continue to implement Sign Hill wildfire mitigation measures (i.e., restoration and maintenance of native grass and scrubland habitat, removal of non-native trees and trees killed in October 2020 fire, removal of dead trees due to drought and disease and maintenance of existing trails to function as fire breaks). Policy CR-5.2: Maintain a comprehensive fire management program. Maintain a comprehensive fire hazard management program to reduce fire hazards on other public lands. ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP GOAL ES-1: The City supports nature in South San Francisco to encourage healthy ecosystems, improve air and water quality, improve public health, and adapt to a changing climate. Policy ES-1.1: Develop a connected open space network. Continue to develop a system of well- connected parks and open spaces to support biodiversity, enable the movement of wildlife, and increase climate resilience. Policy ES-1.2: Strive for habitat diversity across the city. Strive for habitat diversity ranging from coastal wetlands and marshes to upland habitats. GOAL ES-6: Threatened and endangered wildlife and plant species thrive in South San Francisco. Policy ES-6.1: Catalog wildlife and plant inventories. Continue to catalog and update information on threatened and endangered species in the review of project proposals. Policy ES-6.2: Conduct wildlife and plant assessments for new development. Require assessments for new developments in areas that could impact threatened or endangered species. Policy ES-6.4: Manage and conserve natural areas at risk. Actively manage natural areas and landscapes threatened by human intervention and invasive species. GOAL ES-9: Protect important historic architectural resources for the aesthetic, educational, economic, and scientific contribution they make to South San Francisco. Policy ES-9.1: Maintain a Historic Resources Inventory. Maintain and update a Historic Resources Inventory at regular intervals to promote awareness of these community resources and as a tool to further their preservation. Give priority to identifying and establishing Historic Districts. Policy ES-9.2: Identify historic resources. Encourage the voluntary identification, conservation, and re-use of historical structures, properties, and sites with special and recognized historic, architectural, or aesthetic value. Policy ES-9.3: Encourage adaptive reuse of historic resources. Encourage historic resources to remain in their original use whenever possible. The adaptive use of historic resources is preferred, particularly as inns, vacation rentals, light commercial use, museums, educational facilities, or visitor-serving uses, when the original use can no longer be sustained. 196 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 8 SUB-AREAS GOAL SA-32: Paradise Valley/Terrabay is a safe and walkable neighborhood with convenient access to amenities. • Policy SA-32.1: Expand parks and open space. Expand parks and open space by evaluating opportunities along the PG&E corridor, the north face of Sign Hill, and the Terrabay Open Space. • Policy SA-32.7: Preserve the north side of Sign Hill. Preserve a substantial portion of the north side of Park as a public or private open space. • Policy SA-32.8: Limit development and excessive grading on the north side of Park. Limit the amount of development allowed on the north side of Sign Hill (discretionary at one unit per acre maximum). Do not permit excessive grading of this portion of the hill or clustering of development in the future. GOAL SA-33: Sign Hill is a walkable and attractive neighborhood that maintains a variety of housing options. • Policy SA-33.1: Preserve and protect open space on Sign Hill and protect from fire hazard risk. o Action SA-33.1.1: Proactively manage brush and vegetation in the Sign Hill open space to reduce fire risk. • Policy SA-33.2: Improve pedestrian connections to Sign Hill. Improve pedestrian connections from residential neighborhoods to Downtown San Francisco and Sign Hill open space access points, including Poplar Avenue, Ridgeview Court, and Diamond Avenue, by maintaining unimpeded sidewalks and incorporating wayfinding signage. • Policy SA-33.3: Preserve the federally designated Park historic site. 1.3.4 City of South San Francisco Urban Forest Master Plan The Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP) provides goals and associated objectives and actions for managing SSF’s “urban forest” including the trees within Sign Hill (City of South San Francisco, 2020)The primary purpose of the UFMP is to properly manage urban forest canopy while facilitating tree planting both on City and private property. The UFMP acknowledges the differences in tree management needed between the urban trees and the trees located within Sign Hill’s open space due to the presence of special-status species that rely on open grassland habitat and the propensity for wildfires. Namely, SSF aims to increase its urban forest while not allowing trees to be planted within Sign Hill. Sign Hill is mentioned in the “Enhance Community Safety” Focus Area: GOAL 8: Reduce the risk of fire and mitigate damage caused by fire. Objective: Focus fire mitigation efforts within Sign Hill and other areas of vulnerability. Sign Hill-specific Management Objectives: Create defensible space around homes adjacent to the open space • Reduce fuel loads • Create fuel breaks along roads, trails, and ridgelines The UFMP provides additional specific best practices for accomplishing these objectives within Sign Hill’s boundaries. These practices include: 197 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 9 removing competing vegetation to increase vertical and horizontal spacing and removing dead or dying trees and selectively thin forested areas. Specific strategies to employ to reduce fuels include 1) not removing healthy trees greater than 12-inches diameter, 2) removing dead or dying trees of any size class, 3) 50-70 percent of brush and slash shall be masticated or removed and chipped (achieve residual tree density of 50 to 100 trees per acre (20-foot spacing), 4) dead surface fuel depth shall be less than three inches, 5) retaining standing dead trees for wildlife habitat and 6) retaining dominant and co- dominant trees except where removal of codominant trees is needed to improve forest health and fire safety and as determined by a Registered Professional Forester. 1.3.5 City of South San Francisco Policies The City Municipal Code includes a Tree Protection Ordinance, described below. TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCE Table 1 outlines trees that are protected under City Municipal Code Chapter 13.30, “Tree Preservation,” and permits for removal or pruning of protected trees are administered by the Parks and Recreation Department. Table 1. Protected Trees SPECIES CIRCUMFERENCE1 STATUS California bay (Umbellularia californica) 30” Heritage Oak (Quercus spp.) 30” Heritage Cedar (Cedrus spp.) 30” Heritage California buckeye (Aesculus californica) 30” Heritage Catalina ironwood (Lyonothamnus asplenifolium) 30” Heritage Strawberry tree (Arbutus spp.) 30” Heritage Mayten (Maytenus boaria) 30” Heritage Little Gem Dwarf Magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora “Little Gem”) 30” Heritage Blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) 75” Protected Black acacia (Acacia melanoxylon) 75” Protected Myoporum (Myoporum lactum) 75” Protected Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) 75” Protected Glossy privet (Lingustrum lucidum) 75” Protected Lombardy poplar (Populus nigra) 75” Protected Any upright, single-trunked tree 48” Protected A tree or stand of trees that is unique/important to the public2 None specified Protected A stand of trees that are dependent on each other for survival None specified Protected 1 Measured at 54 inches above natural grade 2 As determined by the director of parks and recreation department of SSF It is unlawful to remove or prune protected or heritage trees, except as provided for in Section 13.30.070 (Emergencies) and as provided for in Section 13.30.060 (Notices and Permits) of the SSF’s Tree Protection Ordinance. An emergency might occur at Sign Hill due to storm damage or wildfire, rendering a heritage tree a public safety hazard. Tree Removal Permit conditions of approval may include: • 3:1 replacement ratio for each removed tree, with 15-gallon replacements; • 2:1 replacement ratio for each removed tree, with 24” x 24” box replacements; or • Fee payment to SSF’s tree fund, as specified in Section 13.30.080(d). 198 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 10 2.0 HISTORY OF SIGN HILL 2.1 Cultural Resources Assessment In support of this OSMP, an assessment of the historical and archaeological resources within the boundaries of Sign Hill was conducted by Tom Origer & Associates (Origer) in April 2023. The results of the assessment and recommendations for the future management of cultural resources in Sign Hill are presented in the report Cultural Resources Study for the Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan (Barrow 2023) (Appendix B). The purpose of the assessment was to identify potential historical resources at Sign Hill and provide recommendations for proper management of cultural resources throughout future management activities facilitated by implementation of the OSMP. Eleven studies have been conducted within a quarter mile of Sign Hill, where three buildings have been identified, but these do not extend into Sign Hill. These three buildings include: the South San Francisco Elks Lodge at 920 Stonegate Drive, Spruce School at 501 Spruce Avenue, and Martin School at 35 School Street. There have been no reported prehistoric villages or camps on or near Sign Hill and based on the cultural resource study analysis of landform age and environmental setting, there is low potential for buried archaeological resources. Archival research showed that Sign Hill had not been previously subjected to a cultural resources survey. However, the historic sign letters were evaluated prior to its listing on the National Register of Historic Places and California Register. During this evaluation, the historians noted the remains of the electrical sign above the letters, but considered the concrete footings and glass remains not historically important due to their poor condition and lack of integrity. 2.2 Prehistoric Era The concept of prehistory refers to the period before events were recorded in writing and vary worldwide. Because there is no written record, our understanding of California prehistory relies on archaeological materials and oral histories of native peoples passed down through generations. Early occupants (Ohlone/Costanoan) in what is now called the San Francisco Bay Area appear to have had an economy based largely on hunting, with limited exchange, and social structures based on the extended family unit. Later, milling technology and an inferred acorn economy were introduced. This diversification of economy appears to be co-evolved with the development of sedentism and population growth and expansion. The archaeological record also identifies sociopolitical complexity and status distinctions based on wealth, as evidenced by an increased range and distribution of trade goods (e.g., shell beads, obsidian tool stone), which are possible indicators of both status and increasingly complex exchange systems (Barrow, 2023). These horizons or periods are marked by a transition from large projectile points and milling slabs, indicating a focus on hunting and gathering during the Early Period, to a marine focus during the Middle Period evidenced by the number of shellmounds in the San Francisco Bay Area. The Middle Period also saw more reliance on acorns and the use of bowl-shaped mortars and pestles. Acorn exploitation increased during the Late Period and the bow and arrow were introduced (Barrow 2023). 199 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 11 Prehistoric archaeological site indicators expected to be found in the region include but are not limited to obsidian and chert flakes and chipped stone tools, grinding and mashing implements such as slabs and hand-stones, mortars and pestles, and locally darkened midden soils containing some of the previously listed items plus fragments of bone, shellfish, and fire-affected stones (Barrow 2023). 2.3 Historic Era 2.3.1 Spanish Explorers and the Ohlone Spanish explorers of the Portola Expedition first arrived on the San Francisco Peninsula in 1769. At the time of European settlement, Sign Hill was situated within the area controlled by the Ramaytush linguistic group of the Ohlone/Costanoan. The establishment of Spanish land grants and the Spanish mission culture soon disrupted the Ohlone way of life, and eventually led to the decline of their populations and communities. After Mexican independence, large Spanish land grants that were previously controlled by the Franciscan missions were divided up and granted to individual owners (Lewis n.d.). Sign Hill lies within the area of the Buri Buri land grant, given to José Antonio Sanchez in 1835, and confirmed to his heirs in 1872 (Barrow 2023). 2.3.2 The City of South San Francisco SSF was established sometime between 1889 and 1892 when Peter Iler obtained 3,500 acres of land and created the San Francisco Land and Improvement Company (Alexander & Hamm 1916). SSF was formally annexed in 1908. Included in this acreage was the former Home Ranch upon which SSF was built. To the west of the railroad were residential lots and to the east were factory and industry lots near the San Francisco Bay (Alexander & Hamm 1916). This area was marketed as a place of industry and over time, many factories were established within the industrial sector of SSF. Views of early South San Francisco. 200 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 12 2.3.3 Hillside Sign Sign Hill is known for its iconic Hillside Sign that reads “South San Francisco the Industrial City.” The concrete letters vary from 48 to 65 feet in height and are designed to contour the shape of the hill so that they appear the same size from a distance. The font used for the letters is part of the typeface called Machine Style, which is a design style indicative of the time in which they were installed. Sign Hill’s letters were originally installed in 1923 for a total cost of $300 for the purpose of advertising SSF to industry and were made of wood. In 1929, after repainting the wooden letters for five years, the City Chamber of Commerce allotted $5,000 for the installation of permanent letters made out of concrete (Barrow 2023). In 1996, the letters were listed in both the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources so that they may be preserved into the future (Lewis n.d.). SSF currently repaints the letters every few years, conducts annual mowing of the vegetation between the letters, and occasional vegetation removal around the edges of the letters (i.e., trimming overhanging trees and shrubs) to maintain its visibility. Historic signs on Sign Hill. 2.3.4 Former structure: The World ’s Largest Electric Sign In 1932, the world’s largest electric sign was constructed on Sign Hill. The 388-foot-long electric sign was mounted on piers at the top of Sign Hill. According to Bill Zemke, a volunteer docent with the SSF Historical Society, “at one point in time the sign was the largest of its kind anywhere.” The sign was used to flash advertising slogans such as “Drink Acme Beer,” “Buy Bakery Goods,” and “Maxwell House Coffee, Good to the Last Drop.” This sign came down in the 1940s during a severe windstorm. The concrete blocks that once held up this sign can still be found at the top of Sign Hill. 201 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 13 2.4 Present Day 2.4.1 Parks and Recreation Acquisition Sign Hill was given to SSF by the South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company for parks and recreation purposes, and with a revocation clause if not so used. In 1955, SSF considered using Sign Hill as the site for a new community college but was decided against by the planning commission due to lack of usable land area. Again, that same year, SSF proposed removing the top of Sign Hill and installing a developed park on the leveled land and transporting the cut to fill the Bay for additional real estate for industrial purposes. This idea was also rejected. In 1963, the Planning Commission began to work on plans for formally recognizing the 23-acre park (Lewis n.d.). 2.4.2 Tree Planting and Endangered Butterflies Al Seubert, a local resident, became inspired by SSF’s vision to create a park on Sign Hill. Seubert began a quest to plant a forest on the hill and began planting tree seedlings on the hill in 1957. Al planted nearly 40,000 trees over a 40-year period, including black pines, redwoods, eucalyptus, buckeye, coast live oak, Monterey pine, and other species. Many of Seubert’s trees were uprooted by people or destroyed by fires, but it is estimated that up to a quarter of Seubert’s trees survived to modern day (Lewis, n.d.). Many of these surviving trees dispersed seeds and propagated seedlings to areas adjacent to the original plantings, further degrading sensitive habitat. In 1982, SSF headed up a “Park Enhancement Project” which included the installation of 650 trees and a small irrigation tank and pump on the east side of Sign Hill. They also planted trees and shrubs such as toyon, huckleberry, redwood, silk tassel, and Monterey pines. Many of these plants are not naturally occurring on Sign Hill, and their presence there today is likely due to work conducted by the enhancement committee (Lewis n.d.). Concerned about the loss of native habitat for endangered butterflies, the USFWS issued a formal cease and desist to SSF to stop planting trees on Sign Hill in the 1990s. Sign Hill is known to have important habitat for the mission blue butterfly and callippe silverspot butterfly, which were listed as federally endangered in 1976 and 1997, respectively. Both butterfly species have been documented on Sign Hill. A controversy broke out in 1995 regarding the clearing of grass from letters and protecting endangered butterflies. The USFWS prohibited SSF from using herbicides around the letters because of the harm to lupines, the larval host plants for the mission blue butterfly. Grasses and weeds soon began to grow over the letters, which upset residents. SSF began employing mechanical removal methods around the letters, which they are still using today. With the beginning of the volunteer group Sign Hill Stewards, staff focused on performing this mechanical weed abatement to avoid the mission blue butterfly flight period. In 2018, the mission blue butterfly was adopted as the official butterfly of the City of South San Francisco (Lewis n.d.). 2.4.3 Current Structures There is a tall pole at Sign Hill’s summit with electric lights that serves as an electric Christmas tree, typically lit from the day after Thanksgiving until January 6 (Lewis n.d.). This pole is occasionally used as a display for causes, such as awareness of childhood cancer (Zemke, 2023) 202 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 14 and has been used as a flagpole. In 2008, the electric pole was modified to hold a vertical number 100 to celebrate South San Francisco’s 100th year as an incorporated city. There is a communications tower serving in part as a radio repeater for emergency services at the summit of the hill. There are also fenced off water tanks, one area owned by SSF and two owned by California Water Service (Cal Water). 2.5 Cultural Resources Assessment Findings No archaeological site indicators were observed within the study area, and the application of a buried sites model indicates a low potential for buried resources within the study area. A few remains of the former electrical sign that once stood on the ridge of Sign Hill and some glass fragments were observed. These things were not found important when Goldenberg and Carroll were conducting their evaluation of the hillside sign. No recommendations are warranted for archaeological resources. Nor are recommendations warranted for the remains of the former electrical sign. The sign, as mentioned above, is listed on the National Register and the California Register (Goldenberg and Carroll, 1996). SSF is in the process of determining what needs to be done to stabilize and maintain the sign letters. Origer recommended that SSF work with an architectural historian or at minimum, have an architectural historian review any proposed work to ensure it would meet the guidelines outlined in The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Grimmer, 2017). 3.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES In support of this OSMP, WRA evaluated Sign Hill for vegetation communities’ and soil’s potential to support sensitive plant and animal species, and potential for wildlife corridors on February 9, 2023. The full report of WRA’s Biological Site Assessment (Appendix A) was designed to be used in support of CEQA analysis. The following sections provide a summary of the existing biological resources within Sign Hill. Any evaluations of the adjacent open space land to the north were performed remotely using publicly available data, and no onsite field verification occurred within privately owned lands. 3.1 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types Extensive development began circa the 1950s in the areas surrounding Sign Hill. Prior to this development, Sign Hill consisted of grassland habitat with virtually no tree cover. Aerial imagery from 1946 indicates the beginning of the planted eucalyptus stand in the southwest corner of Sign Hill; this is evidenced by the arrangement of trees in linear rows (NETROnline, 2023). Tree species that were commonly planted by both local residents and SSF are still present today, and include eucalyptus, coast live oak, Monterey cypress, and Monterey pine. A reconnaissance-level site visit was conducted by WRA which was not sufficient to identify vegetation communities to an alliance or association level; in addition, the alliance-level mapping conducted in 2015 by Environmental Collaborative is now out of date considering significant changes resulting from recent fires and fuel management activities. Therefore, land cover mapping as described in this report and map remains broad; this is summarized in Table 2 and depicted on Figure 2. The vegetation communities as described below list dominant and 203 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 15 notable plant species (e.g., special-status plants or plants that support listed butterfly species). A full list of observed species is detailed in Appendix A – Attachment 3. This includes observations from the 2017 rare plant surveys conducted by Environmental Collaborative, SSF staff, and Sign Hill Stewards in addition to plant observations made by WRA during the reconnaissance visit in February 2023. Table 2. Land Cover Types on Sign Hill COMMUNITY/LAND COVERS ACRES WITHIN SIGN HILL Tree Groves 19.73 Shrubland 8.28 Grassland (native) 16.19 Grassland (non-native) 19.72 Developed 1.83 3.1.1 Tree Groves Tree groves are located throughout Sign Hill, concentrated in the southern portion (Figure 2). These trees were initially introduced around the 1940s through the 1960s and spread through natural propagation processes over subsequent years, as indicated by historic aerial imagery (NETROnline, 2023). Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus), black acacia (Acacia melanoxylon ), Monterey pine (Pinus radiata), Monterey cypress (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa), and coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) are commonly planted tree species. Less common tree species include coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara), and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua). While there are clusters of the same species in certain areas (Monterey pine and Monterey cypress near the Ridgeview Court trailhead, for example) these groves are not representative of naturally occurring vegetation communities. Previously, these stands were denser and more widespread, but the 2020 Diamond Fire which burned over 16 acres of the park and fuel management practices that began in 2019 greatly reduced the spread and density of these tree groves. Example of thinned eucalyptus tree grove on Sign Hill. 204 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 16 Understory cover ranges from sparse (especially under eucalyptus stands) to dense cover of weedy/invasive species due to recent disturbance. Understory species include wild oats (Avena spp.), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), Bermuda buttercup (Oxalis pes-capre), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), shortpod mustard (Hirshfeldia incana), English ivy (Hedera helix), and other non-native grasses. Non-native/invasive shrub species such as cotoneaster (Cotoneaster sp.), pyracantha (Pyracantha fortuneana), and French broom (Genista monspessulana) occur along the fringes of the stands of tree plantings and continue into the grassland habitat. 3.1.2 Shrubland Shrubland cover within Sign Hill is dominated by coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis shrubland), poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), coffee berry (Frangula californica ssp. californica), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), sticky monkeyflower (Diplacus aurantiacus), and blue elderberry (Sambucus cerulea). Poison oak is prevalent and forms dense thickets in the moist, north-facing slopes of Sign Hill. Dominant species within the herbaceous layer include hummingbird sage (Salvia spathacea), horkelia (Horkelia californica), coast iris (Iris longipetala, CRPR 4.2), pearly everlasting (Anaphalis margaritacea), and bee plant (Scrophularia californica). 3.1.3 Native Grassland As indicated previously, native grassland was historically the dominant cover over Sign Hill and surrounding lands. Native grasslands still occupy most of the Sign Hill ridgeline and extend onto the private parcels to the north and northeast, as well as the parklands to the southeast. While native grass and forb species may be observed across Sign Hill, some of the less disturbed or appropriately managed areas contain higher concentrations of native species. Although the boundaries between native and nonnative grassland vegetation communities is represented by a distinct line on Figure 2, field conditions exhibit a gradient, or a gradual shift in vegetation assemblage from native-dominated to nonnative-dominated. The native grassland vegetation community as mapped and described here represents areas that tend to be dominated by native species; these areas also typically include rare plants and larval hosts for special-status butterflies. Representative native grass species include purple needlegrass (Nassella pulchra), California brome (Bromus sitchensis var. carinatus), meadow barley (Hordeum brachyantherum), blue wildrye (Elymus glaucus), California oatgrass (Danthonia californica), Hall’s bent grass (Agrostis hallii), June grass (Koeleria macrantha), and beardless wild rye (Elymus triticoides ssp. triticoides). Beardless wild rye forms dense, almost monotypic stands in some locations on the north and northeast-facing hillsides. Purple needlegrass are present in the highest density around the sign letters where annual summer mowing has been performed but can also be found dispersed throughout Sign Hill. Forbs observed within the native grasslands include coast iris (Iris longipetala), soap plant (Chlorogalum pomeridianum), yarrow (Achillea millefolium), California poppy (Eschscholzia californica), checkerbloom (Sidalcea malvaeflora), hummingbird sage (Salvia spathacea), silver bush lupine, varied lupine (Lupinus variicolor), golden violet, blue dicks (Dichelostemma 205 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 17 capitatum ssp. capitatum), blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchium bellum ), and California buttercup (Ranunculus californicus). La rval host plants of the federally endangered mission blue butterfly and callippe silverspot butterfly are also scattered throughout the native grasslands; these consist of silver bush lupine and Lindley’s varied lupine for the mission blue butterfly and golden violet for the callippe silverspot butterfly. As stated previously, while non-native and invasive herbaceous species may also be observed within native grasslands, they are not considered dominant. Golden violet on Sign Hill. 3.1.4 Non-native Grassland Non-native grasslands occupy most of the south-facing slopes located at lower elevations within the Sign Hill where more disturbance has occurred. Although there are native species (and recruitment of native species) observed within nonnative grasslands, they tend to be in lower concentrations, as small clusters or as an individual specimen. 3.1.5 Developed Land Developed land cover includes residences (including yards) adjacent to Sign Hill, hardscape (parking lots, roads, and sidewalks), paved trails, and utility facilities. 206 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 18 Figure 2. Vegetation Communities 207 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 19 3.2 Soils Three soil series are mapped within Sign Hill: Candlestick-Kron-Buriburi complex, 30–75 percent slopes; Orthents, cut and fill, 15–75 percent slopes; and Urban land-Orthents, cut and fill complex, 5–75 percent slopes. Each of these soil series are described in greater detail below and is shown on Figure 3. Generally, the soils within Sign Hill are slightly acidic, non-saline to very slightly saline, and not serpentine (National Resources Conservation Service, 2023). • Candlestick-Kron-Buriburi complex: This series consists of shallow and variable loamy (mostly fine sandy loams) soils formed from hard fractured residuum weathered from sandstone, at elevations of 200–1,340 feet. This soil series is well drained with high runoff, is not rated as hydric, and is typically found in windy coastal plains. The soil components range from non-saline to very slightly saline. This mapping unit dominates Sign Hill. • Orthents, cut and fill : This series consists of variable depth and variable soil textures, and is formed from residuum, at elevations of 0–700 feet. This soil series is well drained, is not rated as hydric, and is typically found in loamy mountains. This mapping unit located on the western side of Sign Hill surrounding the Ridge Trail from the parking lot to the top of Iris Trail as well as an area adjacent to the residential development west of Eucalyptus Loop. • Urban land-Orthents, cut and fill complex: This soil series occurs mostly in urban areas and consists of soil material that has been moved mechanically and mixed, with highly variable texture. In addition, this series may consist of varying amounts of soil, gravel, and other solid materials. This series is typically well drained and is not rated as hydric. This mapping unit is located on the southeastern edges of Sign Hill, adjacent to residential development. The Candlestick-Kron-Buriburi Complex, 30–75 percent slopes map unit is rated as “Highly Susceptible”, meaning that the soils of this map unit are highly susceptible to degradation following site disturbance, and the soils have a low capacity to resist erosion due to water and/or wind, salinization, sodification, depletion of organic matter and/or other nutrients, and reduction of soil depth to the point that the soil loses its capacity to support the desired plant community. In addition, these soils have a moderate susceptibility to sheet and rill erosion. During the winter of 2022-2023, sustained heavy rains caused a series of gullies to form on Sign Hill, the largest was on the western side of the park washing out sections of the Seubert and Eucalyptus Trails, and another was within the sign letters spanning the gap between the “O” in Francisco and the “I” in City. Multiple landslides have happened in Sign Hill in the past as evidenced by vacant lots where, according to SSF staff, houses that were damaged by the slides once stood. Landslide scar from 2023 storms. 208 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 20 Figure 3. Soils 209 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 21 3.3 Sensitive Plant Species Based upon a review of online databases and internal City GIS species occurrence maps, a total of 89 special-status plant species have been documented in the five 7.5-minute USGS quadrangles (San Francisco North, San Francisco South, San Mateo, Montara Mountain, and Hunter’s Point) surrounding Sign Hill. Species that are unlikely or have no potential to occur in Sign Hill were eliminated from further consideration for one or more of the following reasons: • Edaphic (soil) conditions (e.g., alkaline, serpentine, sandy) necessary to support the special-status plant species are not present in Sign Hill; • Topographic conditions (e.g., montane, elevations) necessary to support the special- status plant species are not present in Sign Hill; • Associated natural communities (e.g., swamps, coastal dunes) necessary to support the special-status plant species are not present in Sign Hill; • Sign Hill is geographically isolated from the documented range of the special-status plant species; or • Recent evaluation of historical records has determined that these species are extirpated from the region in which Sign Hill is located. Of the 89 special-status plant species documented within Sign Hill vicinity, nine special-status plant species have high or moderate potential to occur in the park, and two special-status plant species have been documented on Sign Hill. Habitat suitability and species descriptions were developed based on California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Rare Plant Inventory (California Native Plant Society, 2023), Calflora (Calflora, 2023), Consortium of California Herbaria 2 (CCH2) (Consortium of California Herbaria, 2023), and California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2023). Many of the follow species are also found on nearby San Bruno Mountain to which Sign Hill is naturally and geographically a foothill. Many of the plant communities were once contiguous between the parks before Sign Hill was biogeographically separated by housing developments in Paradise Valley. Table 3. Special-Status Plant Species SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR Coast rockcress (Arabis blepharophylla) Present Coast iris (Iris longipetala) Present Scouler's catchfly (Silene scouleri ssp. scouleri) Present Bent-flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia lunaris) Moderate potential San Francisco collinsia (Collinsia multicolor) Moderate potential San Francisco wallflower (Erysimum franciscanum) Moderate potential San Francisco gumplant (Grindelia hirsutula var. maritima) Moderate potential Diablo helianthella (Helianthella castanea) Moderate potential San Francisco campion (Silene verecunda ssp. verecunda) Moderate potential San Francisco owls -clover (Triphysaria floribunda) Moderate potential Coastal triquetrella (Triquetrella californica) Moderate potential 210 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 22 Scouler’s catchfly on Sign Hill. 3.4 Sensitive Wildlife Species Potential sensitive wildlife species were identified using a query of the CNDDB (CDFW, 2023) that focused on the same five USGS quadrangles used for the special-status plant study. Of the special-status wildlife species documented in the vicinity of Sign Hill, most were excluded based on a lack of habitat features required to support them including: • Sand dunes or bare gravelly outcrops; • Large burrows; • Presence of specific host plants; • Caves, bridges, or abandoned buildings; • Rocky intermittent and/or perennial streams; • Forests, beaches, tidal marsh, streams, ponds, and other habitat types. The absence of such habitat features eliminates components critical to the survival or movement of most special-status species found in the vicinity. Two federally endangered butterfly species, the mission blue butterfly and callippe silverspot butterfly have been documented on Sign Hill. Surveys for mission blue butterflies are conducted annually from March-June and incidental sightings of callippe silverspot butterflies are documented. 211 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 23 Mission blue butterfly on lupine on Sign Hill. Callippe silverspot butterfly on Sign Hill . White-tailed kite (Elanus luecurus), a fully protected species in California, has potential to occur on Sign Hill and may nest there. Sign Hill has some marginal habitat that could support olive- sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi). The site provides suitable nesting habitat for a wide range of nesting birds, including raptors, that despite having no special status, receive protections from impacts that could result in nest failure during nesting. Most native birds in the United States, including common species are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) and the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513. Under these laws/codes, the deliberate take of birds and their nests, eggs, and young is prohibited. Typically, during any tree removal actions, pre-construction surveys would be conducted and if active nests are found, buffers around the subject tree(s) would be established. Nests would then be 212 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 24 periodically monitored until the young have left the nest. During recent tree removal efforts, pre- construction nesting surveys and protective measures were implemented by SSF staff, and no sensitive species were detected. Several special-status and common bat species including pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), fringed myotis (Myotus thysanodes) and western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii) have potential to occur in large trees on Sign Hill. Dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens) has the potential to occur in forested areas with dense undergrowth or in dense brush. There is potential for these and other regional special-status species to occur in proposed work areas that could be affected by any wildfire hazard removal, trail maintenance/reconstruction, or habitat restoration. 3.5 Wildlife Corridors Wildlife movement between suitable habitat areas can occur via open space areas lacking substantial barriers. The key to a functioning corridor or linkage is that it connects two larger habitat blocks, also referred to as core habitat areas (Beier & Loe, 1992; Soule & Terborgh, 1999). To account for potential impacts to wildlife movement or migratory corridors, WRA biologists reviewed habitat connectivity data available through CDFW from the Essential Connectivity Areas dataset (California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2023). Additionally, aerial imagery was accessed for the local area to determine if local core habitat areas were present within or connected to Sign Hill. This assessment was refined based on observations of physical and biological conditions, including topographic and vegetative factors that can facilitate wildlife movement, as well as potential barriers to connectivity. Because Sign Hill is not connecting one open space area to another, it is not considered part of a wildlife corridor. While common wildlife species presumably utilize Sign Hill to some degree for movement at a local scale, Sign Hill itself does not provide corridor functions and no barriers to wildlife movement will be created as a result of this OSMP. Coyote using game trails on Sign Hill. 213 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 25 4.0 WILDFIRE HAZARDS 4.1.1 Fire History and Hazards Although Sign Hill has historically been dominated by open grasslands, community members and SSF programs changed the landscape by planting thousands of native and non-native trees to beautify the area from the late 1950's to the early 2000's. This created unintended consequences to local wildlife and surrounding residents by diminishing grassland habitat upon which local species rely and increased the threat of wildfire. Tree species planted include many types of fruit trees as well as trees known to be particularly flammable like eucalyptus, cypress, and acacia. In the 1970s, it was common for Sign Hill to burn periodically, mainly due to fires started by local teenagers. Some examples of wildfire in recent years included one wildfire in 2012 that was started by fireworks on the top of Sign Hill. Two wildfires occurred on the hill in 2015, one on the lower elevation south-facing slope in May and one near the communications tower in July. In October 2020, the Diamond Fire burned 16 acres of the south-facing slope. Multiple agencies including CAL FIRE responded to the fire and dropped flame retardant on the hill by airtanker. No structures were lost, and minor damage was done to a few homes from falling embers. Thousands of trees were killed during the fire which started as a grass fire and then quickly spread to a crown fire. In January 2021, SSF staff contracted work to address post-fire erosion concerns, building check dams, hydroseeding slopes, and installing wattles in drainage areas. After this phase of work, tree and brush removals focused on getting Sign Hill to meet CAL FIRE compliance. SSF staff contracted work to remove hazardous trees near trails to help reopen the park as soon as possible. In late 2021, work began to remove and thin the remaining trees on the hill including the removal of an acacia grove adjacent to the large eucalyptus grove. Treatments such as tree thinning and tree and branch removal were performed, along with lop and scatter treatments on the site to evenly distribute treated chip on top of a large majority of the trail known as the “Eucalyptus Loop.” This scope of work was entirely directed by guidance of the most up to date CAL FIRE standards for defensible space. 4.1.2 Fuels Management Though Sign Hill is not assessed by CAL FIRE, the Fire Hazard Severity Zone assigned for nearby San Bruno Mountain is listed as moderate (CAL FIRE, 2023). Sign Hill has similar urban boundaries and ecology to San Bruno Mountain, making it likely that it would be rated as moderate as well; however, the addition of trees to Sign Hill could increase the risk of fire. A Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) grant provided partial funding to perform fuels management treatments post-2020 Diamond Fire to bring Sign Hill in compliance with CAL FIRE defensible space standards, as well as providing some funding towards restoration efforts and the creation of this OSMP. After the initial fire response phase of work, tree and brush removals focused on getting the hill within CAL FIRE compliance. In addition, SSF has been working to increase defensible space around the residential borders of Sign Hill through tree removal. Currently, the eucalyptus grove, remaining trees, and defensible space are consistent with CAL FIRE standards to have 30 feet between individual tree canopies, clearing a 100-foot defensible space around structures, and removing ladder fuels on any remaining trees up to 15 feet from ground level (CAL FIRE, 2023). SSF intends to maintain Sign Hill’s fuel load into perpetuity. 214 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 26 SSF has also created fire breaks along the existing Ridge Trail and Iris Trail to help limit fire spread should one start. To date, SSF has thinned trees and underbrush along the entire southern slope and removed almost all trees within a 100-foot defensible space along the private/public boundary. Most recently, tree crews thinned the large eucalyptus grove in the southwest portion of Sign Hill. Sign Hill canopy cover on October 14, 2020 (before Diamond Fire). Sign Hill canopy cover on July 8, 2023 (after Diamond Fire and fuel reduction work). 215 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 27 5.0 TRAILS AND VISITATION 5.1 Facilities Sign Hill is publicly accessed via three main trailheads. The primary trailhead is located at the end of Ridgeview Court and includes a parking lot of seven spaces. The second trailhead is located at the end of Poplar Avenue with street parking only. The third trailhead is located on Spruce Avenue between Park Way and Beech Avenue with limited street parking. These trailheads are not named on City maps and referred to by City staff using the street names mentioned. There is a fourth entrance to Sign Hill located on Diamond Avenue, but this is largely known only to residents of the area and is primarily a maintenance road access. Sign Hill has approximately two miles of hiking trails in total. The Ridge Trail is 0.77 miles (mi) long following the spine of the hill from the Ridgeview Court trailhead to the Spruce Avenue trailhead. Three trails begin at the Poplar Avenue trailhead and travel to the ridgeline connecting with the Ridge Trail: Iris Trail (0.27 mi) which travels directly to the summit of the hill; the Letters Trail (0.2 mi) which traverses the hill below the letters; and the Seubert Trail (0.36 mi) which climbs west of the summit of the hill. The Eucalyptus Loop Trail (0.27 mi) is shown to traverse the southwestern corner of Sign Hill, creating a loop off the Seubert Trail. All the main trailheads contain a bulletin kiosk, and most trail junctions are identified with wayfinding signage. Additionally, there are two benches near the summit and one bench located at the Ridge Trail – Seubert Trail junction. 5.2 Trail Condition During the spring of 2023, WRA staff assessed the condition of existing trails on Sign Hill using a qualitative measure of erosion. Evidence of on-trail erosion was classified into Low, Medium, or High categories using the descriptions and examples in Table 4. Instances of trail erosion were marked using GPS and classified on-site. Visitor-created trails were also identified and mapped. These trails deviate from the designated trails and are identified using visual indicators of vegetation trampling and soil compaction/loss. Because nearly all of the Eucalyptus Loop Trail has been obscured by debris from the tree removals, it was not visible to be assessed in the field -the original alignment from City records is shown on the map instead. Similarly, part of the Seubert Trail was washed out during severe storms in 2022-2023 leaving a gap seen in the trail map. Though relatively few instances of high levels of erosion were found (Figure 4), observed eroded areas cover relatively long sections of trail, such as on the Letters Trail . In the case of the Ridge Trail, the long duration of medium erosion covers an extremely steep section and has resulted in a proliferation of visitor created trails as people try to avoid eroded sections and take a less steep route. For the Iris Trail, the area of high erosion occurs in and around steep steps. An analysis of trail segments found slopes for the Ridge, Iris, and Seubert Trails to be steeper than 16 percent—the generally acceptable maximum for non-accessible hiking trails shown in Table 4 (California State Parks, 2019). Additional visitor created trails provide access to destinations such as the sign letters themselves and an old, rusty car along a secondary ridgeline with views to the east. 216 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 28 While no visitor created trails currently exist at the summit of the hill, vegetation trampling is a concern along the Ridge Trail because of populations of golden violets and other host plants as well as nectar flowers for the aforementioned endangered butterfly species. On the eastern slopes of Sign Hill, as well as the Ridge Trail, there are on-going restoration areas where SSF staff have been planting native species. SSF staff have installed fencing to protect these plants from trampling by visitors. Fencing and log barriers to deter off-path travel near Sign Hill summit. 217 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 29 Table 4. Definitions of Trail Erosion Categories Table 5. Trail Slopes TRAIL SEGMENTS AVERAGE % SLOPE EXISTING TRAILS Eucalyptus Trail 9% Letters Trail 14% Ridge Trail 28% Iris Trail 27% Seubert Trail 24% EXAMPLE CATEGORY DEFINITION Letters Trail HIGH There are more than two deep ruts located along the length of the trail, and there are several observations that erosion significantly interferes with pedestrian activities causing trail users to create additional pathways to avoid this erosion feature. For this category, evidence of trail user impacts resulting from the erosion feature includes more than one of the following: trail widening, braided trails, unsanctioned trails, soil compaction, and vegetation trampling. Ridge Trail MEDIUM There are one or two noticeable ruts forming along the length of the trail, and there are some observations that it significantly interferes with pedestrian activities. For this category, evidence of trail user impacts resulting from the erosion feature includes one of the following: trail widening, braided trails, unsanctioned trails, soil compaction, and vegetation trampling. Letters Trail LOW There is a shallow rill forming along the length of the trail, but there are no observations that it significantly interferes with pedestrian activities. There is no evidence of trail users negatively impacting adjacent vegetation to avoid this erosion feature. 218 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 30 Figure 4. Trail Condition Assessment 219 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 31 5.3 Visitation and Activity Type The trails on Sign Hill are open to use by pedestrians, and dogs are allowed while on-leash. Biking is not allowed in Sign Hill. Parking is limited at Sign Hill; however, SSF city staff have observed that many visitors live nearby and access Sign Hill by walking, often visiting multiple times per week. Based on data collected during spring 2023 (see Appendix C for methodology), visitation to Sign Hill is estimated at 100 visits on average per day for weekdays, and 170 visits on average per day for weekend days. Visitation was estimated for each main trailhead: Ridgeview Court, Poplar Avenue, and Spruce Avenue. Note that visitation via the Spruce Avenue trailhead included counts from an adjacent access road on Diamond Avenue and a visitor created trail on Ash Avenue, as they converge at the same location on the Ridge Trail. The Ridgeview Court trailhead had the highest visitation, followed by Poplar Avenue, and Spruce Avenue had the fewest number of visits. Chart 1. Average daily visitation by trailhead On-site observational data collected during spring 2023 shows that approximately 1/3 of visitors participated in dog walking while at Sign Hill. These data also show that nearly 2/3 of visitors were hiking or walking, and a small proportion of visitors were using the trails for running. Though illegal biking use was not observed during the data collection period, SSF City staff have occasionally observed cyclists using Sign Hill’s trails. 48.5 32.8 20.6 76.6 62.6 32.5 0 50 100 Ridgeview Ct Poplar Ave Spruce/Diamond Average Daily Visitation by Trailhead Weekday Weekend 220 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 32 Chart 2. Percentage of use by activity type 6.0 CURRENT OPERATIONS Sign Hill is currently managed by the Parks and Recreation Department with direct oversight by the Parks Manager, a Natural Resource Specialist, and a Natural Resource Aide. Parks maintenance staff periodically assist with various weed abatement, tree work, and painting the sign letters. The current ongoing operations carried out in Sign Hill are described below. 6.1 Letters Maintenance The historic sign is repainted about every other year, and since it is on the National Register of Historic Places, SSF is required to avoid any alterations that would change their historic character. Vegetation trimming around the letters occurs annually, using manual and mechanical methods like hand pulling and string trimming. Occasionally, trees or shrubs will be cut if they grow to obscure the letters from view. 6.2 Trail Maintenance Currently, SSF conducts as-needed erosion control measures on Sign Hill trails and annual maintenance activities such as weed whipping and brush clearing. The steep topography of the site makes trail maintenance challenging, but several erosion control efforts are actively being implemented to stabilize the most highly affected areas. Visitor-created trails are problematic, and efforts are being made to reduce their use such as natural physical barriers. Select endangered butterfly habitat areas are being protected via fencing to exclude pedestrians. 6.3 Vegetation Management and Habitat Restoration Extensive vegetation management and restoration activities began in 2019 when SSF received funding from a San Mateo County grant through Measure K and hired a Natural Resource Specialist . After that grant, SSF has funded restoration efforts through departmental funding while continuing to seek grant opportunities. In addition to the recurring activities described below, SSF has also performed larger, one-time projects like thinning the planted groves, removing burned trees and implementing erosion control efforts after the 2020 Diamond Fire, and installing emergency erosion control measures and check dams in gullies during the 2022-2023 storms. 62% 5% 33% Activity Type Hiking Running Dog walking 221 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 33 6.3.1 Invasive Plant and Fuel Removal City staff have identified target invasive, scrub grass and fuels species that they work to remove. The appropriate timing of treatment or removal, as well as the appropriate methods, have been specified by species to maximize efficacy. As mentioned, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) awarded SSF a grant providing partial funding after the 2020 Diamond Fire to perform fuels management treatments at Sign Hill (e.g., tree removal and thinning) and to bring Sign Hill into compliance with CAL FIRE defensible space standards, as well as partial funding for restoration efforts and the creation of this OSMP. 6.3.2 Native and Butterfly Habitat Restoration Native seed collection and dispersal, planting nursery-grown native species, and monitoring the survival of previously installed plants are annual habitat restoration activities. Preventing the degradation of existing native grasslands from invasive weeds and scrub encroachment is at the forefront of SSF’s restoration efforts. Seasonal or as-needed activities include irrigating newly installed plants and installing fencing/signage around restoration areas. Test plots are being established throughout Sign Hill to monitor the limitations and benefits of different restoration planting approaches. San Mateo County’s Measure K had supported Sign Hill’s Restoration Project for two years with grant funding focused on protecting and enhancing grasslands for endangered mission blue and callippe silverspot butterflies. The maintenance and expansion of endangered species habitat continues to be the central goal of the project even as funding has continued through other grants and SSF Parks Department resources. 6.3.3 Sensitive Species Monitoring SSF staff conduct annual monitoring of the mission blue butterfly through systematic egg count surveys. Staff collect egg count data annually during flight season from mid-March through June or until egg counts consistently drop to zero. Approximately 40 plants are randomly selected to monitor each season and surveys are conducted every seven to ten days. As of 2023, SSF city staff are in the third year of data collection for butterfly egg counts. Continued egg counts will create a base line average to help determine if populations are growing, shrinking, or remaining the same. In addition, City staff monitor both rare plant species found on-site and butterfly larval host plants every 3-5 years. Staff also conduct periodic reconnaissance for species which have a high potential to occur. This monitoring and reconnaissance work is performed during peak flowering season for each species. 7.0 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 7.1 Current Engagement Programs SSF Parks and Recreation staff currently send out a regular quarterly newsletter and manages the Sign Hill Stewards volunteer program year-round. Through this program, volunteers join staff 222 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 34 in habitat restoration activities like planting native grassland species, removing non-native invasive species, and counter scrub encroachment measures. Parks and Recreation staff also host a youth program and interpretive hikes at Sign Hill during the summer season. Staff have also partnered with the Library Department to host a Nature Walk Story Time on Sign Hill where families walk the Ridge Trail, read small stories, and learn about plant and animal species that can be found on Sign Hill. 7.2 Master Planning Outreach Public input was an integral part of the development of this plan. Gates + Associates staff solicited feedback from the public in two phases: the first to build awareness of Sign Hill’s planning process and inform the development of the plan; the second, to gather feedback on trail alignment concept drawings and other park amenities, and to identify any preferred alternatives for inclusion in the plan. 7.2.1 Round One The planning team developed an online survey of 15 questions, offered in both English and Spanish, to understand general visiting habits at Sign Hill, affinity for existing site features, desired improvements, important characteristics, and participant demographics (see Appendix D for survey questions). The survey was advertised through SSF’s social media accounts, Park and Recreation Department newsletters, and flyers mailed to local neighborhoods and residents immediately adjacent to Sign Hill. Flier 1. English/Spanish advertisements encouraging community engagement. In addition, an in-person pop-up event was held at the trailhead at Ridgeview Court on Saturday, April 1, 2023. Visitors responded to a subset of four survey questions focused on preferences using dot stickers. 223 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 35 Visitors to Sign Hill participating in the pop-up event. RESULTS The online survey received 428 responses over the course of three weeks: with 422 in English and six in Spanish. The one-day pop-up event had 28 participants with two speaking Spanish (Table 6). Table 6. Community Outreach Results for Round One ONLINE SURVEY POP UP EVENT (IN PERSON) March 15-April 7, 2023 15 questions total responses (422 English, 6 Spanish) April 1, 2023 4 questions on input boards 28 participants Survey respondents were primarily locals with some indicating that they now live elsewhere but grew up in South San Francisco. Over 85 percent of respondents had visited Sign Hill before and over 85 percent were adults over 35 years old. As shown in the pie chart below the demographic characteristics of respondents were about 50 percent white, 17 percent Asian, and 18 percent Hispanic/Latino. Compared to residents of SSF (United States Census Bureau, 2023), people identifying as white appear to be over-represented and Hispanic/Latinx and Asian appear to be under-represented. 224 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 36 Chart 3. Respondent Demographics Most outreach participants have visited Sign Hill and live in the area around the site or in another part of South San Francisco. Although they visit somewhat infrequently, most survey respondents view Sign Hill as an important landmark, historic feature, and source of pride for the South San Francisco community. The site is highly valued for its views, natural beauty, trails, plants, wildlife, and the historic sign. The community considers Sign Hill a place to enjoy being outdoors in nature. According to outreach participants, the most important characteristics for the future of Sign Hill are natural beauty, sustainability and conservation, and opportunities for exercise (Table 7). The consensus in the community is that Sign Hill is in most need of trail enhancements, signage (wayfinding and interpretive), and seating for visitors. Write -in responses provided at the pop-up event that pertain to Sign Hill improvements suggested more seating at the top of the hill, fire prevention and safety, parking, tree canopies, a nature center, a restroom, a slide, and solar lighting. Conversations with pop-up participants, who represented a variety of ages and were mostly from the surrounding neighborhood, included requests for trail enhancements, trail maintenance, improved safety, signage, restrooms, better entries, and dealing with coyotes. Table 7. Top Community Preferences from Pop-up Event 50% 18% 17% 15% Respondent Demographics Caucasian or White Hispanic/Latinx Asian Other CURRENT FEATURES LIKED IMPROVEMENT FEATURES DESIRED MOST IMPORTANT CHARACTERISTICS 1. Views and scenery 1. Trail enhancements 1. Natural beauty 2. Walking trails 2. Signage to identify habitats and plant/animal species 2. Sustainability and conservation 3. Native flora and fauna 3. More seating areas 3. Opportunities for exercise 225 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 37 KEY THEMES Nature Survey participants voted natural beauty as the most important characteristic for the future of Sign Hill, followed by sustainability and conservation. Approximately 2/3 of survey participants visit Sign Hill specifically to connect with nature, and 1/3 of survey participants voted the site’s flora and fauna as the feature of Sign Hill they like the best. Other nature-oriented topics (e.g., trees, habitats, butterflies, coyotes, native plants, and preservation) were frequently mentioned in open comments by the community. “Leave it alone” was a common refrain in open comments on the survey, as respondents expressed support for maintaining Sign Hill’s “wild” or natural environment without too much intervention. Activity According to outreach results, trails were a highly popular feature of Sign Hill, and ranked as the second most liked current feature of the site. The community frequently visits Sign Hill to enjoy the views, exercise, and pursue outdoor activities alone, with family/friends, and with pets. Participants love the walking/hiking paths at the site but recognized that trail conditions have deteriorated in many areas, which is likely why they voted trail enhancements as the primary feature to improve the visitor experience at Sign Hill. Access & Accessibility The community wants Sign Hill to be easier to learn about, get to, and experience. Survey participants who visit Sign Hill would like to see more interpretive signage identifying the site’s natural features like plant and animal species (second most desired improvement feature), while those who have never heard of or visited Sign Hill would like better wayfinding signage. Non- visitor survey participants also cited better access/accessibility and more awareness/information about the site as the most important factors influencing the likelihood of their visiting in the future. Better maintenance of trails and making trails easier to use safely by a variety of visitors, including children and seniors, were important requests from the community mentioned in open comments on the survey and during in-person conversations at the pop-up event. Over 25 percent of outreach participants voted accessibility/inclusiveness as the most important characteristic for Sign Hill’s future. According to outreach data, the community also desires more seating areas, which ranked as the third most desired feature to improve the visitor experience at Sign Hill. Other suggestions related to access and accessibility mentioned by the community were drinking fountains, lights, parking, and restrooms. The presence of dogs at the site was a source of debate—some survey respondents appreciated the ease of visiting with their dogs, while others felt that dogs on the trails, specifically off-leash dogs (which is not permitted), created safety and trash/waste issues detrimental to the visitor experience and they suggested prohibiting dogs at Sign Hill. Legacy Though not offered as options in the outreach questions, the history of Sign Hill and the letters sign were mentioned frequently in the survey’s comments section as reasons for visiting and aspects of the site respondents liked best. These comments, made by survey participants who live and/or grew up in South San Francisco, suggested a strong emotional connection between 226 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 38 Sign Hill and the community. Some survey respondents expressed concern that the character of Sign Hill would be changed, and they would lose the place they remember from their past. 7.2.2 Round Two Input received during the second round of public outreach for Sign Hill’s OSMP identified priorities for trail enhancements and site amenities. Outreach was conducted in summer 2023 via an online survey and an in-person Town Hall event at SSF’s Municipal Services Building. These community engagement activities collected input about conceptual trail locations and improvements, site furnishings such as seating and signage, and participant demographics. The survey was distributed via e-mail to round one respondents, via social media, and at a tabling event at the local farmer’s market. Table 8 shows the summary responses from the round two online survey and Town Hall. Table 8. Community Outreach Results for Round Two ONLINE SURVEY TOWN HALL (IN PERSON) July 12-27, 2023 14 questions 43 total responses (43 English, 0 Spanish) July 11, 2023 10 questions on input boards 13 participants RESULTS The majority of responses received during round two of community outreach were from adults over the age of 35 living in the Sign Hill neighborhood or another area of South San Francisco. According to write-in comments on the survey and at the in-person Town Hall event, many participants were users of Sign Hill and familiar with the site’s current trails and natural features. Appendix D provides full questions and results. Overall, survey participants preferred Trail Option 3, which offered the most extensive trail additions and realignments to the site, combining the offerings of options 1 and 2. Trail Option 3 was the top choice by a significant margin, collecting 66 percent of total votes from outreach participants. Survey participants said they chose Trail Option 3 as their preferred option because it offered the largest variety of trails, made the site the most accessible for visitors of different abilities, and created the most opportunities for the community to enjoy Sign Hill. Criticism of option three focused on concerns that the higher number of additional trails featured in this concept would interfere with the natural habitats, bringing more foot traffic to the site along with more risk of damage to protected areas. There was also some concern that the expanded trail system would increase both congestion at the site and disturbance to the neighborhood. Trail Option 2 had fewer trail realignments than Trail Option 3 and followed in second place with 17 percent of votes. Trail Option 1 received the least amount of support with only 7 percent of votes and provided the fewest changes to existing conditions. While Trail Option 1 was praised for offering minimal changes which included making trails easier to access while preserving natural habitats, some participants felt the concept lacked sufficient improvements to serve the community’s needs for the future. Some respondents viewed Trail Option 2 as an amenable approach offering beneficial trail enhancements without making significant changes to the site, but the public was divided on the addition of stairs. Ten percent of participants said that they 227 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 39 did not like any of the three trail options presented, and some voiced the opinion that Sign Hill should be left as-is. All outreach participants had an opportunity to provide feedback about each trail option and identify aspects they liked the most and the least (i.e., pros and cons). Survey p articipants were also asked to select preferences for seating and signage styles and materials. Though community members brought up a wide range of ideas and issues for the OSMP to consider, the feedback collected generally focused on three main themes—nature, activity, and access and accessibility. Table 9. Trail Concept Community Feedback from Town Hall TRAIL CONCEPT COMMUNITY FEEDBACK Trail Option 1 Trail Option 2 Trail Option 3 Most Liked (Pro) • Minimally disruptive to the natural habitat • Good preservation of open space • Reduction of grades • Switchbacks • More accessible trails, easier to walk/hike • Less features, easier to maintain • Eucalyptus Trail Least Liked (Con) • Not enough improvement of site accessibility • Doesn’t add much to site • Not much variety or enhancement of features • Letters trail still too steep Most Liked (Pro) • Steps are a great addition • Combination of stairs and switchbacks improves accessibility • Minimal impact on natural environment Least Liked (Con) • Stairs are not needed • Stairs are harder to maintain • Stairs could be a tripping hazard Most Liked (Pro) • Expanded trail options allows more exploration • Trail variety • Improved access • Seubert/Iris extension • Liberty Trail • Stairs and switchbacks make trails easier and safer Least Liked (Con) • Too many trails, too complicated • Trail configuration too invasive, will negatively impact the natural environment • Stairs • Impact on neighborhood THEMES Nature Preserving habitat, protecting trail environment, native plants, and wood. As seen in round one feedback, the natural environment at Sign Hill is of prime importance to the community. Supporters of Trail Option 1 appreciated this concept’s minimal trail adjustments, advocating for a plan that maintained large amounts of open space and protected natural habitats as much as possible. As their overall favorite choice, however, only four outreach participants (seven percent of the total) selected Trail Option 1. While the bulk of outreach participants favored more robust trail upgrades (as shown in Trail Options 2 and 3), many 228 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 40 community members still want to ensure that the potential impact on Sign Hill’s plant and animal species is thoughtfully considered for any improvements being proposed. Native habitat restoration was voted the most desired volunteer engagement program, native plant information was the most desired for interpretive signs, and native animal information was also popular, further illustrating the community’s strong interest in Sign Hill’s unique ecosystem. For seating and signage at the site, natural materials that would integrate with the natural landscape ranked highly. With over 50 percent of total votes, wood—in the form of either reclaimed wood seating (the top choice) or wood benches—was the most desired type of material for seating at Sign Hill, and wood was also well supported as the material for interpretive signs with 50 percent of votes. Activity Expanded options, more trails to hike, views, picnics, and seating. The community is interested in pursuing outdoor activities at Sign Hill. Most outreach participants favored concept options that offered new or updated trail configurations. Trail Option 3 received the highest total number of votes (38) during round two outreach, and its robust features—including the new Liberty Trail and other trail extensions—were viewed as attractive enhancements to make Sign Hill more enjoyable for visitors. Survey responses indicated that the community wants more trails to hike and more engaging options to enjoy the site’s scenic views and other natural features. Outreach participants also supported picnic tables, an amenity to encourage activity and experiences, which finished as the second most desired seating type with 19 percent of total votes. Access and Accessibility Stairs, switchbacks, difficulties, reducing grades, trail maintenance, and signage. Facilitating better access to and within areas of Sign Hill was a priority identified by the community in round one outreach, and feedback received during round two continued to support pursuing such efforts as part of the OSMP. The community praised all three trail options for their features to improve access and accessibility. The reduction of trail grades and the addition of switchbacks and stairs—all features that would increase trail safety and allow users of varying ages and abilities to experience the site—were frequently mentioned by outreach participants as favorite aspects of the proposed trail options. However, the stairs featured on the Ridge Trail in Trail Options 2 and 3 were a source of debate among community participants. While some survey respondents felt the stairs would be a benefit to families or those wanting a faster, more direct route up the trail, others expressed concern that the stairs would be more hazardous than helpful (e.g., potential tripping), would be difficult to maintain, and were not essential for regular trail use. Some survey respondents also suggested that the site could be made more wheelchair accessible, although none of the three plans presented specifically addressed this issue. The community also understands that improving access to Sign Hill means ensuring that the trails are properly maintained and in good condition. When asked about volunteer engagement opportunities, 50 percent of outreach participants voted for trail maintenance as their most desired choice, making it the second most popular volunteering option. Site signage, both wayfinding and interpretive, is another important and desired feature to enhance access and accessibility at Sign Hill by providing important information for visitors coming to and moving within the site. According to the survey and town hall feedback, outreach participants selected 229 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 41 native plants and history and/or cultural heritage of the region as the two most preferred topics for interpretive signs. In terms of desired sign style, 62 percent of participants chose modern, while only 38 percent chose traditional. 8.0 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS To ensure Sign Hill will be resilient and relevant into the future, this section presents recommended actions aimed at accomplishing the objectives laid out Section 1.2: 1. Identify key areas for focusing future restoration efforts; 2. Improve trail safety and ease of use; 3. Maintain the sign letters; 4. Improve visitor experiences and increase public awareness; and 5. Increase resiliency against wildfire. These recommendations have been developed from the results of the existing conditions and community engagement studies. 8.1 Identify Focus Areas for Restoration SSF staff have been restoring native habitat on Sign Hill over the past four years through removal of invasive species, performing regular mission blue butterfly habitat restoration plantings, and monitoring of key species which have been incorporated into the programmatic restoration recommendations below. SSF staff already closely monitor host plant populations, restoration areas, and invasive species. This monitoring program should continue. SSF already has robust datasets for plant and butterfly monitoring that should continue to be used; however, it should be noted that monitoring work, while crucial, is time consuming and impacts restoration efforts due to limited staffing. 8.1.1 Expand Native Vegetation Restoration Areas To best track additional restoration efforts as well as other maintenance activities, it is recommended that rare plant surveys be conducted for special-status species with historic occurrences within Sign Hill or existing populations on nearby San Bruno Mountain. Additionally, some vegetation communities may be rare at the alliance level, making alliance level vegetation mapping warranted. It is recommended this action be undertaken within the first year or two following OSMP implementation. Generally, removal of non-native plant species is recommended throughout areas identified in Figure 2 as “non-native grassland,” and tree groves which are dominated by non-native grasses, forbs, and trees. Locations where these non-native populations border more pristine, native vegetation areas are extremely important to manage to halt further encroachment. Areas of high priority for habitat restoration are shown in Figure 5. The areas in most urgent need for restoration are where trees have recently been thinned or removed. These areas are already experiencing regrowth of trees and abundant invasive forbs including oxalis and thistle. It is recommended that cut trees be removed entirely or fully suppressed by chemical, mechanical, or cultural methods; areas with especially vigorous growth may need to be grubbed or cleared to bare soil. The use of herbicides may be warranted, and any existing federal, state, and/or local restrictions of herbicide use for the protection of larval host plants should be followed. Restoration of these areas should focus on restoration of native grasslands and 230 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 42 expansion of host and nectar plant populations. In these recently cleared areas, SSF staff have seen native tree species like toyon beginning to grow which can help push out non-native trees. Additionally, the timing of invasive forb removal (i.e., prior to seed setting) is critical to success in restoration of these areas. Though the listed butterflies are of the highest importance with respect to insects on the site, other pollinators may become focal points in the coming years. Currently, there are three bumblebee species that are candidates for listing under CESA. While none of these candidate species are likely to be present on Sign Hill now, western bumblebee may have occurred there at one time, based on nearby documented occurrences and suitable onsite habitat. It is possible that this species could be reintroduced to Sign Hill in the future. No recommendations beyond continued maintenance and enhancement of native grasslands are currently made for native bees. 231 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 43 Figure 5. Priority Restoration Areas 232 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 44 8.1.2 Enhance and Protect Butterfly Habitat Butterfly host plants, particularly golden violet and silverbush lupine, which support callippe silverspot butterfly and mission blue butterfly populations respectively, are critical to maintain on the site if these federally listed butterflies are to persist within Sign Hill. Golden violet may be a limiting factor for callippe silverspot butterfly on Sign Hill because the plant is relatively uncommon, making each individual plant a valuable resource. Restoration of golden violet presents challenges due to the difficulty of propagation. Conversely, silverbush lupine is abundant on Sign Hill, and does not appear to be a limiting factor. Additionally, silverbush lupine is relatively easy to cultivate. Effective management of these two host plants is one of the most important steps that can be taken to benefit the endangered butterflies at Sign Hill. Areas of high priority for larval host plant restoration include filling in the gaps between existing populations of golden violet with native nectar plants near the summit of the hill and restoring golden violet on other rock outcroppings on the hill. Because of the challenges that accompany restoration in rocky habitats, The effectiveness of restoring butterfly habitat may benefit from conducting seeding tests in areas on the eastern side of Sign Hill which has been less disturbed and has higher quality habitat communities (Figure 5). Parks and Recreation staff is already doing—and should continue—invasive plant removal to reduce competition. While host plant and grassland management to benefit butterflies is an important operational consideration, host plants should not be planted in areas where their presence could constrain maintenance operations or future construction activities. Host plants should also not be planted in areas where they would not naturally occur or where they could attract butterflies into harm’s way or create reproductive sinks. For example, if most host plants are found on the south facing slopes of the hill, and these areas have been shown to support high numbers of butterflies, it would not be advisable to plant host plants on the north facing slopes even if they could survive. This could result in some butterflies laying eggs on the cooler side of the hill, which would be likely to reduce their success due to asynchronous development timeframes. In addition, wherever host plants are on the site, they must be viewed as both a valuable resource and a constraint. Impacting either of the host plants on the site would only be recommended if a valid Biological Opinion from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service has been issued. Adverse impacts would likely require some form of mitigation. Limiting direct impacts from visitors to host plants through educational outreach, barriers and strategic trail design is important to maintain host plant populations. Educational and etiquette signage can be installed in strategic locations to describe the butterflies and their host plants and communicate expectations for visitors such as staying on the trail or not picking flowers. Strategic signage locations may be where visitors historically have traveled off-trail, or at natural resting points on the trail where people are already stopping. The trail reroutes described in Section 8.2 are conceptual and implementation of any segment would need protocol level surveys prior to ground disturbance. It is recommended that protocol level surveys be conducted as the trail design is being developed so plants can be avoided. Because many host plants already exist surrounding segments of the Ridge Trail currently being maintained, it is recommended that barriers be used to delineate the trail margin and limit off-trail travel. Barriers can vary widely, though generally they should be low enough to not obstruct views from the trail, or views of the plants if signage is present. Fencing is a common barrier and Parks and Recreation staff have already employed both temporary and permanent fencing along the Ridge Trail. If SSF considers the option of adding permanent fencing, it is recommended that modern wooden or metal 233 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 45 fencing be employed to match the signage material and style preferences discovered during round two of community outreach (Section 7.2.2). Example of permanent fencing on Sign Hill. Natural types of barriers may also be employed, such as logs which SSF has on the site. SSF has already implemented log delineation on certain lengths of trail. Logs can be cut lengthwise to ensure they do not roll out of place and may also double as seating. If barrier logs are to be used as seating in sensitive host plant areas, it is recommended they be carved into benches with backrests so it is clear to visitors that their feet should remain on the trail while sitting on the log bench. Other types of natural barriers include dead woody brush (as a temporary barrier) and vegetation. For the trails on Sign Hill, native vegetation (that are not host plants) can be planted along trail margins to protect the host plants behind from visitors brushing against them. Typically, woody or shrubby vegetation is more effective at preventing off-trail travel, though these plants are often slow to establish and may require co-locating fencing until the plants are large enough. However, the possible use of shrubby vegetation to prevent off-trail travel should be carefully weighed against the potential impacts of shrubland encroachment into grasslands. In areas where there may not be enough space for fencing or a buffer of native plants, trail delineation may be most appropriate. Trails are often delineated with rocks or other on-site materials, or with short fencing and paired with signage. The potential switchback section of the Ridge Trail may be a candidate for delineation given the steep slopes and close proximity of one switchback to another. Switchback cutting in this area is expected to be mitigated by the adjacent steps which would allow those visitors who desire more speed and exercise to skip the switchbacks. This section of the Ridge Trail could be grown into its own nature trail where visitors can see plants up close and read interpretive signage. Thimble-eye or post and cable fencing are useful options for delineating trail margins with minimal impact and space requirements. 234 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 46 OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Because SSF is already performing restoration and monitoring, recommendations included here are merely to guide the future of this existing program. Additional staffing and funding may be required as a one-time or ongoing cost of relatively large-scale invasive species removal of the regrowing acacia stand and vegetation communities dominated by non-native species. 8.2 Improve Trail Safety and Ease of Us e The recommendations provided in this section aim to create and maintain safe trails while striving to achieve access for people of all ages and those who may have physical disabilities and/or challenges, while acknowledging that site conditions on Sign Hill make it difficult to build and maintain easily accessible trails. Almost all existing trails have sections that are extremely steep and recommended to receive some amount of rerouting to increase safety. Rerouting steep alignments can also help create a mix of easy, intermediate, and difficult trails to serve a variety of visitor interests and experiences (Table 9). The round one public outreach results also showed that people valued the trails in Sign Hill and would like to see the trails enhanced and provide opportunities for exercise. All trail maintenance, improvements and reroutes should follow trail construction best practices. California State Parks has developed their Trails Handbook (2019) which provides guidance for trail design, construction, and maintenance (including trail decommissioning) and is recommended to be followed in the implementation of the recommendations below. 8.2.1 Repair Current Alignments The Letters Trail, and other trail segments, contain long running slopes, steep hill slopes, and varying levels of erosion. Multiple types of drainage techniques, including rolling dips or inside ditches may be needed depending on the specific site conditions. The following guidelines provide general points for installing trail drainage. These techniques are not only recommended for addressing existing erosion on trails, but for all new and rerouted trails as well. DIPS AND WATER BARS Rolling/reverse grade dips or water bars will be constructed to disperse flow and to minimize the potential for concentrated flow, which might otherwise cause rilling or gullying. Rolling dips are more durable and drivable than water bars and are therefore the preferred method. Dip and bar spacing are dependent upon grade, soil type, and expected runoff volume. General guidance for spacing dips is as follows, although the specific engineering specification may differ, depending on site conditions and other factors: • 2–3 percent grade = 200 to 300 feet • 5–7 percent grade = 160 to 180 feet • 8–10 percent grade = 140 to 150 feet DITCH RELIEF CULVERTS AND OUTLETS Ditch relief culverts are necessary to drain an inside ditch at specified intervals to prevent excess velocities in the ditch or overflow onto the trail from the ditch. Relief culverts convey the flow under and across the trail or roadway to the out-sloped area below. When a ditch relief or permanent culvert empties onto a steep slope, an extension of the piping may be warranted to prevent erosion at the outlet. 235 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 47 SLOPE STABILITY Steep slopes adjacent to trails and roadways can result in slumping or gullying that can damage the road or trail and degrade water quality. The following measures are to be considered in stabilizing steep slopes adjacent to trails and roads: • Lay back the slope (modify to 2:1 or flatter) and vegetate • Rip rap a steep slope (1:1) • Retaining wall Slopes that are sloped back to 2:1 or flatter and seeded may also require temporary erosion- control blanket installations to stabilize the hill slope while the vegetation matures. A retaining wall may only be applicable in special cases where a short vertical slope (around three to five feet) needs to be stabilized in a park area that includes some urban or residential interface. Biotechnical treatments, such as wattles or woody debris revetments, are the preferred method for slope stabilization over hardscape solutions, such as rip rap, when the designs are feasible under existing and forecasted site conditions. OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS One-time funding would be required to implement these techniques as they are specialized and need to be performed by a professional. Recurring funding may be periodically required to maintain or alter these treatments as they are assessed for efficacy over time. 8.2.2 Re-route Alignments and Construct New Trails Round two of public outreach provided feedback indicating that people wanted to see rerouted trails that were less steep as well as new trails and trail connections. Figure 6 shows potential trail alignments that were overwhelmingly supported by the public (Trail Option 3). These trails alignments were designed to: 1) Lessen trail slopes, by following the contours of Sign Hill to the extent feasible; 2) Enhance visitor experiences, by providing varied routes and views; and 3) Avoid impacts to known restoration areas and native plant populations associated with the callippe silverspot and mission blue butterflies. The alignments in this OSMP are purely conceptual and aim to provide options for the future of Sign Hill. Surveying and professional design will be required prior to construction of these trails. Because of the current steep slopes of the Seubert and Iris trails (24 percent and 27 percent respectively), erosion on those trails, and steep hill slopes, reducing the slopes through rerouting may possibly be achieved by combining these two trails into one, Seubert/Iris Trail, still connecting the Poplar Ave trailhead to near the summit of the hill. To allow for potential new views of the letters, the potential Seubert/Iris Extension creates a loop between the Seubert/Iris Trail and the Ridge Trail uphill from the letters. Considerations for this segment include protecting the sign letters and identified sensitive habitat from impacts resulting from trail construction or erosion. The Eucalyptus Loop is proposed to be rebuilt in generally the same location with low grades to provide a more relaxing experience. While the original Eucalyptus Loop Trail extended beyond SSF property, this new alignment is contained within Sign Hill boundaries (Figure 6). 236 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 48 The proposed Letters Extension would create a loop from the Letters Trail to the Ridge Trail. This segment may potentially provide new views to the letters and would allow visitors a designated space to have up-close experiences with dense patches of native plants. Considerations for this segment include keeping visitors on-trail and protecting these plants from trampling. The currently heavily eroded, steep segment of the Ridge Trail (29 percent currently) may receive multiple treatments. Replacing the existing visitor-created trails with longer switchbacks can be provided to reduce the trail slope significantly; however, to provide a variety of trail strenuousness, stone or wood steps may be installed along the existing alignment. The Trails Handbook indicates that 16 percent linear trail slope is around the maximum for pedestrians if environmental conditions are favorable, however, if conditions are less favorable or if the trails should accommodate a wider range of visitors like children and seniors, maximum slopes should be closer to 10 percent. The potential trail alignments described in this section aim to meet the 16 percent slope guideline and are presented in Table 9. Table 10. Trail Concept Slopes TRAIL SEGMENTS AVERAGE % SLOPE POTENTIAL TRAIL ALIGNMENTS Eucalyptus Trail 9% Letters Extension 8% Ridge Trail 14% (switchbacks) Seubert/Iris Trail 14% Seubert/Iris Extension 12% 8.2.3 Decommission Trails Generally, visitor-created trails should be decommissioned as soon as they are observed. Newly created trails may appear as vegetation trampling occurs and these trails are much easier to decommission and rehabilitate at an early stage. The well-established visitor-created trails in Sign Hill may need to be decommissioned using several techniques described in the Trails Handbook, including installing barriers or native materials, fencing, soil decompaction, and revegetation. SSF seemed to have success with installing straw wattles and woody brush as barriers to a trail undergoing decommissioning. With SSF’s current restoration efforts, installing signage that identifies decommissioned trails as restoration areas may be useful. The visitor-created trails accessing the sign letters should be closed first. Signage or other messaging can discuss the instability of the slope and sensitivity of the historic letters as well as the sensitive mission blue butterfly habitat that is present amongst the letters. Maintaining one or two maintenance access trails to the letters for SSF staff may be desired, but keeping visitors from using these trails could be a challenge. The remaining visitor-created trails are well established, and decommissioning may happen as SSF has resources to do so. Decommissioning these trails may be most successful when paired with new trail construction. 237 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 49 OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS One-time funding will be needed for trail realignment construction projects. Increasing ongoing funding and staffing for trail repairs and regular maintenance to keep the trails safe and accessible will also needed. 8.3 Maintain Letters 8.3.1 Maintenance of Historic Letters Because of the low potential for buried archaeological resources and the lack of integrity of the electric sign footings, recommendations are only made for the historic concrete letters. Since the sign is listed on the National Register and California Register, maintenance must follow the guidelines outlined in The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Grimmer 2017). To ens ure these guidelines are followed and applied correctly, it is recommended that SSF work with an architectural historian to develop or at least review any stabilization work the letters may require. Existing maintenance plans for vegetation trimming/mowing and repainting of the letters should be reviewed by an architectural historian to ensure compliance with the standards. SSF city staff had begun noticing and attempting to mitigate erosion around the edges of some letters and were concerned about their structural integrity and cracking. After the 2022-2023 storms created a large gully between two rows of letters, the stability concerns for the letters are now even more urgent. A geotechnical study will be needed to evaluate the integrity and stability of the letters. This study should also address stabilization of the gully and a permanent solution for the emergency check dams currently in place. An architectural historian will need to be involved in this study since some modern reinforcement solutions may not comply with the standards for historic properties. Additionally, maintenance/reinforcement plans for the letters will need to consider protection for the silver lupine growing among the letters and mission blue butterflies. OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS One-time funding will be needed for a geotechnical study and consultation with an architectural historian. Funding assistance for rehabilitation projects or preservation plans related to the historic sign may be found through the California State Parks Office of Historic Preservation’s Certified Local Government Program (California State Parks 2023). No additional ongoing staffing or program funding is expected for maintenance of the sign at this point. However, while funding is not expected at this time, future dedicated funding to these efforts will be required due to the historic and sensitive nature of the sign. 238 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 50 Figure 6. Conceptual Trail Plan (Trail Option 3) 239 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 51 8.4 Improve Visitor Experience and Increase Public Awareness 8.4.1 Improve Visitor Experience The following recommendations for improving visitor experience at Sign Hill have been informed by the results of multiple public outreach efforts conducted during the master planning process (Section 7) as well as from conversations with SSF staff. ENHANCED TRAILS AND WAYFINDING Safer trails that offer a wider variety of experiences are largely addressed by Section 8.2 which shows options for maintaining trails as well as realigning or creating new trails. Trails on Sign Hill can also be enhanced through improvements to wayfinding signage. Wayfinding signage should be installed at every trail junction and identify each trail at the intersection. Current wayfinding signs on-site include a measure of distance, and it is recommended that this be continued, but with more specificity. Common practice for distance measurements on wayfinding signs is to denote the distance to the next junction and the name and location of that junction. These types of distance measurements can be customized to the site, describing the distance to destinations such as “X miles to summit,” or “X feet to view of letters.” A difficulty rating system for trails is recommended due to the steep slopes and trails on Sign Hill. A commonly used system adapts the colored shapes used for ski runs. These symbols can be added to park maps as well as on-site wayfinding signage. These types of rating systems help visitors choose appropriate trails for their fitness/skill level, increasing safety and overall enjoyment of the open space. To aid with wayfinding on the site, it is recommended that SSF designate names for each of the trailheads and include these names on the trailhead kiosks. This way, visitors can more easily identify where they are on a park map when they arrive, and wayfinding signs can include a distance to a particular trailhead. Currently, SSF refers to trailheads by the name of the street they can be accessed from which can be maintained and trailheads can be named Ridgeview, Poplar, and Spruce if desired. It is also recommended that large prints of the site map replace the small maps in trailhead kiosks. The existing map is difficult to find because the current kiosks serve multiple functions as a SSF bulletin board. A larger version would be needed especially if information like difficulty ratings will be added to the map. Larger maps could include additional information including the location of nearby restrooms. Write-in responses during outreach efforts indicated that they would like to see restrooms on-site. The construction of permanent restrooms is not currently feasible for SSF. Trailhead kiosk signage should indicate that there are no restrooms on the site but could show on the map where the nearest public restrooms are. SEATING Community outreach revealed that visitors wanted additional seating on Sign Hill and the publicly preferred trail options presented in Section 7.2.2 allows for more seating location options. Outreach results also showed a preference for reclaimed wood seating. Given that SSF 240 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 52 has a collection of logs on-site from tree removal efforts, these could be used to create the desired seating. To maximize access of the panoramic views from Sign Hill, most seating could be positioned at higher elevations on the hill. Seating would allow visitors to take breaks as they ascend Sign Hill. However, given the extent of host plants at the summit and along the Ridge Trail, additional seating here should be limited. New seating can be installed prior to habitat restoration activities to reduce the amount of disturbance to native plants and animals. Existing bench on Sign Hill. 8.4.2 Improve Public Awareness One way to increase public awareness of Sign Hill is to not only identify the name of the trailhead at trailhead kiosks, but also identify the site. This label hierarchy is common practice and helps to create a sense of place and identity. For example, the kiosk at Ridgeview Court would have “Sign Hill” written in large font near the top and “Ridgeview Court Trailhead” below in smaller font. Increasing public awareness for the site can be aided by off-site signage. To mirror the increased wayfinding signage on the trails, it is recommended that off-site wayfinding or directional signage be installed to help visitors get to Sign Hill. At least one sign directing visitors to each trailhead from the surrounding neighborhoods is recommended. A key component of public awareness is the regulations regarding use of Sign Hill’s trails. Currently, the signage relating regulations is inconsistent among trailhead kiosks. It is recommended that all rules be contained on one regulatory sign which is posted at all trailheads. If it has not been done already, a set of rules should be developed to govern recreation at Sign Hill and be available through SSF’s website. These rules should include: • No biking • Dogs must be on-leash no longer than six feet, and handlers must remove dog waste to a garbage can (in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code) • Visitors must walk on designated trails only • No littering • No smoking (due to the high potential for wildfire) 241 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 53 INTERPRETATION AND ENGAGEMENT The clear responses from the community outreach indicate that SSF would do well to install interpretive signage that covers several topics, specifically native plants, history, and landmarks visible from Sign Hill. Of course, interpretive signage discussing native plants may also include the additional popular topics of native wildlife and geology/natural history as these topics are intertwined. In fact, topics that may be desired by visitors can also provide opportunities for SSF to reinforce appropriate behaviors as well as bolster public support for management actions. These topics may include: • Mission blue butterfly, its host plant and its listed status and conservation history, reminders to stay on trails • Callippe silverspot butterfly, its host plant, rarity, and its conservation story including the need to stay on trails • Island biogeography ecological theories and how Sign Hill, along with San Bruno Mountain are essentially islands of unique habitat surrounded by an increasingly urbanized landscape. Effects of natural isolation and habitat fragmentation associated with development are easily observed and understood in the context of Sign Hill. • Historic significance of the sign letters and history of South San Francisco • Geology and seismology of the region • Views visible from Sign Hill like notable landmarks or historic relevance • Why more trees aren’t always better • Cultural heritage of the region • Stewardship of Sign Hill and the importance of staying on designated trails Interpretive signage can be clustered in areas where visitors may be walking slowly or resting, at locations where a feature of interest is visible, or throughout the site. Outreach respondents indicated they prefer signage that is modern in style and either wood or metal are acceptable materials. The signage style, material, and construction should be consistent across all sign types (kiosks, wayfinding, interpretive and regulatory) to foster place identity and streamline maintenance. Interpretive signage should be written in both English and Spanish. On-site interpretive programs can bolster information presented on signage or address new or niche topics. Staff ’s on-site presence for these programs can also serve to educate visitors of site regulations and appropriate behavior. Research has demonstrated that on-site park/protected area staff are an effective method for achieving compliance with regulations (Kidd et al. 2015; Widner & Roggenbuck 2000). Park interpretation can also happen off-site through SSF’s website, recreation programming, marketing campaigns, or presentations at local schools and/or libraries. Researching and developing interpretive materials can be time intensive and skilled staff or contractors would be needed to accomplish this work. Partnering with local schools or non-profits could also provide additional capacity for off-site interpretive programs. These types of programs can bring information to people who have never visited or are unable to visit Sign Hill. Updating SSF’s Parks and Recreation website can include the addition of interpretive material and other ways to engage with Sign Hill, like virtual tours. Volunteerism and education and should be continued and likely expanded given the large amount of interest shown by outreach respondents. Ongoing trail maintenance and trash removal 242 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 54 will be a constant need in which outreach respondents expressed interest. Volunteers also play a huge role in helping manage invasive species; acting as a “force multiplier” to make a larger impact with little monetary costs. A dedicated trail maintenance program and/or trail building specialist on staff, or a contractor would be needed to facilitate volunteer trail work. Sign Hill Stewards play a large part in satisfying the many volunteer requests the SSF Parks and Recreation Department receives and complements the larger citywide initiative to engage more volunteers. OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS One-time as well as programmatic funding will be needed to develop and maintain signage and seating, as well as interpretive materials or programs. To grow volunteer or engagement programs, additional staff and programmatic funding would be warranted to develop materials, engage the public, and track progress against restoration or maintenance plans. Volunteers participating with Sign Hill Stewards removing invasive mustard plants. 8.5 Increase Resiliency Against Wildfire As described in section 4.0 Wildfire Hazards, the 2020 Diamond Fire burned 16 acres of Sign Hill, starting near the historic sign and letter “S” in SAN on the south-facing slope. Multiple agencies as well as CAL FIRE responded and dropped flame retardant on the hill via plane. No structures were lost, and minor damage was done to a few homes from falling embers. Thousands of trees 243 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 55 were killed during the fire which started as a grass fire and then quickly spread to a crown fire. The fuels treatment performed after this fire to get Sign Hill into CAL FIRE defensible space compliance represent the first of many significant steps SSF has taken in recent years to reduce wildfire fuels on Sign Hill. 8.5.1 Wildfire Fuel Hazard Reduction Through removal of an acacia grove, burned stands of Monterey pines and thinning or removing eucalyptus groves across the south-facing slope of Sign Hill and along the southern boundary of Sign Hill, SSF has reduced major wildfire fuels threats. After inspecting these areas, WRA’s Senior Restoration Contractor determined that additional large-scale tree removals were not necessary to reduce the threat of wildfire. However, localized tree removal and ladder fuel reduction may still be needed on the north-facing and south-facing slopes respectively. Additionally, areas that have been treated must now be maintained and regrowth of fuels managed. Several options for maintaining these areas and managing wildfire fuels include: • Prescribed burns to reduce woody fuels and stimulate native grasses. • Cutting vegetation back through grazing animals, mowing, or manual removal. • Monitoring these existing fuel reduction treatment areas for fuel loads should be incorporated into SSF’s existing vegetation monitoring efforts. Vegetation trimming or removal will need to follow seasonal wildlife protection guidelines. Similarly, prescribed burns will need to follow any applicable CAL FIRE and Bay Area Air Quality Management District regulations. The eastern facing slopes of Sign Hill were historically less impacted by non-native tree plantings and largely consist of native grasslands (F igure 2). The majority of the northern facing slopes in Sign Hill are not managed by SSF and consist of primarily of native shrub-scrub habitat. Both these east and north facing slopes vegetation communities are generally resilient to fire though the recommended maintenance actions above can be applied to these areas if needed. Rather, monitoring efforts should focus on changes to these communities including areas of sudden vegetation mortality (or precursors like insects, disease, or drought), and spread of fire-prone invasive species. Notably, any future fuel reduction and vegetation cutting activities should be timed and monitored appropriately to ensure protection of wildlife species. To maintain treated areas or remove trees in additional areas, SSF has previously and should continue to follow CAL FIRE guidelines for creating defensible space. Specifically, tree branches within six feet of the ground should be removed (SSF has prescribed 12-15 feet due to slopes), and trees growing over shrubs should have three times the height of the shrub of clearance to the lowest branches (Figure 7). Horizontal spacing between large shrubs and trees should also be maintained depending on the steepness of the slope (Figure 8) (CAL FIRE, 2023). 244 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 56 Figure 7. CAL FIRE Defensible Space Guidelines Vertical Spacing Figure 8. CAL FIRE Defensible Space Guidelines Horizontal Spacing 8.5.2 Neighbor Education Because Sign Hill is surrounded by residential development with notably large lots with boundaries that extend beyond resident’s fences, a key component to wildfire resiliency will be 245 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 57 coordination with these neighbors for wildfire fuels management. A program for the neighbors of Sign Hill can be developed by SSF to educate and empower residents. For example, t he Nature Neighbor Program for residents neighboring the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area provides guidance for neighbors on a range of topics from protecting their homes from wildfire, to co-existing with wildlife (Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, 2023). While the topics covered by the Nature Neighbor Project may be useful, they are not necessarily specific to the location. A neighbor program for Sign Hill would need to be tailored with site- specific information and issues. Wildfire related coordination that a park neighbor program could address include: • Providing parcel maps showing property boundaries of Sign Hill and neighboring residences • Hosting workshops to establish shared goals and expectations for SSF and neighboring property owners regarding vegetation and fuels management • Working with local waste management companies to assist in hauling of fuel material after residents have worked to clear their properties Neighboring properties near the Spruce Avenue trailhead and on Franklin Avenue have stands of trees which may need to be evaluated to ensure compliance with the CAL FIRE standards for defensible space (CAL FIRE, 2023). A pilot neighborhood education program could begin with these property owners. Additionally, a park neighbor program could also provide guidance for protecting the callippe silverspot and mission blue butterflies on neighboring private land, or other locally specific conservation issues. OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Managing existing fuel treatment areas and monitoring for non-native species regrowth and spread is currently a struggle for SSF city staff. While similar vegetation monitoring and mowing or manual treatment is already taking place, fuel reduction season conflicts with prime restoration and endangered species monitoring season. These tasks should be viewed separately in terms of staffing and additional funding for contract work or additional staff is required to continue both efforts. Currently, SSF only has funding for two part-time employees dedicated to this work. Development of a new program aimed at coordination with and education for neighbors will also likely need additional programmatic staffing and funding. 9.0 IMPLEMENTATION PRIORITIES AND TIMING The following section outlines priority actions and recommendations for implementation (Table 11) that would occur over the 20-year planning period for which the OSMP has been developed. The priority actions in Section 9.1 are not ranked and the timing of their implementation will depend on availability of funding and staff, the occurrence of wildfire, or severe storm events, and environmental or historical compliance requirements. The table is organized into six categories, which align with the five objectives identified in Section 1.2 and includes a sixth category pertaining to funding and operations related actions. The table includes 50 actions, with most pertaining to expanding and enhancing habitat restoration (12 actions), followed by eight actions for improving visitor experiences and operations and funding. Maintaining the sign letters and improving education and interpretation education programs both include six actions and there are five actions for improving trails and mitigation of wildfire hazards. 246 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 58 To further expand and enhance habitat restoration, multiple actions are recommended to occur during the first two years of OSMP implementation. Some of these actions include installing log barriers to keep visitors from walking across restoration areas and restoring new areas for butterfly host and nectar plants in locations adjacent to existing populations, which is one of multiple ongoing actions in this category. To continue improving trails, ongoing monitoring of off-trail use is recommended, as well as planning and implementing more long-term projects such as building new alignments for the Eucalyptus and Liberty Trails and decommissioning previous alignments. To best maintain the historic letters, there are multiple recommendations described for the first two years of OSMP implementation, including performing geotechnical and architectural historian assessment on the letters and surrounding areas, and then stabilizing the letters in years three through five. To Improve visitor experiences and increase public awareness, multiple recommended actions within years one and two are described to install better on-site maps and signage, while recommendations in years three through five focus on providing information about Sign Hill off- site and/or online. To improve community engagement, education and interpretation, recommendations include continuing and expanding the existing Sign Hill Stewards program in years one and two to expanding the program in years three through five, while also developing other programming opportunities (e.g., SSF’s recreation and child care programs or conservation organizations). In years six through ten, recommendations described include instating these identified programs as part of SSF Parks and Recreation course programming. Recommendations regarding wildfire hazard mitigation include maintaining existing fire breaks and efforts to meet CAL FIRE standards in years one and two to removing invasive tree species on Sign Hill while retaining native, beneficial species, and leaving dead trees for raptor nesting in years six through ten. Finally, operations and funding recommendations include identifying one-time funding sources for the sign letters evaluation and reinforcement, trail drainage, and trail construction in years one and two to augmenting SSF Parks and Recreation staff with additional part time, seasonal positions in years three through five. Staffing recommendations are conceptual and may require more or less staffing or funding as the OSMP is implemented. Additional recommendations and their timing may be found in Table 11. 9.1 Priority Actions 1. Conduct protocol-level surveys for special-status species: Conduct surveys to verify presence or absence of those special status species with at least moderate potential to occur on Sign Hill. These species include the following: • Mission blue butterfly • Callippe silverspot butterfly • Pallid bat • Fringed myotis bat 247 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 59 • Western red bat • Dusky footed woodrat • Bent flowered fiddleneck • Coast rockcress • Coastal triquetrella • Diablo helianthella • San Francisco collinsia • San Francisco wallflower • San Francisco gumplant • San Francisco campion • San Francisco owls clover • Scouler's catchfly 2. Stabilize letters with guidance from architectural historian: Since the gully formation between the ‘O’ and ‘I’ during the 2022-2023 rainstorms, investigating potential long- term damage, and if necessary, stabilizing the historic letters is increasingly urgent. 3. Trail erosion repairs in current alignments: Because on-trail erosion can cause off-trail erosion and subsequent issues for other activities such as native habitat restoration and stabilization of the letters, trail repairs should be prioritized ahead of larger scale restoration. This erosion has caused some off trail trampling and trail braids. 4. Remove regrowing acacia and eucalyptus: Because the acacia and eucalyptus trees were recently cut and they grow vigorously (up to 12’ or more in a year), waiting to remove stumps and regrowth could result in need to cut back the entire stand again. This helps both fuel management and restoration efforts. 5. Trail re-alignments and new trail construction: New trails and alignment construction may happen simultaneously with trail repairs but will require additional preparation and expertise including a robust design period with further public outreach. 6. Habitat restoration and fire fuels management: SSF can continue these activities while the other implementation actions are occurring, but more resources should be allocated to this effort. Appendix E includes a calendar of activities that SSF follows when conducting invasive species management for the purposes of habitat restoration and wildfire fuels reduction. 248 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 60 9.2 Timing Table 11. Recommendation Implementation Timing 1-2 YEARS 3-5 YEARS 6-10 YEARS 10+ YEARS Expand and Enhance Habitat Restoration • Install barriers (e.g., logs, non-nectar native vegetation, fencing) along trails to protect butterfly host plant areas from off-trail visitor travel • Manage regrowth of previously removed non- native trees and reduce scrub encroachment (ongoing) • Propagate host plants and nectar plants and monitor existing restoration areas (ongoing) • Restore/protect areas for rare plant species (on-going) • Restore new areas for butterfly host and nectar plants in locations adjacent to existing populations (ongoing) • Explore introductions for federally endangered butterflies of nearby San Bruno Mountain; yellow stone crop host plant for San Bruno elfin and purple owl's clover for bay checkerspot • Restore areas currently occupied by non-native species or areas covered in scrub species (ongoing) • Conduct rare plant surveys in conjunction with new trail alignment designs • Fund and construct greenhouse nursery for host plant cultivation • Restore decommissioned trail areas with native plants • Acquire one or both privately owned open space parcels • Consider acquiring residential properties on Franklin for future access points 249 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 61 1-2 YEARS 3-5 YEARS 6-10 YEARS 10+ YEARS Improve Trails and Maintain Letters • Monitor off-trail use through periodic surveys of vegetation trampling/soil disturbance (ongoing) • Perform geotechnical and architectural historian assessment on letters and surrounding areas • Install signage at trailheads and along trails to identify designated, appropriate viewpoints for letters, etc. • Decommission existing visitor created trails • Continue installation of drainage features on trails and begin design of complex drainage infrastructure where needed • Implement minor trail and step improvements/repairs as feasible • Implement programs for volunteer or staff trail docents to encourage visitors to stay on trail and interpret sensitive resources like restoration areas and Hillside Sign • Reinforce Hillside Sign with guidance from Architectural historian and geotechnical specialist. • Develop a maintenance plan for the Hillside Sign that is approved by an architectural historian • Build new alignments for Eucalyptus and Liberty trails and decommission previous alignments • Build new alignments for Seubert and Iris trails, and decommission previous alignments 250 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 62 1-2 YEARS 3-5 YEARS 6-10 YEARS 10+ YEARS Improve Visitor Experiences and Increase Public Awareness • Install larger trail maps at trailhead kiosks that can be updated as trails undergo construction • Add permanent site and trailhead name signage to trailhead kiosks • Replace on-site wayfinding signage • Revamp Sign Hill website to be more accessible and provide interpretive information • Install additional seating • Install off-site signage directing vehicles to Park • Install permanent trail map at trailhead kiosk indicating difficulty of trails • Explore additional opportunities for quality-of-life amenities and additional entrances Improve Education & Interpretation • Continue and expand existing Sign Hill Stewards program • Pilot Young Naturalist Club after-school program • Install interpretive signage (detail to be added from recent outreach results) • Expand educational and stewardship programs internally and through partnering with local schools, non-profit organizations, SSF’s Recreation and Child Care programs or conservation organizations • Include Sign Hill as curriculum within Parks and Recreation programming (such as summer camps, afterschool, or senior programs) • Explore the opportunity to create and coordinate curriculum with SSFUSD to engage more students with nature Wildfire Hazard Mitigation • Maintain existing fire breaks and efforts to maintain CAL FIRE standards • Inform adjacent parcels of property boundaries and responsibilities • Complete tree and brush removals for fuel reduction goals • Explore potential for controlled burns in appropriate areas • Remove all invasive tree species on Park while retaining native, beneficial species; leaving dead trees for raptor nesting 251 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 63 1-2 YEARS 3-5 YEARS 6-10 YEARS 10+ YEARS Operations and Funding •Identify and apply for applicable grants for maintenance, restoration, construction, and acquisition (ongoing) •Create full-time staff position to manage natural resources, educational experiences, and volunteer groups •Identify one-time funding sources for Hillside Sign evaluation and reinforcement, trail drainage, and trail construction •Create a dedicated staffing, supplies and services budget for trail/site maintenance, restoration, and fuel load management •Allocate funding for multiple part-time staff to supplement seasonal work •Partner with other agencies to accomplish fuel reduction work on an on-going basis •Have staff-verified volunteers capable of working on tasks to supplement staffing •Expand the restoration work to other open spaces such as the Bay Trail to facilitate success of native species across SSF 252 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 64 9.3 Conclusion Sign Hill is a unique and special place not only in SSF, but in the whole Bay Area. The hill is a beautiful dichotomy of nature and human interaction with the message sprawled across the southern slopes announcing the city’s industrious past ironically hosting some of the most sensitive and rare habitat for endangered species. As such, it is imperative that the habitat found on the Sign Hill be preserved, managed, and expanded upon well into the future. Sign Hill is SSF’s only true open space and provides a unique experience for residents and visitors alike to learn about natural systems, recreate, and even experience history up close by walking amongst the letters. This OSMP and the recommendations provided will help keep Sign Hill environmentally healthy and accessible for all. The work that has been completed on Sign Hill to date represents a monumental effort to restore important native habitats on Sign Hill. Implementation of this OSMP will dove-tail with the previous work to create a balance between recreation, habitat restoration, and history—creating a home for fauna, a destination park for residents, and announcing SSF’s dedication to a sustainable and eco-conscious future. 10.0 REFERENCES Alexander, P., & Hamm, C. (1916). History of San Mateo County. Burlingame: Burlingame Publishing. Barrow, E. (2023). Cultural Resources Study for the Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan. Rohnert Park: Tom Origer & Associates. Beier, P., & Loe, S. (1992). In my experience: A checklist for evaluating impacts to wildlife movement corridors. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 434-440. Calflora. (2023, February). Retrieved from calflora.org California Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2023). California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California. Retrieved from https://wildlife.ca.gov/conservation/planning/connectivity/CEHC California Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2023, February). CNDDB Maps and Data. Retrieved from Biogeographic Data Branch: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). (2023, July). Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ). Retrieved from California Office of the State Fire Marshal: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/community-wildfire-preparedness-and- mitigation/wildfire-preparedness/fire-hazard-severity-zones/ California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. (2023, July). Defensible Space. Retrieved from https://www.fire.ca.gov/dspace California Native Plant Society. (2023, February). A Manual of California Vegetation, Online Edition. Retrieved from http://vegetation.cnps.org California Native Plant Society. (2023, February). Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v9.5). Retrieved from http://rareplants.cnps.org/ California State Parks. (2019). Trails Handbook. Sacramento: Department of Parks and Recreation. 253 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 65 California State Parks. (2023, July). Local Government Assistance. Retrieved from Office of Historic Preservation: https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=1072 City of South San Francisco. (2015). Parks and Recreation Master Plan. City of South San Francisco. (2020). City of South San Francisco Urban Forest Master Plan. City of South San Francisco. (2022). Shape SSF: 2040 General Plan. Consortium of California Herbaria. (2023, February). CCH2 Data Portal. Retrieved from https://cch2.org/portal/index.php Environmental Collaborative. (2015). Biological Resource Assessment: Sign Hill Park Site, City of South San Francisco. Google Earth. (Accessed 2023). Aerial Imagery 1985-2022. Grimmer, A. E. (2017). The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services. Kidd, A., Monz, C., D'Antonio, A., Manning, R., Reigner, N., Goonan, K., & Jacobi, C. (2015). The effect of minimum impact education on visitor spatial behavior in parks and protected areas: An experimental investigation using GPS-based tracking. Journal of Environmental Management, 53-62. Lewis, E. (n.d.). Sign Hill History and Facts. South San Francisco: Sign Hill Habitat Restoration Project. National Resources Conservation Service. (2023). Web Soil Survey, Soil Survey Area: San Mateo County, Eastern Part, and San Francisco County, California. United States Department of Agriculture. NETROnline. (2023). Retrieved from historicaerials.com Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. (2023, May). Nature Neighbor Project. Retrieved from https://www.nps.gov/samo/learn/management/nature-neighbor- project.htm Soule, M., & Terborgh, J. (1999). The policy and science of regional conservation. In M. Soule, Continental Conservation (pp. 1-17). Island Press. United States Censue Bureau. (2023, June). Quick Facts: South San Francisco, California. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/southsanfranciscocitycalifornia Widner, C., & Roggenbuck, J. (2000). Reducing theft of petrified wood at Petrified Forest National Park. Journal of Interpretation Research. Zemke, B. (2023, May). Personal communication. (J. Baas, Interviewer) 254 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 Appendix A APPENDIX A. SUPPLEMENTAL BIOLOGICAL SITE ASSESSMENT 255 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 2 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose The purpose of this report is to inform the Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan (OSMP) and provide the results of a supplemental biological resources assessment (BRA) to the City of South San Francisco (City). A site visit took place on February 9, 2023 where staff from WRA, Inc. (WRA) reviewed an approximately 91-acre area (Study Area). This assessment utilized an existing 2015 Biological Resource Assessment (Environmental Collaborative 2015), resources provided by the City of South San Francisco, and databases to provide an updated evaluation of biological resources on the site. The primary purpose of this assessment is to gather the information necessary to complete a review of biological resources and identify sensitive resources that could be affected by implementing the OSMP. This report describes the results of the site visit for which the Study Area was assessed concerning: (1) the potential to support special-status plant and wildlife species; (2) the potential presence of sensitive biological communities such as wetlands or riparian habitats subject to regulatory agency jurisdiction; and (3) the potential presence of other sensitive biological resources protected by local, state, and federal laws and regulations. Attachment 1 is a potentials table which evaluates each individual special-status species that occurs in the region with respect to its potential to occur in the Study Area and be affected by potential future project activities. This assessment also provides guidance for future open space planning endeavors on the property which balance the needs of the visiting public with on-site sensitive resources. High- level fuels management recommendations are also included. The Study Area is within a densely developed residential area of South San Francisco. The Study Area is bounded to the north by privately owned open space lands, and to the south, west, and east by residential development. 1.2 Project Location The Study Area is located in South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. The Study Area consists of 65 acres of City owned Sign Hill and 27 acres of privately owned parcels north of Sign Hill (Attachment 1 - Figure 1). 256 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 3 2.0 REGULATORY BACKGROUND 2.1 Sensitive Natural Communities Sensitive natural communities include habitats that fulfill special functions or have special values. Natural communities considered sensitive are those identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW. The CDFW ranks sensitive communities as "threatened" or "very threatened" (CDFW 2023a) and keeps records of their occurrences in its California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFW 2023b). Vegetation alliances are ranked 1 through 5 in the CNDDB based on NatureServe's (2020) methodology, with those alliances ranked globally (G) or statewide (S) as 1 through 3 considered sensitive. Impacts to sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or those identified by either the CDFW or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) must be considered and evaluated under CEQA (CCR Title 14, Div. 6, Chap. 3, Appendix G). Sensitive natural communities also include streams, lakes and associated riparian vegetation protected by CDFW under Sections 1600–1616 of the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC). In addition, this general class includes oak woodlands that are protected by local ordinances under the Oak Woodlands Protection Act and Section 21083.4 of the California Public Resources Code. 2.2 Wetlands, Streams, and Aquatic Areas The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulates “Waters of the U.S.” under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Waters of the U.S. are defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) as waters susceptible to use in commerce, including interstate waters and wetlands, all non- wetland waters (intrastate waterbodies, including wetlands), and their tributaries (33 CFR 328.3). The term “Waters of the State” is defined by the Porter-Cologne Act as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) protect waters within this broad regulatory scope through many different regulatory programs. Regulated areas under these programs include wetlands and unvegetated water bodies (such as lakes and streams) meeting defined criteria described in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and related Supplements and Regulatory Guidance Letters. Waters of the State include wetlands and other surface waters protected by the State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (SWRCB 2021). 2.3 Special-status Species This report assesses the presence and potential presence of species protected by a range of federal and state laws and regulations. Specific species of plants, fish, and wildlife may be designated as threatened or endangered by the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), or the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). The ESA also provides for designation of critical habitat, which are specific geographic areas containing physical or biological features “essential to the conservation of the species.” Specific protections and permitting mechanisms for these species differ under each of these acts, and a species’ designation under one law does not automatically provide protection under the other. CFGC also includes lists of “Fully Protected Species,” which includes specific lists of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and fish designated in CFGC. Special protections for nesting birds and breeding bats are also provided by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and sections 3503, 3503.5 257 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 4 and 3513 of CFGC . Under these laws/codes, the intentional harm or collection of adult birds as well as the intentional collection or destruction of active nests, eggs, and young is illegal. The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) was enacted in 1972 and protects all marine mammals within the territorial boundaries of the United States from take. Under the California Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA), the CDFW has listed 64 “rare” or “endangered” plant species, and prevents “take,” with few exceptions, of these species. Plant species on the CNPS Rare and Endangered Plant Inventory (Inventory; CNPS 2023a) with California Rare Plant Ranks (Rank) of 1 and 2, as well as some Rank 3 species, are also considered special-status plant species and must be considered under CEQA. Rank 4 and some Rank 3 species are typically only afforded protection under CEQA when such species are particularly unique to the locale (e.g., range limit, low abundance/low frequency, limited habitat) or are otherwise considered locally rare. 2.4 Additional CEQA-specific Protections To address additional species protections afforded under the CEQA, the CDFW has developed a list of special species as “a general term that refers to all of the taxa the CNDDB is interested in tracking, regardless of their legal or protection status.” Additionally, any species listed as sensitive within local plans, policies, and ordinances are sensitive under the CEQA. Movement and migratory corridors for native wildlife (including aquatic corridors) as well as wildlife nursery sites are given special consideration under the CEQA. 2.5 Local Policies The City of South San Francisco Municipal code identifies resources that are protected within Sign Hill, including watercourses and trees. These ordinances are described in detail below. Watercourse Protection Ordinance: Discharge into, modification of, development within 30 feet of, or diversion of any watercourse within the City of South San Francisco are not permitted unless a written permit has been issued from the Director of Public Works, per City Municipal Code Section 14.04.190. Tree Protection Ordinance: Table 1 outlines trees that are protected under City Municipal Code Chapter 13.30, “Tree Preservation,” and permits for removal or pruning of protected trees are administered by the Parks and Recreation Department. Table 1. Protected Trees SPECIES CIRCUMFERENCE1 STATUS California bay (Umbellularia californica) 30” Heritage Oak (Quercus spp.) 30” Heritage Cedar (Cedrus spp.) 30” Heritage California buckeye (Aesculus californica) 30” Heritage Catalina ironwood (Lyonothamnus asplenifolium) 30” Heritage Strawberry tree (Arbutus spp.) 30” Heritage Mayten (Maytenus boaria) 30” Heritage Little Gem Dwarf Magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora “Little Gem”) 30” Heritage Blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) 75” Protected Black acacia (Acacia melanoxylon) 75” Protected Myoporum (Myoporum lactum) 75” Protected Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) 75” Protected 258 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 5 SPECIES CIRCUMFERENCE1 STATUS Glossy privet (Lingustrum lucidum) 75” Protected Lombardy poplar (Populus nigra) 75” Protected Any upright, single-trunked tree 48” Protected A tree or stand of trees that is unique/important to the public2 None specified Protected A stand of trees that are dependent on each other for survival None specified Protected 1 Measured at 54 inches above natural grade 2 As determined by the director of parks and recreation department of SSF It is unlawful to remove or prune protected or heritage trees, except as provided for in Section 13.30.070 (Emergencies) and as provided for in Section 13.30.060 (Notices and Permits) of the Ordinance. An emergency might occur at Sign Hill due to storm damage or wildfire, rendering a heritage tree a public safety hazard. Tree Removal Permit conditions of approval may include: • 3:1 replacement ratio for each removed tree, with 15-gallon replacements, • 2:1 replacement ratio for each removed tree, with 24” x 24” box replacements, or • Fee payment to the City’s tree fund, as specified in Section 13.30.080(d). The City’s Parks and Recreation Department provides oversight for and issues the tree removal permits. 3.0 ASSESSMENT METHODS Prior to the site visit, the WRA biologist reviewed literature resources and performed database searches to assess the potential for sensitive biological communities (e.g., wetlands) and special-status species (e.g., endangered plants), including: • Web Soil Survey of San Mateo County (USDA 2023) • San Francisco South 7.5-minute U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle (USGS 2021) • Contemporary aerial photographs (Google Earth 2023) • Historical aerial photographs (NETR 2023) • National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS 2023a) • California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW 2023) • California Native Plant Society Inventory of Rare Plants (CNPS 2023) • Consortium of California Herbaria (CCH1, CCH2 2023) • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) List of Federal Endangered and Threatened Species (USFWS 2023b) • A Manual of California Vegetation, Online Edition (CNPS 2023) • Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities (Holland 1986) • California Natural Community List (CDFW 2023) • CDFW Publication, California Bird Species of Special Concern in California (Shuford and Gardali 2008) • CDFW and University of California Press publication California Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern (Thomson et al. 2016) 259 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 6 • ebird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application; accessed March 2023] Database searches (i.e., CNDDB, CNPS, IPaC) for special-status species focused on the San Francisco South USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle and adjacent quadrangles near the site (San Francisco North, Hunters Point, San Mateo, and Montara Mountain). On February 9, 2023, WRA biologists Brian Freiermuth and Ivy Poisson visited the Study Area to map land cover types, document plant and wildlife species present, and evaluate on-site habitat for the potential to support special-status species. The private parcels were not visited per se, they were viewed from City property and assessed remotely with publicly available data. WRA biologists worked closely with City Natural Resource Specialist Candace La Croix to identify and map land cover types. The Study Area was reviewed for the presence of aquatic resources including wetlands and unvegetated waters of the State and waters of the U.S. Methods for identifying these areas relied on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), Arid West Regional Supplement (Corps 2008), A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (Lichvar 2008), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-05 (Corps 2005), and related documentation. For any streams observed, top of bank is identified in the field by indicators such as benching and changes in vegetation. 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 4.1 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types During the site visit, WRA Inc. (WRA) evaluated the species composition and area occupied by distinct vegetation communities, aquatic communities, and other land cover types. Mapping of these classifications utilized a combination of existing vegetation data (Environmental Collaborative 2015, Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy et al. 2022), historic and recent aerial imagery (NETR 2023 and Google Earth 2023), and ground surveys. Communities are characterized and mapped based on distinct shifts in plant assemblage (vegetation) and follow the California Sensitive Natural Communities List (CDFW 2023) and A Manual of California Vegetation, Online Edition (MCV; CNPS 2023). These resources cannot anticipate every component of every potential vegetation assemblage in California, and so in some cases it is necessary to identify other appropriate vegetative classifications based on the best professional judgment of WRA biologists. Extensive development began circa the 1950s in the areas surrounding the Study. Prior to this development, Sign Hill appeared to be grassland habitat with limited tree cover canopy (NETR 2023). Aerial imagery from 1946 indicates the beginning of the planted eucalyptus stand in the southwest corner of the Study Area; this is evidenced by the arrangement of trees in linear rows. In addition, Alphonse Seubert, a local resident, is estimated to have planted more than 5,000 trees starting from the 1960s (Environmental Collaborative 2015). Tree species that were commonly planted and are still present at the site include eucalyptus, coast live oak, Monterey cypress, and Monterey pine. A reconnaissance-level site visit was conducted by WRA which was not sufficient to identify vegetation communities to an alliance or association level; in addition, the alliance-level mapping conducted in 2015 by Environmental Collaborative is now out of date considering 260 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 7 significant changes resulting from recent fires and fuel management activities. Therefore, land cover mapping as described in this report and map remains broad; this is summarized in Table 2 and depicted on Figure 2 of Attachment 1. The vegetation communities as described below list dominant and notable plant species (e.g., special-status plants or plants that support listed butterfly species). A full list of observed species is included in Attachment 2. This includes observations from the 2017 rare plant surveys conducted by Environmental Collaborative, City staff, and Park stewards in addition to plant observations made by WRA during the reconnaissance visit in February 2023. Table 2. Land Cover Types within the Study Area COMMUNITY/LAND COVERS ACRES WITHIN STUDY AREA Tree Groves 19.73 Shrubland 8.28 Grassland (native) 16.19 Grassland (non-native) 19.72 Developed 1.83 4.1.1 Tree Groves Planted groves are located throughout the Study Area, concentrated in the southern portion (Figure 2). These trees were initially planted around the 1940s through the 1960s, as indicated by historic aerial imagery (NETR 2023). Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus), Monterey pine (Pinus radiata), Monterey cypress (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa), black acacia (Acacia melanoxylon ) are commonly planted tree species. Less common tree species include coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara), and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua). While there are clusters of the same species in certain areas (Monterey pine and Monterey cypress at the western trailhead, for example) these groves are not representative of naturally occurring vegetation communities. In addition, due to the lack of consistent species dominance in the tree canopy, no MCV alliances or associations were assigned to this land cover type. Previously, these stands were denser and more widespread, but the 2020 Diamond fire which burned over 16 acres of the park and fuel management practices that began in 2019 greatly reduced the spread and density of these tree groves. Understory cover ranges from sparse (especially under eucalyptus stands) to dense cover of weedy/invasive species due to recent disturbance. Understory species includes: wild oats (Avena spp.), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), Bermuda buttercup (Oxalis pes-capre), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), shortpod mustard (Hirshfeldia incana), English ivy (Hedera helix), and other non-native grasses. Non-native/invasive shrub species such as cotoneaster (Cotoneaster sp.), pyracantha (Pyracantha fortuneana), and French broom (Genista monspessulana) occur along the fringes of the stands of tree plantings and continue into the grassland habitat. 4.1.2 Shrubland Shrubland cover within the Sign Hill is dominated by coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis shrubland), poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), coffee berry (Frangula californica ssp. californica), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), sticky monkeyflower (Diplacus aurantiacus), and blue elderberry (Sambucus mexicana ). Poison oak is prevalent and forms dense thickets in the moist, north-facing slopes of Sign Hill. 261 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 8 Dominant species within the herbaceous layer include hummingbird sage (Salvia spathacea), horkelia (Horkelia californica), coast iris (Iris longipetala, CRPR 4.2), pearly everlasting (Anaphalis margaritacea), and bee plant (Scrophularia californica). 4.1.3 Native Grassland Native grassland was historically the dominant cover over the Study Area and surrounding lands. Native grasslands still occupy most of the Sign Hill ridgeline and extend s onto the private parcels to the north and northeast, the parklands to the southeast. While native grass and forb species may be observed across Sign Hill, some of the less disturbed or appropriately managed areas contain higher concentrations of native species. Although the boundaries between native and nonnative grassland vegetation communities is represented by a distinct line on Figure 2 , field conditions exhibit a gradient, or a gradual shift in vegetation assemblage from native-dominated to nonnative-dominated. The native grassland vegetation community as mapped and described here represents areas that tend to be dominated by native species; these areas also typically include rare plants and larval hosts for special-status butterflies. Representative native grass species include purple needlegrass (Nassella pulchra), California brome (Bromus sitchensis var. carinatus), meadow barley (Hordeum brachyantherum), blue wildrye (Elymus glaucus), California oatgrass (Danthonia californica), Hall’s bent grass (Agrostis hallii ), June grass (Koeleria macrantha), and beardless wild rye (Elymus triticoides ssp. triticoides). Beardless wild rye forms dense, almost monotypic stands in some locations on the north and northeast-facing hillsides. Purple needlegrass are present in the highest density around the Hillside Sign where annual summer mowing has been performed but can also be found dispersed throughout the Study Area. Forbs observed within the native grasslands include coast iris, soap plant (Chlorogalum pomeridianum), yarrow (Achillea millefolium), California poppy (Eschscholzia californica), checkerbloom (Sidalcea malvaeflora), hummingbird sage (Salvia spathacea), silver bush lupine (Lupinus albifrons var. collinus), varied lupine (Lupinus variicolor), golden violet (Viola pedunculata), blue dicks (Dichelostemma capitatum ssp. capitatum), blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchium bellum), and California buttercup (Ranunculus californicus). Larval host plants of the federally endangered Mission blue butterfly (Icaricia icariodes missionensis) and Callippe silverspot butterfly (Speyeria callippe callippe) are also scattered throughout the native grasslands; these consist of silver bush lupine and Lindley’s varied lupine for the Mission blue butterfly and golden violet for the Callippe silverspot butterfly. While nonnative and invasive herbaceous species may also be observed within native grasslands, they are not considered dominant. 4.1.4 Non-native Grassland Non-native grasslands occupy most of the south-facing slopes located at lower elevations within the Study Area where more disturbance has occurred. Although there are native species (and recruitment of native species) observed within nonnative grasslands, they tend to be in lower concentrations, as small clusters or as an individual specimen. 262 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 9 Common species in the areas of non-native grasslands include wild oat (Avena fatua), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), soft chess (Bromus mollis), foxtail barley (Hordeum leporinum), mustard (Brassica spp.), wild radish (Rhaphanus sativus), bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), and bur clover (Medicago polymorpha). In some locations, highly invasive non-native species are replacing non-native grasses, including stands of fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), Bermuda buttercup, iceplant, yellow-star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), bristly ox-tongue (Helminthotheca echioides), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), pampas grass (Cortaderia jubata), and wild radish. 4.1.5 Developed Developed cover includes residences (including yards) adjacent to the Study Area, hardscape (parking lots, roads, and sidewalks), paved trails, and utility facilities. 4.2 Soils Three soil series are mapped within the Study Area: Candlestick-Kron-Buriburi complex, 30–75 percent slopes; Orthents, cut and fill, 15–75 percent slopes; and Urban land-Orthents, cut and fill complex, 5–75 percent slopes. Each of these soil series are described in greater detail below and is shown on Figure 2. Generally, the soils within the Study Area are slightly acidic, non-saline to very slightly saline, and not serpentine (Calflora 2023, NRCS 2023). Candlestick-Kron-Buriburi complex: This series consists of shallow and variable loamy (mostly fine sandy loams) soils formed from hard fractured residuum weathered from sandstone, at elevations of 200–1,340 feet. This soil series is well drained with high runoff, is not rated as hydric, and is typically found in windy coastal plains. The soil components range from non-saline to very slightly saline. This mapping unit dominates the Study Area. Orthents, cut and fill: This series consists of variable depth and variable soil textures, and is formed from residuum, at elevations of 0–700 feet. This soil series is well drained, is not rated as hydric, and is typically found in loamy mountains. This mapping unit is only located on the western side of the Study Area at the western trailhead, adjacent to residential development. Urban land-Orthents, cut and fill complex: This soil series occurs mostly in urban areas and consists of soil material that has been moved mechanically and mixed, with highly variable texture. In addition, this series may consist of varying amounts of soil, gravel, and other solid materials. This series is typically well drained and is not rated as hydric. This mapping unit is located on the southeastern edges of the Study Area, adjacent to residential development. 4.3 Sensitive Plant Species Based upon a review of online databases and internal City GIS species occurrence maps, a total of 89 special-status plant species have been documented in the five 7.5-minute USGS quadrangles (San Francisco North, San Francisco South, San Mateo, Montara Mountain, and Hunter’s Point) surrounding Sign Hill. Species that are unlikely or have no potential to occur in 263 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 10 the Study Area were eliminated from further consideration for one or more of the following reasons: • Edaphic (soil) conditions (e.g., alkaline, serpentine, sandy) necessary to support the special-status plant species are not present in the Study Area; • Topographic conditions (e.g., montane, elevations) necessary to support the special- status plant species are not present in the Study Area; • Associated natural communities (e.g., swamps, coastal dunes) necessary to support the special-status plant species are not present in the Study Area; • The Study Area is geographically isolated from the documented range of the special- status plant species; or • Recent evaluation of historical records has determined that these species are extirpated from the region in which the Study Area is located. Of the 89 special-status plant species documented within the Study Area vicinity, nine special- status plant species have high or moderate potential to occur in the Study Area, and two special-status plant species have been documented in the Study Area. Habitat suitability and species descriptions were developed based on California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Rare Plant Inventory (California Native Plant Society, 2023), Calflora (Calflora, 2023), Consortium of California Herbaria 2 (CCH2) (Consortium of California Herbaria, 2023), and California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2023). Many of the follow species are also found on nearby San Bruno Mountain to which Sign Hill is naturally a foothill. Many of the plant communities were once contiguous between the parks before Sign Hill was biogeographically separated by housing the developments in Paradise Valley. Bent-flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia lunaris, CRPR Rank 1B.2). Moderate Potential. Bent- flowered fiddleneck is an annual forb in the forget-me-not family (Boraginaceae) that blooms from March to June. It typically occurs in open areas within cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland, and coastal bluff scrub habitat often underlain by clay substrate at elevations ranging from 10–1,625 feet (CDFW 2023, CNPS 2023, Hickman 1993). Observed associated species include coast live oak, blue oak (Quercus douglasii), California juniper (Juniperus californicus), buck brush (Ceanothus cuneatus), poison oak, miniature lupine (Lupinus bicolor), foothill lotus (Acmispon brachycarpus), calf lotus (A. wrangelianus), fringe pod (Thysanocarpus curvipes), q-tips (Micropus californicus), cream cups (Platystemon californicus), slender tarweed (Madia gracilis), common yarrow, goldenback fern (Pentagramma triangularis), one-sided bluegrass (Poa secunda), woolly sunflower (Eriophyllum lanatum), and slender wild oat (Avena barbata) (CDFW 2023). The nearest documented occurrence of bent-flowered fiddleneck is from 1963 on San Bruno Mountain, approximately 1.5 miles to the northwest. The most recent documented occurrence of this species is from 2018 on Upper Crystal Springs Reservoir, approximately 11 miles south of the Study Area (CDFW 2023). Potentially suitable grassland and openings in other habitat types are present in the Study Area. Appropriately timed surveys are recommended for this species. Coast rockcress (Arabis blepharophylla, CRPR Rank 4.3) High Potential. Coast rock cress is a perennial forb in the mustard family (Brassicaceae) that blooms from February to May. It typically occurs on rocky outcrops and coastal bluffs, in broadleaf upland forest, coastal bluff 264 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 11 scrub, coastal prairie, and coastal scrub habitats at elevations ranging from 10–3,575 feet (CDFW 2023, CNPS 2023). Known associated species include coyote brush, broadleaf stonecrop (Sedum spathulifolium), common yarrow, poison oak, soap root, polypody fern (Polypodium sp.), red larkspur (Delphinium nudicaule), cow parsnip (Heracleum maximum), silver lupine (Lupinus albifrons) (CCH2 2023). This species was observed at Sign Hill in 2012, along the western ridgeline (Calflora 2023). Potentially suitable rocky habitat is present. Appropriately timed surveys are recommended for this species. San Francisco collinsia (Collinsia multicolor, Rank 1B.2) Moderate Potential. San Francisco collinsia is an annual herb in the plantain family (Plantaginaceae) that blooms from March through May, occasionally starting to bloom in February. It typically occurs in northern coastal scrub, closed-cone pine forest habitats at elevations ranging from 100–900 feet (CNPS 2023). Known associated species include coast live oak, bay laurel, coast redwood, western chokeberry (Prunus demissa), small flowered nemophila (Nemophila parviflora), elegant clarkia (Clarkia unguiculata), and poison oak (CCH2 2023). The nearest documented occurrence is from 1988 on the eastern ridgeline of San Bruno Mountain , approximately 1 mile northeast of the Study Area. The most recent documented occurrence is from 2019, on the western ridgeline of San Bruno Mountain (Calflora 2023). The Study Area contains potentially suitable habitat on north-facing slopes in rocky soils where vegetation density is low. Appropriately timed surveys are recommended for this species. San Francisco wallflower (Erysimum franciscanum, Rank 4.2) Moderate Potential. San Francisco wallflower is a perennial for in the mustard family (Brassicaceae) that blooms from March to June. It typically occurs on serpentine or granitic substrates in chaparral, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland habitats at elevations ranging from 0–1,800 feet (CNPS 2023). Observed associated species include bracken fern, beach sagewort (Artemisia pycnocephala), lizard tail (Eriophyllum staechadifolium), purple needlegrass (Stipa pulchra), and Italian ryegrass (Festuca perennis) (CCH 2023). The nearest documented occurrence is from 1979, approximately 0.25 mile west of the Study Area. The most recent documented occurrence is from 2021, on San Bruno Mountain approximately 1.25 miles northeast of the Study Area (CDFW 2023). Potentially suitable rocky habitat is present. Potentially suitable grassland and openings in scrub are present in the Study Area. Appropriately timed surveys are recommended for this species. San Francisco gumplant (Grindelia hirsutula var. maritima, Rank 3.2) Moderate Potential. San Francisco gumplant is a perennial herb in the daisy family (Asteraceae) that blooms from June to September. It typically occurs on coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland/sandy or serpentine soils at elevations ranging from 50–1,310 feet (15–400 meters) (CNPS 2023). The nearest documented occurrence is from 1960 on San Bruno Mountain, approximately 1 mile north of the Study Area. The most recent documented occurrence is from 2011 near San Gregorio, approximately 25 miles south of the Study Area (CDFW 2023). Potentially suitable rocky habitat is present. Potentially suitable scrub and grassland habitat are present in the Study Area. Appropriately timed surveys are recommended for this species. 265 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 12 Diablo helianthella (Helianthella castanea, Rank 1B.2) Moderate Potential. Diablo Helianthella is a woody perennial species in the sunflower (Asteraceae) family that blooms from March through June. It typically occurs in broadleaved upland forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland, often on rocky substrates at elevations ranging from 180–3,900 feet (60-1,300 meters) (CNPS 2023, CDFW 2023). Known associated species include California bay, poison oak, interior live oak (Quercus wislizenii), sticky monkey flower (Diplacus aurantiacus), coyote bush, chamise (Adenostoma fasciculata), wild oat (Avena spp.), and ripgut brome (CDFW 2018). The nearest documented occurrence is from 2012 on the eastern ridge of San Bruno Mountain, approximately 1 mile north of the Study Area (CDFW 2023). Potentially suitable rocky habitat is present. Potentially suitable grassland and shrub habitat are present in the Study Area. Appropriately timed surveys are recommended for this species. Scouler's catchfly (Silene scouleri ssp. scouleri, Rank 2B.2) High Potential. Scouler’s catchfly is a perennial herb in the pink family (Caryophyllaceae) that blooms from June through August; occasionally, this species may start blooming as early as March, and may continue blooming as late as September. It typically occurs in coastal bluff scrub, coastal prairie, and valley and foothill grassland habitats at elevations ranging from 0–1,970 feet (CDFW 2023, CNPS 2023). Known associated species include coyote brush, poison oak, Pacific manzanita (Arctostaphylos pacifica), seaside buckwheat (Eriogonum latifolium), blueblossom (Ceanothus thyrsiflorus), and Douglas iris (Iris douglasiana, CDFW 2023). The nearest documented occurrence is from 1963 on the eastern ridge of San Bruno Mountain, approximately 1 mile north of the Study Area (CDFW 2023). The most recent documented occurrence is from 2016 on Pedro Point, approximately 7 miles southwest of the Study Area (CDFW 2023). Potentially suitable rocky and thin-soiled habitat is present. Additionally, there is a Calflora observation within the Study Area. Appropriately timed surveys are recommended for this species. San Francisco campion (Silene verecunda ssp. verecunda , CRPR Rank 1B.2) Moderate Potential. San Francisco campion is a perennial herb in the pink family (Caryophyllaceae) that blooms from March through July; occasionally, this species may start blooming as early as February, and may continue blooming as late as August. It typically occurs in coastal bluff scrub, chaparral, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland at elevations ranging from 100–2,115 feet (CNPS 2023). Known associated species include California orach (Extriplex californica), sea fig (Carprobrotus chilense), gum plant (Grindelia stricta var. platyphylla), bluff lettuce (Dudleya farinosa, CDFW 2023). The nearest and most recent documented occurrence is from 2018 on the western ridge of San Bruno Mountain, approximately 1.5 miles northwest of the Study Area (CDFW 2023). Potentially suitable rocky habitat is present. Potentially suitable scrub and grassland habitats are present in the Study Area. Appropriately timed surveys are recommended for this species. San Francisco owl's-clover (Triphysaria floribunda, CRPR Rank 1B.2) Moderate Potential. San Francisco owl’s-clover is an annual herb in the broomrape family (Orobanchaceae) that blooms from April to June. It typically occurs in coastal prairie, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland habitats, usually on serpentine substrates. Observed associated species include bishop 266 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 13 pine (Pinus muricata), coyote brush, common velvet grass (Holcus lanatus), silver hair grass (Aira caryophylla ), butter ‘n’ eggs (Triphysaria eriantha), and checker mallow (Sidalcea malviflora; CCH 2023). The nearest documented occurrence is from 1963 on San Bruno Mountain, approximately 1 mile north of the Study Area. The most recent documented occurrence is from 2009 at the Presidio, approximately 10 miles north of the Study Area (CDFW 2023). Potentially suitable rocky habitat within scrub and grassland habitat are present in the Study Area. Appropriately timed surveys are recommended for this species. Coastal triquetrella (Triquetrella californica, CRPR Rank 1B.2) Moderate Potential. Coastal triquetrella is a moss in the family Pottiaceae. It typically occurs on thin, rocky or gravelly soils in coastal bluff scrub and coastal scrub near the coast at elevations ranging from 30–330 feet (CDFW 2023, CNPS 2023). Known associated species include coyote brush, California sagebrush, polypody fern, ceanothus, and grasses (CDFW 2023). The nearest and most recent documented occurrence is from 2013 on the western ridge of San Bruno Mountain, approximately 1 mile north of the Study Area (CDFW 2023). The Study Area contains potentially suitable areas with thin soil and rocky substrate, with naturally occurring low cover of taller vegetation. Appropriately timed surveys are recommended for this species. 4.4 Sensitive Wildlife Species Potential sensitive wildlife species were identified using a query of the California Natural Biodiversity Database (CDFW 2023) that focused on the same five USGS quadrangles used for the plant search. Of the special-status wildlife species documented in the vicinity of the Study Area, most were excluded based on a lack of habitat features. Features not found within the Study Area that are required to support special-status wildlife species include: • Sand dunes or bare gravelly outcrops; • Large burrows; • Presence of specific host plants; or • Caves, bridges, or abandoned buildings. • Rocky intermittent and/or perennial streams, • Forests, beaches, tidal marsh, streams, ponds, and other habitat types. The absence of such habitat features eliminates components critical to the survival or movement of most special-status species found in the vicinity. Two special-status butterfly species, Mission blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides missionensis), and Callippe silverspot butterfly have been documented in the Study Area. Surveys for mission blue butterflies are conducted annually from March-June and incidental sightings of Callippe silverspot butterflies are documented by City staff. White-tailed kite (Elanus luecurus), a fully protected species in California, has potential to occur on Sign Hill and may nest there. Sign Hill has some marginal habitat that could support olive- sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi). The site provides suitable nesting habitat for a wide range of nesting birds, including raptors, that despite having no special status, receive protections from impacts that could result in nest failure during nesting. Most native birds in the United States, including common species are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) and the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513. Under these 267 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 14 laws/codes, the deliberate take of birds and their nests, eggs, and young is prohibited. Typically, during any tree removal actions, pre-construction surveys would be conducted and if active nests are found, buffers around the subject tree(s) would be established. Nests would then be periodically monitored until the young have left the nest. Several special-status and common bat species including pallid bat [Antrozous pallidus], fringed myotis [Myotus thysanodes] and western red bat [Lasiurus blossevillii]) have potential to occur in large trees in Sign Hill. Dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens) has the potential to occur in forested areas with dense undergrowth or in dense brush. The potential for these and other regional special-status species to occur in proposed work areas and be affected by the proposed project are evaluated in Attachment 1, and recommendations for the avoidance and protection of these species is summarized along with notes about typical habitat usage for each species. 4.5 Wildlife Corridors To account for potential impacts to wildlife movement/migratory corridors, biologists reviewed habitat connectivity data available through CDFW from the Essential Connectivity Areas dataset (CDFW 2023). Additionally, aerial imagery (Google Earth 2023) for the local area was referenced to assess if local core habitat areas were present within or connected to the Study Areas. This assessment was refined based on observations of on-site physical and/or biological conditions, including topographic and vegetative factors that can facilitate wildlife movement, as well as on-site and off-site barriers to connectivity. Because the Study Area is not connecting one open space area to another, it is not considered part of a wildlife corridor. While common wildlife species presumably utilize the site to some degree for movement at a local scale, the Study Area itself does not provide corridor functions beyond connecting similar agricultural areas and no barriers to wildlife movement will be created as a result of the OSMP. 268 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 15 5.0 FINDINGS AND BEST PRACTICES 5.1 Special-status Species 5.1.1 Plants Upon review of existing conditions, species distributions, and habitat requirements, 10 special- status plant and eight special-status wildlife species have been documented in the Study Area and/or have a moderate potential or higher potential to occur within the Study Area. Because special-status plants and host plants for special-status insects have been documented in the Study Area, it is recommended that plant surveys should be conducted in the year of Project implementation, in work areas and within 25 feet of them. If no rare plants or special-status insect host plants are detected, no further action is needed. If rare plants or special-status insect host plants are detected, the Project may require further review to satisfy CEQA requirements if rare plants or special-status insect host plants cannot be avoided. 5.1.2 Birds Olive-sided flycatcher and white-tailed kite have a limited potential to nest within the Study Area, but nesting cannot be ruled out. CFGC prohibits disturbance to active nest sites for native nesting birds, including white-tailed kite and olive-sided flycatcher. To comply with existing standards, a pre-construction breeding bird survey is recommended, and should be conducted by a qualified biologist, if vegetation and/or ground disturbance would occur between February 1 and September 1. The survey would need to occur no more than seven days prior to the start of construction and would need to review areas within 500 feet of the proposed areas of project-related disturbance. If occupied nests are observed during the pre- construction survey, the biologist would establish a “no disturbance buffer” surrounding the active nest and activities within that buffer zone would be prohibited until any young present have fledged or the nest is otherwise no longer active. The buffer distance would be established by the biologist based on factors such as the species observed, type of adjacent disturbance, and sensitivity of the nesting bird to disturbance. Given the low probability that sensitive species would be present within or adjacent to the area of construction, potential impacts to special- status wildlife species are less than significant. To ensure compliance with existing standards and Fish and Game Code, we recommend that the survey protocols described above be incorporated into the project description or be included as a Condition of Approval for the project. 5.1.3 Mammals San Francisco Dusky-footed woodrat has potential to occur and build middens within the Study Area; however, it is unlikely that middens would be present in any of the areas where Project activities would occur. To avoid impacts to woodrats, it is recommended that prior to brush removal in areas with dense undergrowth or shrubby thickets, a survey for the presence of woodrat middens should be conducted by a qualified biologist. If no woodrat middens are detected, no additional avoidance measures are recommended. If middens are detected, it is recommended that they be avoided by five (5) feet. If middens cannot be avoided, additional measures, such as development of a woodrat midden removal plan by a qualified biologist and 269 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 16 subsequent review and authorization of the plan by the CDFW (prior to implementation) is recommended. Special-status bat species and non-status bats with maternity roost protections, have potential to occur and reproduce within the Study Area. To reduce potential impacts to maternity roosting bats, avoid removing trees in the bat maternity season (March 1–September 1). If this timeframe cannot be avoided, for any trees measuring greater than 36 inches DBH, a pre-removal assessment should be conducted to see if any potential maternity roost are present (only the largest trees on the site would provide thermal stability sufficient for maternity roosts). If any are detected, they shall be avoided until the maternity season is ended. For day roosting bats, any felled trees should remain on the ground overnight so that any roosting bats can escape. 5.2 Sensitive Vegetation and Aquatic Communities Sensitive vegetation communities are determined at the alliance and association level. Depending on the extent of impact for the proposed trail alignment(s), focused biological surveys along the impacted areas may be conducted for vegetation community mapping and to determine avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. There were no aquatic features observed during the February 2023 visit. 5.3 Local Plans and Policies As stated in Section 2.5, the issuance of tree removal permits is overseen by the City’s Parks and Recreation Department. Although there may be trees located within the Study Area that qualify as a Protected Tree (e.g., blue gum eucalyptus with a circumference of 75 inches measured 54 inches above natural grade), the Parks and Recreation Department may exercise their discretionary powers to remove these trees for public safety and habitat restoration purposes. Fire safety is one of the Parks and Recreation Department’s top priorities. Observing and implementing Cal Fire standards include maintaining a 100-foot fire break around the perimeter of the Sign Hill park boundary where no trees shall be allowed to grow, establishing fire breaks between tree stands, and thinning tree groves within the park interior. Habitat management objectives require tree removal to preserve listed butterfly species’ habitat. Tree stands or canopies that are observed to be encroaching on butterfly habitat are prioritized for removal to preserve the appropriate grass- and shrubland habitat suitable for butterflies. Ultimately, tree removal is at the discretion of the Parks and Recreation Department and would typically only occur outside of nesting season. If tree removals are necessary within the nesting season, nesting bird surveys (or other biological surveys as appropriate) would occur prior to tree removal. 5.4 Wildlife Corridors The Project would have no impact on existing established wildlife corridors. 270 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 17 5.5 Habitat Conservation Plans The Project does not overlap and is not in proximity to an area covered by an existing Habitat Conservation Plan; therefore, the project would not conflict with such a plan. 6.0 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS The evaluations or recommendations in this section apply to Sign Hill only, since the City does not own the entirety of the Study Area yet; however, since Sign Hill contains resources and habitats identical to, or similar to the privately-owned property to the north, these recommendations may be applied to the Study Area once the privately owned land is acquired by the City. 6.1 Resource Surveys The City currently monitors both rare plants, butterfly host plants and mission blue butterflies on Sign Hill. If the City acquires additional parcels on the north slopes of Sign Hill, those areas will need to be surveyed for rare plants, butterflies, and host plants. These areas will also need to be included in vegetation mapping updates. The City may update vegetation mapping as needed to help with resource allocation and prioritization and restoration tracking/reporting for grants. The most recent aerial imagery from drone surveys or NearMap may be used to update vegetation map, mostly using aerial imagery interpretation with limited ground truthing. 6.2 Tree Removal While the thinned Eucalyptus groves are less likely to result in dangerous fast-moving fires, without regular maintenance of the understory, dangerous fire risk remains. In windy areas such as the Study Area, where fires could potentially move quickly to nearby residential areas, it is recommended that the understory be regularly maintained or that all these trees be removed. If maintaining a forest community in parts of the Study Area near the nearby residences is a priority, it is recommended that Eucalyptus groves be transitioned to more fire-resilient species dominated communities, such as coast live oak forest, over time. In addition to reducing fire risks, the coast live oak woodland community provides much higher habitat value to native wildlife and plant species. Wildlife, especially birds benefit from the food resources (acorns and native insects that use oaks as hosts) and native understory plants are able to survive better in soils that are not contaminated by Eucalyptus oils. 6.3 Habitat Enhancement and Restoration 6.3.1 Insect Host Plant Protection and Augmentation and Maintenance of Nectar Resources. Butterfly host plants, particularly golden violet and silverbush lupine, which support Callipe silverspot butterfly and Mission blue butterfly, respectively are critical to maintain on the site if these Federal-listed butterflies are to persist on Sign Hill. Golden violet presents challenges due to its difficulty in propagation, whereas silverbush lupine is relatively easy to cultivate. Golden violet may be a limiting factor for Callippe silverspot butterfly on the site because it is relatively 271 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 18 uncommon, making each individual plant a valuable resource. Conversely, silverbush lupine is abundant, and does not appear to be a limiting factor. Effective management of these two host plants would be one of the most important steps that can be taken to benefit the butterflies of Sign Hill. Limiting direct impacts from visitors to host plants through educational outreach, barriers and strategic trail routing are recommended. Some of these steps are already being implemented. Additional efforts could be focused surveys to identify more areas that support host plants and subsequent management steps (e.g., invasive plant removal to reduce competition). Beyond management of host plants, maintenance of open, native grasslands that provide the nectar resources for these species is also an important management objective. While host plant and grassland management to benefit butterflies is an important operational consideration, host plants should not be planted in areas where their presence could constrain park maintenance or future construction activities. Host plants should also not be planted in areas where they would not naturally occur or where they could attract butterflies into harm’s way or create reproductive sinks. For example, if most host plants are found on the south-facing slopes of the Sign Hill, and these areas have been shown to support high numbers of butterflies, it would not be advisable to plant host plants on the north facing slopes even if they could survive. This could result in some butterflies laying eggs on the cooler side of the hill, which would be likely to reduce their success due to asynchronous development timeframes. In addition, wherever host plants are on the site, they must be viewed as both a valuable resource and a constraint. Impacting either of the host plants on the site would only be recommended if a valid Biological Opinion from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service has been issued. Adverse impacts would likely require some form of mitigation. Though the listed butterflies are of the highest importance with respect to insects on the site, other pollinators may become focal points in the coming years. Currently, there are three bumblebee species that are candidates for listing under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). While none of these candidate species are likely to be present on Sign Hill now, western bumblebee probably did occur there at one time, based on nearby documented occurrences and suitable onsite habitat. It is possible that this species could be reintroduced to Sign Hill in the future. No recommendations beyond continued maintenance and enhancement of native grasslands are made for native bees at this time. 6.4 Community Stewardship Through Education and Outreach The current use of the Study Area as a local park provides an excellent opportunity for outdoor recreation to the (mostly) immediate community. The lack of restrooms, playgrounds, parking, and other amenities reduces the appeal to a larger audience and the existence of Sign Hill is poorly known. The fragility of the habitat on the site, particularly in areas where listed butterfly host plants are present and the steepness of the terrain, which makes erosion more likely when people go off trails, presents a challenge for balancing a desire to have Sign Hill more well- visited and protecting the fragile resources that are present. Based on the current surrounding development and associated infrastructure, it seems unlikely that there are many opportunities to add large parking areas. The addition of bathrooms in at least one location is likely feasible, but this would result in more maintenance needs. While dramatically increasing the visitation to Sign Hill under current conditions may be infeasible, and could lead to some undesirable outcomes, improving interpretation of the uniqueness of the area for those folks that do visit could enhance visitor experience and possibly reduce the impact of use which could balance some visitation increases if those were to occur. Interpretive topics specific to Sign Hill could include: 272 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 19 • Mission blue butterfly, its host plant and its listed status and conservation story, reminders to stay on trails • Callippe silverspot butterfly, its host plant, rarity on Sign hill and its conservation story including the need to stay on trails • Island biogeography ecological theories and how Sign Hill, along with San Bruno Mountain are essentially islands of unique habitat surrounded by an increasingly urbanized landscape. Effects of natural isolation and habitat fragmentation associated with development are easily observed and understood in the context of Sign Hill. • Island and Sky Island biogeography concepts • Unique wind-swept landscape; rare plants that specialize in these areas • Why more trees aren’t always better • The role of fire • Stewardship and staying on designated trails An overarching goal of open space management is to encourage and inspire people to interact with and appreciate that natural world. Small community parks are important conduits to the natural world and Sign Hill offers a unique and rare opportunity for nature appreciation and an avenue for better understanding of natural processes; however, it would be fairly easy for many people to walk the trails in the park and not realize how special the site is. This presents an excellent opportunity for more and enhanced interpretation of Sign Hill, the natural processes that have formed it and its inhabitants, and their future. Beyond the interpretive exhibits discussed in the previous section, additional, less traditional methods of community outreach could include guided nature walks for community members or visiting local school science classes to inspire appreciation of this poorly known resource. Concepts described in the previous section can be used as a framework for these engagements. 273 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 20 7.0 REFERENCES Calflora. 2023. Cal Flora. Available online at: Calflora.org. Most recently accessed: February 2023. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and California Department of Transportation. 2010. California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, CA. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2023. California Natural Diversity Database. Biogeographic Data Branch, Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program, Sacramento, California. Available online at: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps- and-Data; most recently accessed: February 2023 California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2023a. A Manual of California Vegetation, Online Edition. Available online at: http://vegetation.cnps.org. Most recently accessed: February 2023. California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2023b. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v9.5). Sacramento, California. Online at: http://rareplants.cnps.org/; most recently accessed: February 2023. Consortium of California Herbaria 1 (CCH1). 2023. CCH1: Featuring California Vascular Plant Data from the Consortium of California Herbaria and Other Sources. Data provided by the Consortium of California Herbaria. Available online at: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/; most recently accessed: February 2023. Consortium of California Herbaria 2 (CCH2). 2023. CCH2 Portal. Online at: http://cch2.org/portal/index.php; most recently accessed: February 2023. eBird. 2023. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Available: http://www.ebird.org. (Accessed: February 2023). Environmental Collaborative. 2015. Biological Resource Assessment: Sign Hill Park Site, City of South San Francisco. March 25, 2015. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corp of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Technical Report Y-87-1, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy, et al. 2022. San Mateo Fine Scale Vegetation Map. Available: https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=c1d1ea74e5014dcba6331e8ce01e7d49 Most recently accessed: February 2023 Google Earth. 2023. Aerial Imagery 1985-2022. Most recently accessed: February 2023 Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. Lichvar and McColley, 2008. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, US Army Corps of Engineers, Hanover, New Hampshire. 274 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 21 NatureServe. 2020. At-risk species by county or watershed. https://www.natureserve.org/access- data. Accessed 2023. NETR 2023. Nationwide Environmental Title Research. Historical aerial photographs. Accessed 2023. SWRCB 2021. California State Water Resources Control Board. State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/cwa401/wrapp.html. Accessed 2023. Shuford, W.D. and Gardali, T., eds. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Thomson, R.C., A.N. Wright, and H.B. Shaffer. 2016. California Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern. Co-published by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and University of California Press. Oakland, California. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2005. Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 05-05. Ordinary High Water Mark Identification. December 7. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). Page 135. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, ERDC/EL TR-08-28, Vicksburg, Mississippi. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2023a. National Wetland Inventory. Available online at: https://www.fws.gov/program/national-wetlands-inventory/wetlands-mapper. Most recently accessed: February 2023. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2023b. List of Federal Endangered and Threatened Species. Available online at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Most recently accessed: February 2023. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2021. San Francisco South Quadrangle, California. 7.5-minute topographic map. Most recently accessed: February 2023. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Natural Resources Conservation Service. 202. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov; most recently accessed: February 2023. 275 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 Attachment 1. Figures 276 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 23 277 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 278 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 25 Attachment 2. Species Potentials Tables Potential for Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species to occur within the Sign Hill Study Area, South San Francisco, CA. List compiled from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) Database, and a search of the California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Natural Diversity Database (CDFW 2023) and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Inventory for the San Francisco North, San Francisco South, San Mateo, Montara Mountain, and Hunter’s Point USGS 7.5’ quadrangles and a review of other CDFW lists and publications. SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS PLANTS San Mateo thorn-mint Acanthomintha duttonii FE, SE, Rank 1B.1 Chaparral, valley and foothill grassland. Elevation ranges from 165 to 985 feet (50 to 300 meters). Blooms Apr-Jun. No Potential. Although chaparral and valley/foothill grassland habitat was observed, San Mateo thorn-mint is a strict serpentine endemic and serpentine vertisol clays are not present within the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species. Blasdale's bent grass Agrostis blasdalei Rank 1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, coastal prairie. Elevation ranges from 0 to 490 feet (0 to 150 meters). Blooms May- Jul. No Potential. There is no suitable habitat for this species within the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species. Franciscan onion Allium peninsulare var. franciscanum Rank 1B.2 Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland. Elevation ranges from 170 to 1000 feet (52 to 305 meters). Blooms (Apr)May-Jun. Unlikely. Although valley/foothill grassland habitat was observed, microhabitat/suitable substrate of clay soils are not present within the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species. bent-flowered fiddleneck Amsinckia lunaris Rank 1B.2 Cismontane woodland, coastal bluff scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Elevation ranges from 10 to 1640 feet (3 to 500 meters). Blooms Mar-Jun. Moderate Potential. Potentially suitable grassland and openings in other habitat types are present in the Study Area. Appropriately timed surveys are recommended for this species. 279 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 26 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS coast rockcress Arabis blepharophylla Rank 4.3 Broadleafed upland forest, coastal bluff scrub, coastal prairie, coastal scrub. Elevation ranges from 10 to 3610 feet (3 to 1100 meters). Blooms Feb-May. Present. Potentially suitable rocky habitat is present. Additionally, there are Calflora observations within and adjacent to the Study Ara. Appropriately timed surveys are recommended for this species. Franciscan manzanita Arctostaphylos franciscana FE, Rank 1B.1 Coastal scrub (serpentine). Elevation ranges from 195 to 985 feet (60 to 300 meters). Blooms Feb-Apr. No Potential. Although cosatal scrub habitat was observed, microhabitat/suitable substrate of serpentine outcrops are not present within the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species. San Bruno Mountain manzanita Arctostaphylos imbricata SE, Rank 1B.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub. Elevation ranges from 900 to 1215 feet (275 to 370 meters). Blooms Feb-May. Unlikely. This species has a highly restricted range, and is only known from the ridgeline of San Bruno Mountain. Additionally, no species of Arctostaphylos, a conspicuous, woody group of plants, were observed during the February 9, 2023, site visit. No further actions are recommended for this species Presidio manzanita Arctostaphylos montana ssp. ravenii FE, SE, Rank 1B.1 Chaparral, coastal prairie, coastal scrub. Elevation ranges from 150 to 705 feet (45 to 215 meters). Blooms Feb-Mar. No Potential. Although chaparral and coastal scrub habitats were observed, Presidio manzanita is a strict serpentine endemic and microhabitat/suitable substrate of rocky serpentine slopes are not present within the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species. 280 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 27 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS Montara manzanita Arctostaphylos montaraensis Rank 1B.2 Chaparral (maritime), coastal scrub. Elevation ranges from 260 to 1640 feet (80 to 500 meters). Blooms Jan-Mar. Unlikely. This species has a highly restricted range, known only from granitic rock on Montara Mountain and from a small number of individuals at a single location near the ridgeline of San Bruno Mountain. Additionally, no species of Arctostaphylos, a conspicuous, woody group of plants, were observed during the February 9, 2023, site visit. No further actions are recommended for this species Pacific manzanita Arctostaphylos pacifica SE, Rank 1B.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub. Elevation ranges from 1085 to 1085 feet (330 to 330 meters). Blooms Feb- Apr. Unlikely. This species has a highly restricted range, and is only known from two individuals at a single location near the ridgeline of San Bruno Mountain. Additionally, no species of Arctostaphylos, a conspicuous, woody group of plants, were observed during the February 9, 2023, site visit. No further actions are recommended for this species 281 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 28 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS Kings Mountain manzanita Arctostaphylos regismontana Rank 1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest, chaparral, north coast coniferous forest. Elevation ranges from 1000 to 2395 feet (305 to 730 meters). Blooms Dec-Apr. Unlikely. Although broadleafed upland forest is present in the Study Area, the nearest occurrences of this species are approximately 8 miles south on Montara Mountain. There it occurs in chaparal on granite substrate, and such habitat is absent from the Study Area. Additionally, no species of Arctostaphylos, a conspicuous, woody group of plants, were observed during the February 9, 2023, site visit. No further actions are recommended for this species marsh sandwort Arenaria paludicola FE, SE, Rank 1B.1 Marshes and swamps (brackish, freshwater). Elevation ranges from 10 to 560 feet (3 to 170 meters). Blooms May-Aug. No Potential. There is no suitable habitat for this species within the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species Carlotta Hall's lace fern Aspidotis carlotta-halliae Rank 4.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland. Elevation ranges from 330 to 4595 feet (100 to 1400 meters). Blooms Jan-Dec. No Potential. Although chaparral and cismontane woodland habitat was observed, microhabitat/suitable substrate of serpentine slopes/crevices/outcrops are not present within the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species 282 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 29 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS ocean bluff milk-vetch Astragalus nuttallii var. nuttallii Rank 4.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes. Elevation ranges from 10 to 395 feet (3 to 120 meters). Blooms Jan-Nov. No Potential. There is no suitable habitat for this species within the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species coastal marsh milk -vetch Astragalus pycnostachyus var. pycnostachyus Rank 1B.2 Coastal dunes (mesic), coastal scrub, marshes and swamps (coastal salt, streamsides). Elevation ranges from 0 to 180 feet (0 to 55 meters). Blooms (Apr)Jun-Oct. No Potential. This species is known from the immediate coast in mesic areas, such as streams, marshes, riparian areas, and such habitats are absent from the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species alkali milk-vetch Astragalus tener var. tener Rank 1B.2 Playas, valley and foothill grassland (adobe clay), vernal pools. Elevation ranges from 5 to 195 feet (1 to 60 meters). Blooms Mar-Jun. No Potential. This species is restricted to alkaline substrate, which is absent from the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species Oakland star-tulip Calochortus umbellatus Rank 4.2 Broadleafed upland forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest, valley and foothill grassland. Elevation ranges from 330 to 2295 feet (100 to 700 meters). Blooms Mar-May. Unlikely. Although cismontane woodland and valley/foothill grassland habitat was observed, Oakland star- tuplip occurrences are strongly associated (65- 74%) with serpentine substrate, which is absent from the Study Area. Additionally, this species is not known from the San Franicsco Peninsula. The nearest occurrence is approximately 16 miles north. No further actions are recommended for this species 283 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 30 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS pink star-tulip Calochortus uniflorus Rank 4.2 Coastal prairie, coastal scrub, meadows and seeps, north coast coniferous forest. Elevation ranges from 35 to 3510 feet (10 to 1070 meters). Blooms Apr-Jun. Unlikely. This species occurs in seasonally wet areas, which are absent from the Study Area. This species also often occurs on serpentine substrate, which is absent from the Study Area. The nearest documented occurrence (Calflora) is 10 miles to the south, along the Upper Crystal Springs Reservoir. No further actions are recommended for this species bristly sedge Carex comosa Rank 2B.1 Coastal prairie, marshes and swamps (lake margins), valley and foothill grassland. Elevation ranges from 0 to 2050 feet (0 to 625 meters). Blooms May-Sep. No Potential. This species is known from wetland habitat, which is absent from the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species northern meadow sedge Carex praticola Rank 2B.2 Meadows and seeps (mesic). Elevation ranges from 0 to 10500 feet (0 to 3200 meters). Blooms May-Jul. No Potential. There is no suitable habitat for this species within the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species johnny-nip Castilleja ambigua var. ambigua Rank 4.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, marshes and swamps, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools (margins). Elevation ranges from 0 to 1425 feet (0 to 435 meters). Blooms Mar-Aug. No Potential. This species is known from coastal terrace and wetland habitats, which are absent from the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species 284 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 31 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS pappose tarplant Centromadia parryi ssp. parryi Rank 1B.2 Chaparral, coastal prairie, marshes and swamps (coastal salt), meadows and seeps, valley and foothill grassland (vernally mesic). Elevation ranges from 0 to 1380 feet (0 to 420 meters). Blooms May- Nov. Unlikely. Although vally/foothill grassland habitat was observed, vernally mesic (often alkaline) microhabitat is not present within the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species Point Reyes salty bird's- beak Chloropyron maritimum ssp. palustre Rank 1B.2 Marshes and swamps (coastal salt). Elevation ranges from 0 to 35 feet (0 to 10 meters). Blooms Jun-Oct. No Potential. There is no suitable habitat for this species within the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species San Francisco Bay spineflower Chorizanthe cuspidata var. cuspidata Rank 1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, coastal prairie, coastal scrub. Elevation ranges from 10 to 705 feet (3 to 215 meters). Blooms Apr- Jul(Aug). No Potential. This species is known from dunes and other strongly sandy areas, which are absent from the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species robust spineflower Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta FE, Rank 1B.1 Chaparral (maritime), cismontane woodland (openings), coastal dunes, coastal scrub. Elevation ranges from 10 to 985 feet (3 to 300 meters). Blooms Apr-Sep. No Potential. This species is known from dunes and other strongly sandy areas, which are absent from the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species 285 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 32 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS Franciscan thistle Cirsium andrewsii Rank 1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest, coastal bluff scrub, coastal prairie, coastal scrub. Elevation ranges from 0 to 490 feet (0 to 150 meters). Blooms Mar- Jul. Unlikely. This species is often known from wetland habitat, sometimes on serpentine substrate, and such habitat and substrate are absent from the Study Area. The nearest extant occurrence is approximately 10 miles north, in serpentine seeps. No further actions are recommended for this species fountain thistle Cirsium fontinale var. fontinale FE, SE, Rank 1B.1 Chaparral (openings), cismontane woodland, meadows and seeps, valley and foothill grassland. Elevation ranges from 150 to 575 feet (45 to 175 meters). Blooms (Apr)May-Oct. No Potential. This species is restricted to serpentine substrate, which is absent from the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species Mt. Tamalpais thistle Cirsium hydrophilum var. vaseyi Rank 1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest, chaparral, meadows and seeps. Elevation ranges from 785 to 2035 feet (240 to 620 meters). Blooms May-Aug. No Potential. This species is restricted to serpentine substrate, which is absent from the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species compact cobwebby thistle Cirsium occidentale var. compactum Rank 1B.2 Chaparral, coastal dunes, coastal prairie, coastal scrub. Elevation ranges from 15 to 490 feet (5 to 150 meters). Blooms Apr- Jun. Unlikely. Although coastal scrub habitat was observed, dune microhabitat and clay substrates are not present within the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species Presidio clarkia Clarkia franciscana FE, SE, Rank 1B.1 Coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland (serpentine). Elevation ranges from 80 to 1100 feet (25 to 335 meters). Blooms May-Jul. No Potential. This species is restricted to serpentine substrate, which is absent from the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species 286 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 33 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS round -headed collinsia Collinsia corymbosa Rank 1B.2 Coastal dunes. Elevation ranges from 0 to 65 feet (0 to 20 meters). Blooms Apr-Jun. No Potential. There is no suitable habitat for this species within the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species San Francisco collinsia Collinsia multicolor Rank 1B.2 Closed-cone coniferous forest, coastal scrub. Elevation ranges from 100 to 900 feet (30 to 275 meters). Blooms (Feb)Mar-May. Moderate Potential. The Study Area contains potentially suitable habitat on north-facing slopes in rocky soils where vegetation density is low. Appropriately timed surveys are recommended for this species. clustered lady's-slipper Cypripedium fasciculatum Rank 4.2 Lower montane coniferous forest, north coast coniferous forest. Elevation ranges from 330 to 7990 feet (100 to 2435 meters). Blooms Mar-Aug. No Potential. There is no suitable habitat for this species within the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species western leatherwood Dirca occidentalis Rank 1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, closed-cone coniferous forest, north coast coniferous forest, riparian forest, riparian woodland. Elevation ranges from 80 to 1395 feet (25 to 425 meters). Blooms Jan-Mar(Apr). Unlikely. This species is typically known from cool, shady areas in established native habitat, and such conditions are very limited within the Study Area. The nearest occurrence of this species is approximately 5 miles southwest of the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species California bottle-brush grass Elymus californicus Rank 4.3 Broadleafed upland forest, cismontane woodland, north coast coniferous forest, riparian woodland. Elevation ranges from 50 to 1540 feet (15 to 470 meters). Blooms May- Aug(Nov). Unlikely. This species is typically known from cool, shady areas in established native habitat, and such conditions are very limited within the Study Area. The nearest occurrence of this species is approximately 8 miles south of the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species 287 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 34 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS marsh horsetail Equisetum palustre Rank 3 Marshes and swamps. Elevation ranges from 150 to 3280 feet (45 to 1000 meters). Blooms Unk. No Potential. There is no suitable habitat for this species within the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species San Mateo woolly sunflower Eriophyllum latilobum FE, SE, Rank 1B.1 Cismontane woodland (often serpentine, roadcuts), coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous forest. Elevation ranges from 150 to 1085 feet (45 to 330 meters). Blooms May-Jun. Unlikely. This species is known from intact, shady, native forest habitat, which is very limited within the Study Area. The nearest occurrence is approximately 6 miles south of the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species San Francisco wallflower Erysimum franciscanum Rank 4.2 Chaparral, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Elevation ranges from 0 to 1805 feet (0 to 550 meters). Blooms Mar-Jun. Moderate Potential. Potentially suitable grassland and openings in scrub are present in the Study Area. Appropriately timed surveys are recommended for this species. Hillsborough chocolate lily Fritillaria biflora var. ineziana Rank 1B.1 Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland. Elevation ranges from 490 to 490 feet (150 to 150 meters). Blooms Mar-Apr. No Potential. Although cismontane woodland and valley/foothill grassland habitat was observed, Hillsborough chocolate lily is a broad serpentine endemic species (85-94% of known occurrences are on serpentine substrate) and microhabitat/suitable substrate of serpentine is not present within the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species 288 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 35 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS Marin checker lily Fritillaria lanceolata var. tristulis Rank 1B.1 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal prairie, coastal scrub. Elevation ranges from 50 to 490 feet (15 to 150 meters). Blooms Feb- May. Unlikely. Although coastal scrub habitat was observed, this species is not known from the area, the nearest occurrence being approximately 12 miles to the northwest, at the Marin headlands. No further actions are recommended for this species fragrant fritillary Fritillaria liliacea Rank 1B.2 Cismontane woodland, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Elevation ranges from 10 to 1345 feet (3 to 410 meters). Blooms Feb-Apr. Unlikely. Although cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and valley/foothill grassland habitat was observed, microhabitat/suitable substrate of clay soils are not present within the Study Area. The nearest modern occurrence is approximately 10 miles south. No further actions are recommended for this species blue coast gilia Gilia capitata ssp. chamissonis Rank 1B.1 Coastal dunes, coastal scrub. Elevation ranges from 5 to 655 feet (2 to 200 meters). Blooms Apr- Jul. No Potential. This species is known from dunes and other strongly sandy areas, which are absent from the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species dark -eyed gilia Gilia millefoliata Rank 1B.2 Coastal dunes. Elevation ranges from 5 to 100 feet (2 to 30 meters). Blooms Apr-Jul. No Potential. There is no suitable habitat for this species within the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species San Francisco gumplant Grindelia hirsutula var. maritima Rank 3.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Elevation ranges from 50 to 1310 feet (15 to 400 meters). Blooms Jun-Sep. Moderate Potential. Potentially suitable scrub and grassland habitat are present in the Study Area. Appropriately timed surveys are recommended for this species. 289 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 36 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS Diablo helianthella Helianthella castanea Rank 1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, riparian woodland, valley and foothill grassland. Elevation ranges from 195 to 4265 feet (60 to 1300 meters). Blooms Mar-Jun. Moderate Potential. Potentially suitable grassland and shrub habitat are present in the Study Area. Appropriately timed surveys are recommended for this species. congested-headed hayfield tarplant Hemizonia congesta ssp. congesta Rank 1B.2 Valley and foothill grassland. Elevation ranges from 65 to 1835 feet (20 to 560 meters). Blooms Apr-Nov. Unlikely. Although grassland is present, no extant occurrences of this species are known for the San Francisco Peninsula. The nearest occurrence is in Marin County. No further actions are recommended for this species short-leaved evax Hesperevax sparsiflora var. brevifolia Rank 1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub (sandy), coastal dunes, coastal prairie. Elevation ranges from 0 to 705 feet (0 to 215 meters). Blooms Mar-Jun. No Potential. There is no suitable habitat for this species within the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species Marin western flax Hesperolinon congestum FT, ST, Rank 1B.1 Chaparral, valley and foothill grassland. Elevation ranges from 15 to 1215 feet (5 to 370 meters). Blooms Apr-Jul. No Potential. Although valley/foothill grassland habitat was observed, this species is a strict serpentine endemic and suitable serpentine substrate is not present within the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species water star-grass Heteranthera dubia Rank 2B.2 Marshes and swamps (alkaline, still, slow- moving water). Elevation ranges from 100 to 4905 feet (30 to 1495 meters). Blooms Jul-Oct. No Potential. There is no suitable habitat for this species within the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species 290 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 37 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS Kellogg's horkelia Horkelia cuneata var. sericea Rank 1B.1 Chaparral (maritime), closed-cone coniferous forest, coastal dunes, coastal scrub. Elevation ranges from 35 to 655 feet (10 to 200 meters). Blooms Apr-Sep. Unlikely. Although chaparral (maritime), closed-cone coniferous forest, and coastal scrub habitats were observed, microhabitat/suitable substrate of dunes and coastal sandhills are not present within the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species Point Reyes horkelia Horkelia marinensis Rank 1B.2 Coastal dunes, coastal prairie, coastal scrub. Elevation ranges from 15 to 2475 feet (5 to 755 meters). Blooms May-Sep. Unlikely. Although coastal scrub habitat was observed, microhabitat/suitable substrate of sandy flats and dunes are not present within the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species harlequin lotus Hosackia gracilis Rank 4.2 Broadleafed upland forest, cismontane woodland, closed-cone coniferous forest, coastal bluff scrub, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, marshes and swamps, meadows and seeps, north coast coniferous forest, valley and foothill grassland. Elevation ranges from 0 to 2295 feet (0 to 700 meters). Blooms Mar-Jul. Unlikely. Suitable mesic habitat is absent from the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species 291 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 38 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS island tube lichen Hypogymnia schizidiata Rank 1B.3 Chaparral, closed-cone coniferous forest. Elevation ranges from 1180 to 1330 feet (360 to 405 meters). Blooms . Unlikely. The nearest occurrences are approximately 7 miles southwest, occurring in maritime chaparral, which is absent from the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species coast iris Iris longipetala Rank 4.2 Coastal prairie, lower montane coniferous forest, meadows and seeps. Elevation ranges from 0 to 1970 feet (0 to 600 meters). Blooms Mar- May(Jun). Present. This species was observed in the Study Area on February 9, 2023. Appropriately timed surveys are recommended for this species. perennial goldfields Lasthenia californica ssp. macrantha Rank 1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, coastal scrub. Elevation ranges from 15 to 1705 feet (5 to 520 meters). Blooms Jan- Nov. Unlikely. This species is restricted to the immediate coast, and the Study Area is too far inland. No further actions are recommended for this species beach layia Layia carnosa FT, SE, Rank 1B.1 Coastal dunes, coastal scrub (sandy). Elevation ranges from 0 to 195 feet (0 to 60 meters). Blooms Mar-Jul. No Potential. There is no suitable habitat for this species within the Study Area. The coastal scrub within the Study Area is not sandy. No further actions are recommended for this species serpentine leptosiphon Leptosiphon ambiguus Rank 4.2 Cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Elevation ranges from 395 to 3710 feet (120 to 1130 meters). Blooms Mar-Jun. No Potential. Although coastal scrub and valley/foothill grassland habitats were observed, this is a strict serpentine endemic species; suitable serpentine substrate is not present within the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species 292 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 39 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS coast yellow leptosiphon Leptosiphon croceus SE, Rank 1B.1 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal prairie. Elevation ranges from 35 to 490 feet (10 to 150 meters). Blooms Apr-Jun. No Potential. There is no suitable habitat for this species within the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species large-flowered leptosiphon Leptosiphon grandiflorus Rank 4.2 Cismontane woodland, closed-cone coniferous forest, coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Elevation ranges from 15 to 4005 feet (5 to 1220 meters). Blooms Apr-Aug. Unlikely. Strongly sandy substrate is absent from the Study Area. The nearest occurrence is the species is approximately 35 miles southwest. No further actions are recommended for this species broad-lobed leptosiphon Leptosiphon latisectus Rank 4.3 Broadleafed upland forest, cismontane woodland. Elevation ranges from 560 to 4920 feet (170 to 1500 meters). Blooms Apr-Jun. Unlikely. The nearest modern occurrence is approximately 60 miles north. No further actions are recommended for this species rose leptosiphon Leptosiphon rosaceus Rank 1B.1 Coastal bluff scrub. Elevation ranges from 0 to 330 feet (0 to 100 meters). Blooms Apr-Jul. No Potential. There is no suitable habitat for this species within the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species Crystal Springs lessingia Lessingia arachnoidea Rank 1B.2 Cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Elevation ranges from 195 to 655 feet (60 to 200 meters). Blooms Jul-Oct. No Potential. This species is restricted to serpentine substrate, which is absent from the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species San Francisco lessingia Lessingia germanorum FE, SE, Rank 1B.1 Coastal scrub (remnant dunes). Elevation ranges from 80 to 360 feet (25 to 110 meters). Blooms (Jun)Jul-Nov. No Potential. There is no suitable habitat for this species within the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species 293 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 40 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS woolly-headed lessingia Lessingia hololeuca Rank 3 Broadleafed upland forest, coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous forest, valley and foothill grassland. Elevation ranges from 50 to 1000 feet (15 to 305 meters). Blooms Jun-Oct. Unlikely. Although broadleafed upland forest, coastal scrub, and valley/foothill grassland habitat was observed, suitable substrate of clay and/or serpentine is not present within the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species Ornduff's meadowfoam Limnanthes douglasii ssp. ornduffii Rank 1B.1 Meadows and seeps. Elevation ranges from 35 to 65 feet (10 to 20 meters). Blooms Nov-May. No Potential. There is no suitable habitat for this species within the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species San Mateo tree lupine Lupinus arboreus var. eximius Rank 3.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub. Elevation ranges from 295 to 1805 feet (90 to 550 meters). Blooms Apr-Jul. Unlikely. Although potentially suitable scrub habitat is present, only the common var. arboreus is known from the area. The nearest occurrence of var. eximius is approximately 6 miles south of the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species arcuate bush-mallow Malacothamnus arcuatus Rank 1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland. Elevation ranges from 50 to 1165 feet (15 to 355 meters). Blooms Apr-Sep. Unlikely. Although cismontane woodland habitat was observed, microhabitat of gravelly alluvium is not present within the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species 294 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 41 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS Mt. Diablo cottonweed Micropus amphibolus Rank 3.2 Broadleafed upland forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland. Elevation ranges from 150 to 2705 feet (45 to 825 meters). Blooms Mar-May. Unlikely. Although cismontane woodland and grassland habitats are present, there are no nearby occurrences of this species. The closest occurrence of this species is approximately 13 miles north. No further actions are recommended for this species marsh microseris Microseris paludosa Rank 1B.2 Cismontane woodland, closed-cone coniferous forest, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Elevation ranges from 15 to 1165 feet (5 to 355 meters). Blooms Apr-Jun(Jul). Unlikely. Although cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and grassland are present, there are no extant occurrences of this species in the vicinity of the Study Area. The nearest occurrence is approximately 20 miles north. No further actions are recommended for this species northern curly-leaved monardella Monardella sinuata ssp. nigrescens Rank 1B.2 Chaparral (scr co.), coastal dunes, coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous forest (scr co., ponderosa pine sandhills). Elevation ranges from 0 to 985 feet (0 to 300 meters). Blooms (Apr)May-Jul(Aug- Sep). No Potential. This species is known from strongly sandy areas, which are absent from the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species 295 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 42 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS woodland woollythreads Monolopia gracilens Rank 1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest (openings), chaparral (openings), cismontane woodland, north coast coniferous forest (openings), valley and foothill grassland. Elevation ranges from 330 to 3935 feet (100 to 1200 meters). Blooms (Feb)Mar-Jul. Unlikely. Although grassy areas are present in the Study Area, there are no nearby occurrences of this species, the closest being approximately 8 miles to the south. Additionally, this species often occurs on serpentine substrate, which is absent from the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species white-rayed pentachaeta Pentachaeta bellidiflora FE, SE, Rank 1B.1 Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland (often serpentine). Elevation ranges from 115 to 2035 feet (35 to 620 meters). Blooms Mar-May. Unlikely. Cismontane woodland and valley/foothill habitat and microhabitat/suitable substrate of open dry rock slopes and grassy areas are present within the Study Area; however, the closest CNDDB occurrence located 1.5 miles to the northeast (edge of San Bruno Mountain) is likely extirpated. The nearest extant population is approximately 8 miles to the south, at Crystal Springs Reservoir. No further actions are recommended for this species Choris' popcornflower Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus Rank 1B.2 Chaparral, coastal prairie, coastal scrub. Elevation ranges from 10 to 525 feet (3 to 160 meters). Blooms Mar-Jun. Unlikely. This species is known from wetland and mesic habitats, which are absent from the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species 296 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 43 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS San Francisco popcornflower Plagiobothrys diffusus SE, Rank 1B.1 Coastal prairie, valley and foothill grassland. Elevation ranges from 195 to 1180 feet (60 to 360 meters). Blooms Mar-Jun. Unlikely. This species is known from clay soils and seasonally wet areas, which are absent from the Study Area. The nearest extant occurrence is approximately 35 miles south. No further actions are recommended for this species hairless popcornflower Plagiobothrys glaber Rank 1A Marshes and swamps (coastal salt), meadows and seeps (alkaline). Elevation ranges from 50 to 590 feet (15 to 180 meters). Blooms Mar-May. No Potential. There is no suitable habitat for this species within the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species Oregon polemonium Polemonium carneum Rank 2B.2 Coastal prairie, coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous forest. Elevation ranges from 0 to 6005 feet (0 to 1830 meters). Blooms Apr-Sep. Unlikely. Although coastal scrub habitat is present, all occurrences outside of the far North Coast Range are assumed to be extirpated. No further actions are recommended for this species Marin knotweed Polygonum marinense Rank 3.1 Marshes and swamps (brackish, coastal salt). Elevation ranges from 0 to 35 feet (0 to 10 meters). Blooms (Apr)May- Aug(Oct). No Potential. There is no suitable habitat for this species within the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species Hickman's cinquefoil Potentilla hickmanii FE, SE, Rank 1B.1 Closed-cone coniferous forest, coastal bluff scrub, marshes and swamps (freshwater), meadows and seeps (vernally mesic). Elevation ranges from 35 to 490 feet (10 to 149 meters). Blooms Apr- Aug. Unlikely. Although open scrub habitat is present in the Study Area, the nearest occurrence of this species is approximately 9 miles southwest. No further actions are recommended for this species 297 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 44 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS Lobb's aquatic buttercup Ranunculus lobbii Rank 4.2 Cismontane woodland, north coast coniferous forest, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools. Elevation ranges from 50 to 1540 feet (15 to 470 meters). Blooms Feb-May. Unlikely. Although cismontane woodland, north coast coniferous forest, and valley/foothill grassland habitats were observed, mesic microhabitats are not present within the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species adobe sanicle Sanicula maritima SR, Rank 1B.1 Chaparral, coastal prairie, meadows and seeps, valley and foothill grassland. Elevation ranges from 100 to 785 feet (30 to 240 meters). Blooms Feb-May. Unlikely. Although valley/foothill grassland habitat was observed, suitable substrate of moist clay or ultramafic soils are not present within the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species chaparral ragwort Senecio aphanactis Rank 2B.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub. Elevation ranges from 50 to 2625 feet (15 to 800 meters). Blooms Jan- Apr(May). Unlikely. Although cismontane woodland and coastal scrub habitats were observed, microhabitat of drying alkaline flats or clay substrate are not present within the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species Scouler's catchfly Silene scouleri ssp. scouleri Rank 2B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal prairie, valley and foothill grassland. Elevation ranges from 0 to 1970 feet (0 to 600 meters). Blooms (Mar- May)Jun-Aug(Sep). High Potential. Potentially suitable rocky and thin- soiled habitat is present. Additionally, there is a Calflora observations within the Study Area. Appropriately timed surveys are recommended for this species. 298 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 45 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS San Francisco campion Silene verecunda ssp. verecunda Rank 1B.2 Chaparral, coastal bluff scrub, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Elevation ranges from 100 to 2115 feet (30 to 645 meters). Blooms (Feb)Mar-Jul(Aug). Moderate Potential. Potentially suitable scrub and grassland habitats are present in the Study Area. Appropriately timed surveys are recommended for this species. Santa Cruz microseris Stebbinsoseris decipiens Rank 1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest, chaparral, closed-cone coniferous forest, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Elevation ranges from 35 to 1640 feet (10 to 500 meters). Blooms Apr-May. Unlikely. Although scrub and grassland habitat are present, the nearest of occurrence of this species is approximately 13 miles north. No further actions are recommended for this species California seablite Suaeda californica FE, Rank 1B.1 Marshes and swamps (coastal salt). Elevation ranges from 0 to 50 feet (0 to 15 meters). Blooms Jul-Oct. No Potential. There is no suitable habitat for this species within the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species two-fork clover Trifolium amoenum FE, Rank 1B.1 Coastal bluff scrub, valley and foothill grassland (sometimes serpentine). Elevation ranges from 15 to 1360 feet (5 to 415 meters). Blooms Apr-Jun. Unlikely. There are no extant occurrences in the vicinity of the Study Area. The nearest extant occurrences are in Marin County. No further actions are recommended for this species 299 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 46 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS saline clover Trifolium hydrophilum Rank 1B.2 Marshes and swamps, valley and foothill grassland (mesic, alkaline), vernal pools. Elevation ranges from 0 to 985 feet (0 to 300 meters). Blooms Apr-Jun. No Potential. Although valley/foothill grassland habitat was observed, microhabitat/suitable substrate of mesic or alkaline sites are not present within the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species San Francisco owl's-clover Triphysaria floribunda Rank 1B.2 Coastal prairie, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Elevation ranges from 35 to 525 feet (10 to 160 meters). Blooms Apr-Jun. Moderate Potential. Potentially suitable scrub and grassland habitat are present in the Study Area. Appropriately timed surveys are recommended for this species. coastal triquetrella Triquetrella californica Rank 1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub. Elevation ranges from 35 to 330 feet (10 to 100 meters). Blooms . Moderate Potential. The Study Area contains potentially suitable areas with thin soil and naturlly occurring low cover of taller vegetation. Appropriately timed surveys are recommended for this species. 300 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 47 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS WILDLIFE AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES California giant salamander Dicamptodon ensatus SSC Occurs in the north-central Coast Ranges. Moist coniferous and mixed forests are typical habitat; also uses woodland and chaparral. Adults are terrestrial and fossorial, breeding in cold, permanent or semi- permanent streams. Larvae usually remain aquatic for over a year. No Potential. No aquatic habitat is present to support this species. No further recommendations are warranted. California red-legged frog Rana draytonii FT, SSC, RP Lowlands and foothills in or near permanent sources of deep water with dense, shrubby or emergent riparian vegetation. Requires 11 to 20 weeks of permanent water for larval development. Associated with quiet perennial to intermittent ponds, stream pools and wetlands. Prefers shorelines with extensive vegetation. Disperses through upland habitats after rains. No Potential. No aquatic habitat is present to support this species. There are no documented CNDDB occurrences of this species within 2 miles of the Study Area (CDFW 2023), including on San Bruno Mountain. The Study Area is surrounded by development including dense residential development which precludes access to the site from any nearby population sources. Because no aquatic habitat is present, there are no nearby occurrences and no migratory corridors are present that might allow access to the site by the No further recommendations are warranted. 301 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 48 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS species, it has no potential to occur. Central coast clade of the foothill yellow-legged frog Rana boylii SE, FE (proposed), SSC Found in or adjacent to rocky streams in a variety of habitats. Prefers partly- shaded, shallow streams and riffles with a rocky substrate; requires at least some cobble-sized substrate for egg-laying. Needs at least 15 weeks to attain metamorphosis. Feeds on both aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates. No Potential. No aquatic habitat is present to support this species. No further recommendations are warranted. San Francisco garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia FE, SE, CFP, RP Vicinity of freshwater marshes, ponds and slow- moving streams in San Mateo County and extreme northern Santa Cruz County. Prefers dense cover and water depths of at least one foot. Upland areas near water are also very important. No Potential. No aquatic or marsh habitat is present to support this species. Additionally, there are no populations of red-legged frogs (preferred prey source) to support the species. Lastly, no migratory corridors exist that might allow dispersing individuals to enter the site. No further recommendations are warranted. green sea turtle Chelonia mydas FT (west coast populations) Found in fairly shallow waters inside reefs, bays and inlets with marine grass and algae. Open beaches with a sloping platform and minimal disturbance are required for nesting. This species exhibits high site fidelity. No Potential. No marine habitats are present to support this species. No further recommendations are warranted. 302 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 49 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS Pacific (western) pond turtle Actinemys marmorata SSC A thoroughly aquatic turtle of ponds, marshes, rivers, streams and irrigation ditches with aquatic vegetation. Require basking sites such as partially submerged logs, vegetation mats, or open mud banks, and suitable upland habitat (sandy banks or grassy open fields) for egg-laying. No Potential. No ponds or marsh habitat is present to support this species. The site is surrounded by residential development and pond turtles, if present nearby would be unlikely to successfully migrate into the site. No further recommendations are warranted. BIRDS Alameda song sparrow Melospiza melodia pusillula SSC Year-round resident of salt marshes bordering the south arm of San Francisco Bay. Inhabits primarily pickleweed marshes; nests placed in marsh vegetation, typically shrubs such as gumplant. No Potential. There are no marsh habitats on the site or nearby. Common song sparrow subspecies may occur in the Study Area. No further recommendations are warranted. bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus FD, SE, CFP, BCC Occurs year-round in California, but primarily a winter visitor; breeding population is growing. Nests in large trees in the vicinity of larger lakes, reservoirs and rivers. Wintering habitat somewhat more variable but usually features large concentrations of waterfowl or fish. No Potential. No suitable aquatic foraging features are present nearby to support foraging by the species. No further recommendations are warranted. American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum FD, SD, CFP, BCC Year-round resident and winter visitor. Occurs in a wide variety of habitats, though often associated with Unlikely. No high buildings, suitable cliffs or similar features are present to support nesting. The species No further recommendations are warranted. 303 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 50 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS coasts, bays, marshes and other bodies of water. Nests on protected cliffs and also on man-made structures including buildings and bridges. Preys on birds, especially waterbirds. Forages widely. may occasionally pass through or forage on the site. tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor ST, SSC Nearly endemic to California, where it is most numerous in the Central Valley and vicinity. Highly colonial, nesting in dense aggregations over or near freshwater in emergent growth or riparian thickets. Also uses flooded agricultural fields. Abundant insect prey near breeding areas essential. No Potential. There are no marshes or other suitable habitats present to support nesting by the species. No further recommendations are warranted. olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi SSC Summer resident. Typical breeding habitat is montane coniferous forests. At lower elevations, also occurs in wooded canyons and mixed forests and woodlands. Often associated with forest edges. Arboreal nest sites located well off the ground. Moderate Potential. The Study Area contains marginal forest habitat for this species. Conduct nesting bird surveys prior to initiation of any tree removal activities. If any nests are identified, avoid by 500 feet until young have fledged. long-eared owl Asio otus SSC Occurs year-round in California. Nests in trees in a variety of woodland habitats, including oak and riparian, as well as tree groves. Unlikely. The woodlands surrounding the Project Area are highly disturbed and surrounded by development and as such are not likely to No further recommendations are warranted. 304 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 51 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS Requires adjacent open land with rodents for foraging, and the presence of old nests of larger birds (hawks, crows, magpies) for breeding. support nesting by this species. golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BCC, CFP Occurs year-round in rolling foothills, mountain areas, sage-juniper flats, and deserts. Cliff-walled canyons provide nesting habitat in most parts of range; also nests in large trees, usually within otherwise open areas. No Potential. There are no cliffs, mountains or other similar large features to support nesting by this species. No further recommendations are warranted. bank swallow Riparia riparia ST Summer resident in riparian and other lowland habitats near rivers, lakes and the ocean in northern California. Nests colonially in excavated burrows on vertical cliffs and bank cuts (natural and manmade) with fine-textured soils. Historical nesting range in southern and central areas of California has been eliminated by habitat loss. Currently known to breed in Siskiyou, Shasta, and Lassen Cos., portions of the north coast, and along Sacramento River from Shasta Co. south to Yolo Co. No Potential. The Project Area does not contain suitable cliffs, or banks to support nesting by this species. No further recommendations are warranted. burrowing owl SSC, BCC Year-round resident and winter visitor. Occurs in Unlikely. There are no burrowing owl occurrences No further recommendations are warranted. 305 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 52 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS Athene cunicularia open, dry grasslands and scrub habitats with low- growing vegetation, perches and abundant mammal burrows. Preys upon insects and small vertebrates. Nests and roosts in old mammal burrows, most commonly those of ground squirrels. documented in the Study Area or immediately nearby in the CNDDB. E-bird occurrences for the area are generally for birds moving through, or birds that are in more flat-land habitats. Burrows that would support this species are rare or absent from the site. California black rail Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus ST, CFP Year-round resident in marshes (saline to freshwater) with dense vegetation within four inches of the ground. Prefers larger, undisturbed marshes that have an extensive upper zone and are close to a major water source. Extremely secretive and cryptic. No Potential. No suitable marsh habitats are present. No further recommendations are warranted. California Ridgway’s (clapper) rail Rallus obsoletus obsoletus FE, SE, CFP Year-round resident in tidal marshes of the San Francisco Bay estuary. Requires tidal sloughs and intertidal mud flats for foraging, and dense marsh vegetation for nesting and cover. Typical habitat features abundant growth of cordgrass and pickleweed. Feeds primarily on molluscs and crustaceans. No Potential. No suitable marsh habitats are present. No further recommendations are warranted. marbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus FT, SE Predominantly coastal marine. Nests in old-growth coniferous forests up to 30 No Potential. The Project Area and immediate surrounds do not contain old No further recommendations are warranted. 306 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 53 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS miles inland along the Pacific coast, from Eureka to Oregon border, and in Santa Cruz/San Mateo Counties. Nests are highly cryptic, and typically located on platform-like branches of mature redwoods and Douglas firs. Forages on marine invertebrates and small fishes. growth forest required to support nesting by this species. California least tern Sternula antillarum browni FE, SE, CFP Summer resident along the coast from San Francisco Bay south to northern Baja California; inland breeding also very rarely occurs. Nests colonially on barren or sparsely vegetated areas with sandy or gravelly substrates near water, including beaches, islands, and gravel bars. In San Francisco Bay, has also nested on salt pond margins. No Potential. The Project Area is not next to an aquatic source and does not contain suitable sandy or alkaline flats to support nesting by this species. No further recommendations are warranted. San Francisco common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas sinuosa BCC, SSC Resident of the San Francisco Bay region, in fresh and salt water marshes. Requires thick, continuous cover down to water surface for foraging; tall grasses, tule patches, willows for nesting. No Potential. No suitable aquatic habitat is present to support marshes or other vegetation required for nesting by this species. No further recommendations are warranted. western snowy plover FT, SSC, BCC, RP Federal listing applies only to the Pacific coastal population. Year-round No Potential. The Project Area is not next to an aquatic source and does not No further recommendations are warranted. 307 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 54 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS Charadrius nivosus (alexandrines) nivosus resident and winter visitor. Occurs on sandy beaches, salt pond levees, and the shores of large alkali lakes. Nests on the ground, requiring sandy, gravelly or friable soils. contain suitable sandy or alkaline flats to support nesting by this species. FISH hardhead Mylopharodon conocephalus SSC, FS sensitive Found in low to mid- elevation streams in the Sacramento-San Joaquin drainage; also occurs in the Russian River and tributaries. Favors clear, deep pools with sand-gravel-boulder bottoms and slow water velocity. Not found where exotic Centrarchids predominate. No Potential. No perennial water features are present to support fish. No further recommendations are warranted. longfin smelt Spirinchus thaleichthys FC, ST, SSC, RP Euryhaline, nektonic and anadromous. Found in open waters of estuaries, mostly in middle or bottom of water column. Prefer salinities of 15 to 30 ppt, but can be found in completely freshwater to almost pure seawater. No Potential. No perennial water features are present to support fish. No further recommendations are warranted. Delta smelt Hypomesus transpacificus FT, SE, RP Lives in the Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary in areas where salt and freshwater systems meet. Occurs seasonally in Suisun Bay, Carquinez Strait and San Pablo Bay. Seldom found at No Potential. No perennial water features are present to support fish. No further recommendations are warranted. 308 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 55 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS salinities > 10 ppt; most often at salinities < 2 ppt. steelhead - central CA coast DPS Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus FT Occurs from the Russian River south to Soquel Creek and Pajaro River. Also in San Francisco and San Pablo Bay Basins. Adults migrate upstream to spawn in cool, clear, well-oxygenated streams. Juveniles remain in fresh water for 1 or more years before migrating downstream to the ocean. No Potential. No perennial water features are present to support fish. No further recommendations are warranted. tidewater goby Eucyclogobius newberryi FE, SSC Brackish water habitats along the California coast from Agua Hedionda Lagoon, San Diego County to the mouth of the Smith River. Found in shallow lagoons and lower stream reaches; requires fairly still but not stagnant water and high oxygen levels. No Potential. No perennial water features are present to support fish. No further recommendations are warranted. INVERTEBRATES Crotch bumblebee Bombus crotchii SC Crotch bumblebee occurs primarily in central and southern California, from coastal areas inland to the foothills. Largely extirpated from the central valley. Occurs in grassland and scrub habitats, and has also been documented inagricultural areas. Nests Unlikely. This species has not been historically or recently detected on the SF peninsula. No further recommendations. 309 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 56 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS are built in pre-existing cavities. Bombus occidentalis western bumblebee SC Formerly common throughout much of western North America; populations from southern British Columbia to central California have nearly disappeared (CDFW 2019). Occurs in a wide variety of habitat types. Nests are constructed annually in pre- existing cavities, usually on the ground (e.g., mammal burrows). Food plant families include Lamiaceae, Fabaceae, and Asteraceae Unlikely. Nearby historic documented occurrences are located near the Study Area (CDFW 2023). However, recent state-wide surveys indicate this species has dramatically declined and it is assumed to be extirpated from the area. No further recommendations are warranted. Suckley’s cuckoo bumblebee Bombus suckleyi SC Cuckoo bumble bees enter developing and established nests of other bumble bees, kill or subdue the host queen, lay her own eggs and control the workers to continue collecting pollen and nectar to provision (feed) her offspring. Unlikely. This species has not been historically or recently detected on the SF peninsula. No further recommendations are warranted. Bay checkerspot butterfly Euphydryas editha bayensis FT, SSI, RP Restricted to native grasslands on outcrops of serpentine soil in the vicinity of San Francisco Bay. Plantago erecta is the primary host plant; Orthocarpus densiflorus and O. purpurscens are the secondary host plants. Unlikely. This species has not been detected on Sign Hill. Nearby populations from San Bruno Mountain are considered extirpated. The specie’s host plants are rare or absent in the Study Area. No further recommendations are warranted. 310 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 57 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS Mission blue butterfly Icaricia icarioides missionensis FE, SSI, RP Inhabits grasslands and coastal chaparral of the San Francisco peninsula and southern Marin County, but mostly found on San Bruno Mountain. Three larval host plants: Lupinus albifrons, L. variicolor, and L. formosus, of which L. albifrons is favored. Present. This species occurs on Sign Hill. Avoid removal of host plants (Lupinus sp.). Do not remove substantial nectar resources. If host plants must be removed they should be replaced at a ratio of not less than 2:1 onsite. Any removal of host plants that could result in take of individual butterflies in any life stage would require consultation and permitting through the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. monarch butterfly Danaus plexippus FC, SSI Winter roost sites extend along the coast from northern Mendocino to Baja California, Mexico. Roosts located in wind-protected tree groves (eucalyptus, Monterey pine, Monterey cypress), with nectar and water sources nearby. Unlikely to Roost or Reproduce. The Project Area is not along a coastline, and eucalyptus trees within the vicinity do not form a tight grove that would provide shelter from winds to support roosting by this species. Host plants for the larva are not documented in the Study Area. The species may fly through the Study Area and may use nectar resources. No further recommendations are warranted. callippe silverspot butterfly Speyeria callippe callippe FE, SSI Two populations in San Bruno mountain and the Cordelia Hills are recognized. Hostplant is Viola pedunculata, which is found on serpentine soils. Most adults found on east-facing Present. This species has been detected in the Study Area. Avoid removal of host plants (Viola pedunculata). Do not remove substantial nectar resources. If host plants cannot be avoided, they should be transplanted into the nearest location with suitable soils. Any removal 311 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 58 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS slopes; males congregate on hilltops in search of females. or movement of host plants that could result in take of individual butterflies in any life stage would require consultation and permitting through the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Myrtle's silverspot butterfly Speyeria zerene myrtleae FE, RP, SSI Restricted to the fog belt of northern Marin and southernmost Sonoma County, including the Point Reyes peninsula; extirpated from coastal San Mateo County. Occurs in coastal prairie, dunes, and grassland. Larval foodplant is typically Viola adunca . Adult flight season may range from late June to early September. Unlikely. This species has been extirpated from the San Francisco Peninsula. No further recommendations are warranted. San Bruno elfin butterfly Callophrys mossii bayensis FE, SSI Limited to the vicinity of San Bruno Mountain, San Mateo County. Colonies are located on in rocky outcrops and cliffs in coastal scrub habitat on steep, north-facing slopes within the fog belt. Species range is tied to the distribution of the larval host plant, Sedum spathulifolium. No Potential. This species has never been documented on Sign Hill and rocky outcrops do not support its host plant. The species is unlikely to move between suitable habitat on San Bruno Mountain due to distance and development barriers that exist between Sign Hill and suitable habitat on San Bruno Mountain. No further recommendations are warranted. MAMMALS 312 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 59 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS big free-tailed bat Nyctinomops macrotis SSC, WBWG med-high Occurs rarely in low-lying arid areas. Requires high cliffs or rocky outcrops for roosting sites. No Potential. No suitable cliffs or other potential habitats are present to support this species. Rocky outcrops in the study area doe not contain suitable gaps for this species. No further recommendations are warranted. southern sea otter Enhydra lutris nereis FT, CFP, MMC SSC Nearshore marine environments from about Año Nuevo, San Mateo County. To Point Sal, Santa Barbara County. Needs canopies of giant kelp and bull kelp for rafting and feeding. Prefers rocky substrates with abundant invertebrates. No Potential. No marine habitats are present to support this species. No further recommendations are warranted. North American porcupine Erethizon dorsatum G5, S3 Broadleaved upland forest, Cismontane woodland, Closed-cone coniferous forest, Lower montane coniferous forest, North coast coniferous forest, Upper montane coniferous forest. Forested habitats in the Sierra Nevada, Cascade, and Coast ranges, with scattered observations from forested areas in the Transverse Ranges. Unlikely. The Study Area is surrounded by urban development and porcupine would be unlikely to be able to access the site. Habitat in the Study Area is extremely limited in quality and extent. The occurrence in the CNDDB is from 1972 and there are no more recent nearby occurrences. No further recommendations are warranted. fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes WBWG High Associated with a wide variety of habitats including dry woodlands, desert scrub, mesic coniferous forest, Moderate Potential. Some of the trees surrounding and within the Study Area may support roosting by this To reduce impacts to maternity roosting bats, avoid removing trees in the bat maternity season (March 313 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 60 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS grassland, and sage-grass steppes. Buildings, mines and large trees and snags are important day and night roosts. species. However, the Study Area is surrounded by development and lacks foraging areas as well as water sources for bats, which makes the site unlikely to support long-term occupation. 1- September 1). If this timeframe cannot be avoided, for any trees measuring greater than 36 inches DBH, a pre-removal assessment should be conducted to see if any potential maternity roost are present. If any are detected, they shall be avoided until the maternity season is ended. For day roosting bats, any felled trees should remain on the ground overnight so that any roosting bats can escape. hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG Medium Prefers open forested habitats or habitat mosaics, with access to trees for cover and open areas or habitat edges for feeding. Roosts in dense foliage of medium to large trees. Feeds primarily on moths. Moderate Potential. Some of the trees surrounding and within the Study Area may support roosting by this species. However, the Study Area is surrounded by development and lacks foraging areas as well as water sources for bats, which makes the site unlikely to support long-term occupation. To reduce impacts to maternity roosting bats, avoid removing trees in the bat maternity season (March 1- September 1). If this timeframe cannot be avoided, for any trees measuring greater than 36 inches DBH, a pre-removal assessment should be conducted to see if any potential maternity roost are present. If any are detected, they shall be avoided until the maternity season is ended. For day roosting bats, any felled trees should remain on the ground 314 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 61 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS overnight so that any roosting bats can escape. pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC, WBWG High Found in a variety of habitats ranging from grasslands to mixed forests, favoring open and dry, rocky areas. Roost sites include crevices in rock outcrops and cliffs, caves, mines, and also hollow trees and various manmade structures such as bridges, barns, and buildings (including occupied buildings). Roosts must protect bats from high temperatures. Very sensitive to disturbance of roosting sites. Moderate Potential. Some of the trees surrounding and within the Study Area may support roosting by this species. However, the Study Area is surrounded by development and lacks foraging areas as well as water sources for bats, which makes the site unlikely to support long-term occupation. To reduce impacts to maternity roosting bats, avoid removing trees in the bat maternity season (March 1- September 1). If this timeframe cannot be avoided, for any trees measuring greater than 36 inches DBH, a pre-removal assessment should be conducted to see if any potential maternity roost are present. If any are detected, they shall be avoided until the maternity season is ended. For day roosting bats, any felled trees should remain on the ground overnight so that any roosting bats can escape. salt-marsh harvest mouse Reithrodontomys raviventris FE, SE, CFP Endemic to emergent salt and brackish wetlands of the San Francisco Bay Estuary. Pickleweed marshes are primary habitat; also occurs in various other wetland communities with dense vegetation. Does not burrow, builds loosely organized nests. Requires higher areas for flood escape. No Potential. The Project Area does not contain any salt marsh. No further recommendations are warranted. 315 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 62 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat Neotoma fuscipes annectens SSC Forest habitats of moderate canopy and moderate to dense understory. Also in chaparral habitats. Constructs nests of shredded grass, leaves, and other material. May be limited by availability of nest-building materials. Moderate Potential. The Study Area contains brushy habitats that may support this species. Prior to work in forested areas and/or areas with dense understories, surveys for nests should be conducted. If nests are detected, they should be avoided by at least 5 feet. If nests cannot be avoided, a nest removal plan should be developed and approved by CDFW prior to implementation. Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SSC, WBWG High Associated with a wide variety of habitats from deserts to higher-elevation mixed and coniferous forests. Females form maternity colonies in buildings, caves and mines, and males roost singly or in small groups. Foraging typically occurs at edge habitats near wooded areas, e.g. along streams. No Potential. The Study Area does not contain buildings or trees with suitable insulative properties to support a roost for this species. Further no caves, mines or other large subterranean features are present that might provide roosting substrates for this species. No further recommendations are warranted. western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC, WBWG High Highly migratory and typically solitary, roosting primarily in the foliage of trees or shrubs. Roosts are usually in broad-leaved trees including cottonwoods, sycamores, alders, and maples. Day roosts are commonly in edge habitats adjacent to streams or open Moderate Potential. Broad- leaved trees are mostly absent from the Study Area, but day-roosting individuals may sometimes find refuge in the Study Area. To reduce impacts to maternity roosting bats, avoid removing trees in the bat maternity season (March 1- September 1). If this timeframe cannot be avoided, for any trees measuring greater than 36 inches DBH, a pre-removal assessment should be conducted to see if any potential maternity roosts 316 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 63 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS fields, in orchards, and sometimes in urban areas. are present. If any are detected, they shall be avoided until the maternity season is ended. For day roosting bats, any felled trees should remain on the ground overnight so that any roosting bats can escape. Mountain Lion Puma concolor SC Occurs across a large geographic range in north and south America and in a large number of habitat types. Bay Area Mountain lions are most associated with forest and adjacent open areas that support mammalian prey. Moderate Potential. Sign Hill most likely would not support this species for extended timeframes due to its small size and small prey base. However, if an individual mountain lion was to navigate the densely populated areas nearby and end up on Sign Hill, some suitable habitat is present in the Study Area and nearby San Bruno Mountain. This species is highly elusive and avoids interactions with people. As such, any future project activities would not impact mountain lions because they would avoid them. The Study Area represents a habitat fragment within a highly urbanized landscape and is not a significant linkage to larger habitat blocks, nor is itself a significant habitat for the species. No further recommendations are warranted. 317 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Biological Site Assessment | September 2023 64 *Special-status only at native occurrences. FC: Federal Candidate for Listing FE: Federal Endangered BGEPA: Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act Species FT: Federal Threatened SC (E/T): State Candidate for Listing (Endangered/Threatened) SE: State Endangered SFP: State Fully Protected Animal SR: State Rare SSC: Species of Special Concern ST: State Threatened SSI: Special Status Invertebrate Rank 1A: CNPS Rank 1A—Plants presumed extinct in California Rank 1B: CNPS Rank 1B—Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere Rank 2A: CNPS Rank 2A—Plants presumed extirpated in California, but more common elsewhere Rank 2B: CNPS Rank 2B—Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere Rank 3: Plants about which CNPS need more information (a review list) Rank 4: Plants of limited distribution (a watch list) RP: Recovery Plan WBWG: Western Bat Working Group High or Medium-high Priority Species 318 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 Appendix B APPENDIX B. CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY 319 Cultural Resources Study for the Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California Eileen Barrow, MA/RPA April 18, 2023 320 Cultural Resources Study for the Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California Prepared by: Eileen Barrow, MA/RPA Tom Origer & Associates Post Office Box 1531 Rohnert Park, California 94927 (707) 584-8200 Prepared for: WRA, Inc. 2169-G East Francisco Boulevard San Rafael, California 94901 April 18, 2023 321 i ABSTRACT Tom Origer & Associates conducted a cultural resources study for the Sign Hill Master Plan, South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. The study was requested and authorized by WRA, Inc. This study was conducted to meet the requirements of the City of South San Francisco and those of the California Environmental Quality Act. The purpose of this report is to identify potential historical resources other than Tribal Cultural Resources, as defined in Public Resources Code [PRC] 21074 (a)(1)(A)-(B) and discussed in the Regulatory Context section. Tribal Cultural Resources are defined in Public Resources Code [PRC] 21074 (a)(1)(A)-(B). The City of South San Francisco is considering rerouting or modifying existing trail segments with safety treatments, trail decommissioning, and the potential addition of viewpoints adjacent to these trails. The City is also considering stabilization to the South San Francisco Hillside Sign. This study included archival research at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma Stat e University, examination of the library and files of Tom Origer & Associates, Native American contact, and field inspection of the study area. The South San Francisco Hillside Sign is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources. No other cultural resources were found during the course of this study. This report contains information about the locations of archaeological sites. For the protection of these resources, this report, and such location information, should not be publicly circulated. Synopsis Project: Sign Hill Master Plan Location: 650 Poplar Avenue, South San Francisco, San Mateo County Quadrangles: San Francisco South 7.5’ series Study Type: Intensive Scope: 5,567 linear feet of trails Field Hours: 1.25 person-hours NWIC #: 22-1453 TOA #: 2023-014S Finds: No cultural resources were found within the study area; however, brief recommendations were made regarding possible stabilization efforts for the South San Francisco Hillside Sign which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (96000761). 322 ii Key Personnel Eileen Barrow provided project oversight and authored the report for this project. Ms. Barrow has been with Tom Origer & Associates since 2005. She holds a Master of Arts in cultural resources management from Sonoma State University. Mrs. Barrow's experience includes work that has been completed in compliance with local ordinances, CEQA, NEPA, and Section 106 (NHPA) requirements. Her professional affiliations include the Society for American Archaeology, the Society for California Archaeology, the California Historical Society, the Sonoma County Historical Society, and the Western Obsidian Focus Group. Julia Karnowski conducted the NWIC record search and conducted fieldwork for this project. Ms. Karnowski holds a Bachelor of Science in Anthropology from California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, with graduate studies at Sonoma State University. She is affiliated with the Society for California Archaeology, the Society for American Archaeology, and the Society for Historical Archaeology. 323 iii CONTENTS ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................ i Synopsis .............................................................................................................................................. i Key Personnel .................................................................................................................................... ii INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1 REGULATORY CONTEXT .................................................................................................................. 1 Resource Definitions ......................................................................................................................... 2 Significance Criteria .......................................................................................................................... 2 PROJECT SETTING .............................................................................................................................. 3 Study Area Location and Description ............................................................................................... 3 Cultural Setting .................................................................................................................................. 5 STUDY PROCEDURES AND FINDINGS ........................................................................................... 9 Native American Contact .................................................................................................................. 9 Native American Contact Results...................................................................................................... 9 Archival Research Procedures ........................................................................................................... 9 Archival Research Findings............................................................................................................. 10 Field Survey Procedures .................................................................................................................. 11 Field Survey Findings ...................................................................................................................... 11 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................... 12 Archaeological Recommendations .................................................................................................. 12 Built Environment Recommendations............................................................................................. 12 Accidental Discovery ...................................................................................................................... 12 SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................... 13 MATERIALS CONSULTED ............................................................................................................... 14 APPENDIX A: Native American Contact APPENDIX B: Resource Documentation FIGURES Figure 1.Project vicinity. ........................................................................................................................ 1 Figure 2.Study Area location. ................................................................................................................. 4 Figure 3. Overview photo of the study area, facing northwest. .............................................................. 5 TABLES Table 1. San Francisco Bay Area Chronology ....................................................................................... 7 Table 2. Studies conducted within a Quarter-mile of the Study Area. ................................................. 11 324 1 INTRODUCTION This report describes a cultural resources study for the Sign Hill Master Plan, South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. The study was requested and authorized by WRA, Inc. This study was conducted to meet the requirements of the City of South San Francisco (City) and those of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Documentation pertaining to this study is on file at Tom Origer & Associates (File No. 2023-014S). The City of South San Francisco is considering rerouting or modifying existing trail segments with safety treatments, trail decommissioning, and the potential addition of viewpoints adjacent to these trails. The City is also considering stabilization to the South San Francisco Hillside Sign; though, they have no specific plans at this time. REGULATORY CONTEXT The State of California requires that cultural resources be considered during the environmental review process. This process is outlined in CEQA and accomplished by an inventory of resources within a study area and by assessing the potential that historical resources could be affected by development. The term “Historical Resources” encompasses all forms of cultural resources including prehistoric and historical archaeological sites and built environment resources (e.g., buildings, bridges, canals), that would be eligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). An additional category of resources is defined in CEQA under the term “Tribal Cultural Resources” (Public Resources Code Section 21074). They are not addressed in this report because Tribal Cultural Resources are resources that are of specific concern to California Native American tribes, and knowledge of such resources is limited to tribal people. Pursuant to CEQA, as revised in July 2015, Figure 1. Project vicinity (adapted from the 1956 San Francisco 1:250,000-scale USGS map). 325 2 such resources are to be identified by tribal people in direct, confidential consultation with the lead agency (PRC §21080.3.1). This cultural resources study was designed to satisfy environmental issues specified in the CEQA and its guidelines (Title 14 CCR §15064.5) by: (1) identifying historical resources within the study area; (2) offering a preliminary significance evaluation of the identified cultural resources; (3) assessing resource vulnerability to effects that could arise from project activities; and (4) offering suggestions designed to protect resource integrity, as warranted. Resource Definitions Historical resources are classified by the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) as sites, buildings, structures, objects and districts, and each is described by OHP (1995) as follows. Site. A site is the location of a significant event, a prehistoric or historic occupation or activity, or a building or structure, whether standing, ruined, or vanished, where the location itself possesses historic, cultural, or archaeological value regardless of the value of any existing structure. Building. A building, such as a house, barn, church, hotel, or similar construction, is created principally to shelter any form of human activity. “Building” may also be used to refer to a historically and functionally related unit, such as a courthouse and jail, or a house and barn. Structure. The term “structure” is used to distinguish from buildings those functional constructions made usually for purposes other than creating human shelter. Object. The term “object” is used to distinguish from buildings and structures those constructions that are primarily artistic in nature or are relatively small in scale and simply constructed. Although it may be, by nature or design, movable, an object is associated with a specific setting or environment. District. A district possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development. Significance Criteria When a project might impact a cultural resource, the project proponent is required to conduct an assessment to determine whether the impact may be one that is significant. Consequently, it is necessary to determine the importance of resources that could be impacted. The importance of a resource is measured in terms of criteria for inclusion on the California Register. A resource may be important if it meets any one of the criteria, or if it is already listed on the California Register or a local register (Title 14 CCR, §4852). An important resource is one which: 1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. 326 3 2. Is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values. 4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, eligibility for the California Register requires that a resource retains sufficient integrity to convey a sense of its signif icance or importance. Seven elements are considered key in considering a property’s integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The OHP advocates that all resources over 45 years old be recorded for inclusion in the OHP filing system (OHP 1995:2), although the use of professional judgment is urged in determining whether a resource warrants documentation. PROJECT SETTING Study Area Location and Description The study area is located within the city of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, on Sign Hill which is just south of San Bruno Mountain near the northern end of the San Francisco Peninsula as shown on the San Francisco South 7.5’ USGS map (Figure 2). Figure 3 provides a current overview of the study area. Prior to the development of the area, an unnamed creek flowed along the northern foot of Sign Hill southeast toward San Francisco Bay. This creek was the closest source of natural fresh water to the study area and was approximately 380 meters away. The geology of the study area consists of Pleistocene (11,700 to 2.55 million years old) slope debris and ravine fill and Pleistocene and Pliocene (11,700 to 5.33 million years old) sandstone and shale (Bonilla 1998). Soils for the study area primarily consist of Candlestick-Kron-Buriburi soils with a small part of the southern ends of the trail segments consisting of Orthents-cut and fill-Urban land (Kashiwagi and Hokholt 1991:Sheet 3). Candlestick-Kron-Buriburi soils are well-draining sandy, gravelly loams found on coastal uplands. In a natural state, these soils support the growth of grasses, forbs, and coastal brush. Historically parcels containing Candlestick-Kron-Buriburi soils have been used for recreational development, wildlife or watershed habitat, and in some places for homesite development (Kashiwagi and Hokholt 1991:22). Orthents-cut and fill and Urban land soils consist of places where soils have been cut and filled for urban development and/or have been developed (Kashiwagi and Hokholt 1991:30). 327 4 Figure 2. Study Area location (adapted from the 1990 San Francisco South 7.5’ USGS topographic maps). 328 5 Figure 3. Overview photo of the study area, facing northwest. Cultural Setting Prehistory The concept of prehistory refers to the period of time before events were recorded in writing and vary worldwide. Because there is no written record, our understanding of California prehistory relies on archaeological materials and oral histories passed down through generations. Early archaeological research in this area began with the work of Max Uhle and Nels Nelson. Uhle is credited with the first scientific excavation in California with his work at the Emeryville Shellmound in 1902, and Nelson spent several years (1906 to 1908) surveying the San Francisco Bay margins and California coast for archaeological sites (Nelson 1909). In the 1930s, archaeologists from Sacramento Junior College and the University of California began piecing together a sequence of cultures primarily based on burial patterns and ornamental artifact from sites in the lower Sacramento Valley (Lillard et al. 1939; Heizer and Fenenga 1939). Their cultural sequence became known as the Central California Taxonomic System (CCTS), which identified three culture periods termed the Early, Middle, and Late Horizons, but without offering date ranges. Refinement of the CCTS became a chief concern of archaeologists as the century progressed with publications by Richard Beardsley (1948, 1954) and Clement Meighan (1955) based on materials excavated by the University of California archaeological survey. In 1973, David Fredrickson synthesized prior work, and in combination with his own research, he developed a regional chronology that is used to this day, albeit modified for locality-specific 329 6 circumstances. Fredrickson’s scheme shows that native peoples have occupied the region for over 11,000 years (which is supported by Erlandson et al. 2007), and during that time, shifts took place in their social, political, and ideological regimes (Fredrickson 1973). In 1960, the first study of obsidian hydration as a dating tool for archaeologists was published (Friedman and Smith 1960). This study showed that the chemical composition of the obsidian and temperature affect the hydration process. It was not until the 1980s that research into this dating method was conducted for the North Bay Area which has four major obsidian sources. In 1987, Thomas Origer devised a hydration chronology for the North Bay Area. This chronology was developed by pairing micron readings taken from stylistically distinctive projectile points and pairing them with radiocarbon dates. Origer was able to develop a hydration rate for Annadel and Napa Valley obsidian sources as a result of his study. Later, Tremaine (1989, 1993) was able to develop comparison constants among the four primary obsidian sources in the North Bay Area. The development of obsidian hydration rates for the four, primary San Francisco Bay Area obsidian sources have provided archaeologists the ability to obtain dates from sites that could not previously be dated due to lack of diagnostic artifacts or organic material suitable for radiocarbon dating. Origer was able to support and refine Fredrickson's chronology dating tools diagnostic of certain periods (Origer 1987). In an effort to bridge the differences between chronologies, Milliken et al. (2007: Figure 8.4) presented a concordance for comparing time periods, cultural patterns, and local variations for the San Francisco Bay Area. Milliken included Dating Scheme D, as presented by Groza in 2002, which is a refinement of previous radiocarbon-based temporal sequences for the San Francisco Bay Area. More recently, Byrd, Whitaker, Mikkelsen, and Rosenthal (2017) called up on archaeologists to abandon previous temporal sequences in favor of Scheme D, further refined in Groza et al. 2011. Table 1 assimilates Scheme D, Fredrickson’s (1973) chronology, and the obsidian hydration dating scheme from Origer (1987). Note that the Early, Middle, Late Horizon scheme is still evident though refinements have been made within those categories. Early occupants appear to have had an economy based largely on hunting, with limited exchange, and social structures based on the extended family unit. Later, milling technology and an inferred acorn economy were introduced. This diversification of economy appears to be coeval with the development of sedentism and population growth and expansion. Sociopolitical complexity and status distinctions based on wealth are also observable in the archaeological record, as evidenced by an increased range and distribution of trade goods (e.g., shell beads, obsidian tool stone), which are possible indicators of both status and increasingly complex exchange systems. These horizons or periods are marked by a transition from large projectile points and millingslabs, indicating a focus on hunting and gathering during the Early Period, to a marine focus during the Middle Period evidenced by the number of shellmounds in the Bay Area. The Middle Period also saw more reliance on acorns and the use of bowl-shaped mortars and pestles. Acorn exploitation increased during the Late Period and the bow and arrow were introduced. Prehistoric archaeological site indicators expected to be found in the region include but are not limited to: obsidian and chert flakes and chipped stone tools; grinding and mashing implements such as slabs and hand-stones, and mortars and pestles; and locally darkened midden soils containing some of the previously listed items plus fragments of bone, shellfish, and fire-affected stones. 330 7 Table 1. San Francisco Bay Area Chronology Temporal Period1 Approximate Time Range1 ~ Hydration Interval (μ) 2 Scheme D Periods3 Approximate Time Range3 ~ Hydration Interval (μ) 2 Historical < AD 1800 <1.20 Historic Mission AD 1835 to AD 1770 1.10 - 1.27 Upper Emergent AD 1800 to AD 1500 1.21 - 1.84 Late 2 AD 1770 to AD 1520 1.28 - 1.80 Lower Emergent AD 1500 to AD 1000 1.85 - 2.58 Late 1b AD 1520 to AD 1390 1.81 - 2.02 Late 1a AD 1390 to AD 1265 2.03 - 2.22 Middle/Late Transition AD 1265 to AD 1020 2.23 - 2.55 Middle 4 AD 1020 to AD 750 2.56 - 2.88 Upper Archaic AD 1000 to 500 BC 2.59 - 4.05 Middle 3 AD 750 to AD 585 2.89 - 3.06 Middle 2 AD 585 to AD 420 3.07 - 3.23 Middle 1 AD 420 to 200 BC 3.24 - 3.80 Early/Middle Transition 200 BC to 600 BC 3.81 - 4.13 Middle Archaic 500 BC to 3000 BC 4.06 - 5.72 Early 600 BC to 2100 BC 4.14 - 5.18 Lower Archaic 3000 BC to 6000 BC 5.73 - 7.23 Paleo-Indian 6000 BC to 8000 BC 7.24 - 8.08+ μ = microns 1 based on Fredrickson (1994) 2 based on Napa Glass Mountain rate by Origer (1987) and Effective Hydration Temperature value from the vicinity of Santa Rosa, Sonoma County 3 based on Groza et al. (2011) 331 8 Ethnography Linguists and ethnographers tracing the evolution of languages have found that most of the indigenous languages of the California region belong to one of five widespread North American language groups (the Hokan and Penutian phyla, and the Uto-Aztecan, Algic, and Athabaskan language families). The distribution and internal diversity of four of these groups suggest that their original centers of dispersal were outside, or peripheral to, the core territory of California, that is, the Central Valley, the Sierr a Nevada, the Coast Range from Cape Mendocino to Point Conception, and the Southern California coast and islands. Only languages of the Hokan phylum can plausibly be traced back to populations inhabiting parts of this core region during the Archaic period, and there are hints of connections between certain branches of Hokan, such as that between Salinan and Seri, that suggest that at least some of the Hokan languages could have been brought into California by later immigrants, primarily from the Southwest and northwestern Mexico (Golla 2011). Linguistic evidence shows that between 10,000 and 4,000 years ago inhabitants in the area were Pre - Hokan speakers, and by 6,000 years ago Hokan languages had developed in the San Francisco Bay Area (Moratto 2004:551). Moratto (2004:552-557) hypothesized that about 4,000 years ago Penutian (Utian) speakers began to migrate into the area from the lower Sacramento Valley and established in the East Bay Area. He further hypothesized that Proto-Costanoan people originated in the East Bay Area, and early Costanoans spread to the peninsula about 3,200 years ago (Moratto 2004:554). At the time of European settlement, the study area was situated within the area controlled by the Ramaytush linguistic group of the Ohlone/Costanoan (Levy 1978). The Ohlone/Costanoan were hunter-gatherers who lived in rich environments that allowed for dense populations with complex social structures (Kroeber 1925). They settled in large, permanent villages about which were distributed seasonal camps and task-specific sites. Permanent villages were occupied throughout the year and satellite sites were visited to procure particular resources that were especially abundant or only seasonally available. Sites often were situated near fresh water sources and in ecotones where plant life and animal life were diverse and abundant. Between 1777 and 1797, Spanish missionaries established seven missions in Costanoan territory disrupting Costanoan lifeways and cultural identities and decimated the population. Richard Levy (1978) estimated that Costanoans numbered 10,000 in 1770 and less than 2,000 in 1832 as new diseases were introduced, leading to higher mortality rates and lower birth rates. For more information about the Ohlone/Costanoan see Bean (1994), Margolin (1978), Milliken (1995), and Teixeira (1997). History Historically, the study area lies within the Buri Buri land grant officially granted to José Antonio Sanchez in 1835, though he may have received it as early as 1827 (Cowan 1977:21; GLO 1864; Hoover et al. 1966:402). The rancho was confirmed to his heirs (José de la Cruz Sanchez and others) in 1872. The city of South San Francisco had its beginnings between 1889 and 1892 when Peter Iler obtained options on 3,500 acres of land and created the San Francisco Land and Improvement Company (Alexander and Hamm 1916:60). Among the acreage was the former Home Ranch upon which the city was built. Residential lots lay to the west of the railroad while factory and industry lots lay to the east near San Francisco Bay to be closer to the harbor that was created around this time(Alexander and Hamm 1916:60-61). South San Francisco was marketed as a place of industry and over time, factory after factory was established within the industrial part of the city. 332 9 Because of the industry-oriented marketing campaign by early city founders, the city was largely inhabited by working-class families who worked in the various factories that lined the bayfront. So many Irish lived in South San Francisco that there are parts that are still referred to as “Irish Town” (South San Francisco Historical Society 2004:7). Historic period site indicators generally include: fragments of glass, ceramic, and metal objects; milled and split lumber; and structure and feature remains such as building foundations and discrete trash deposits (e.g., wells, privy pits, dumps). STUDY PROCEDURES AND FINDINGS Native American Contact A request was sent to the State of California’s Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) seeking information from the Sacred Lands File and the names of Native American individuals and groups that would be appropriate to contact regarding this project. Letters were also sent to the following groups: Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area The Ohlone Indian Tribe Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Balley Band This contact does not constitute consultation with tribes. Native American Contact Results The Native American Heritage Commission replied with a letter dated April 3, 2023, which indicated that the Sacred Lands File has no information about the presence of Native American cultural resources in the project area. A list of additional contacts was provided. No other comments have been received as of the date of this report. A log of contact efforts is appended to this report, along with copies of correspondence (see Appendix A). Archival Research Procedures Archival research included examination of the library and project files at Tom Origer & Associates. This research is meant to assess the potential to encounter archaeological sites and built environment within the study area. Research was also completed to determine the potential for buried archaeological deposits. A review (NWIC File No. 22-1453) was completed of the archaeological site base maps and records, survey reports, and other materials on file at the NWIC, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park by Julia Karnowski on March 21, 2023. Sources of information included but were not limited to the current listings of properties on the National Register, California Historical Landmarks, California Register, and California Points of Historical Interest as listed in the OHP’s Historic Property Directory (2012) and the Built Environment Resources Directory (2021). 333 10 The OHP has determined that structures in excess of 45 years of age could be important historical resources, and former building and structure locations could be important archaeological sites. Archival research included an examination of 19th and 20th-century maps and aerial photographs to gain insight into the nature and extent of historical development in the general vicinity, and especially within the study area. Ethnographic literature that describes appropriate Native American groups, county histories, and other primary and secondary sources were reviewed. Sources reviewed are listed in the “Materials Consulted” section of this report. A model for predicting a location’s sensitivity for buried archaeological sites was formulated by Byrd et al. (2017) based on the age of the landform, slope, and proximity to water. A location is considered to have highest sensitivity if the landform dates to the Holocene, has a slope of five percent or less, is within 150 meters of fresh water, and 150 meters of a confluence. Note, the Holocene Epoch is the current period of geologic time, which began about 11,700 years ago, and coincides with the emergence of human occupation of the area. A basic premise of the model is that archaeological deposits will not be buried within landforms that predate human colonization of the area. Calculating these factors using the buried site model (Byrd et al. 2017:Tables 11 and 12), a location’s sensitivity is scored on a scale of 1 to 10 and classed as follows: lowest (<1); low (1-3); moderate (3-5.5); high (5.5-7.5); highest (>7.5). Incorporating King’s (2004) analysis of buried site potential, the probability of encountering buried archaeological deposits for each class is as follows: Sensitivity Score1 Classification1 Probability2 <1 Lowest <1 % 1-3 Low 1-2 % 3-5.5 Moderate 2-3% 5.5-7.5 High 3-5% >7.5 Highest 5-20% 1 Byrd et al. 2007 2 King 2004 Archival Research Findings Archival research showed that the study area had not been previously subjected to a cultural resources survey. However, the South San Francisco Hillside Sign was examined, evaluated, and listed on the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register in 1996 (Goldenberg and Carroll 1996). The sign was listed under Criterion A for its importance in promoting South San Francisco’s ties with industry. The sign reads “South San Francisco The Industrial City” and consists of large, flat, concrete letters painted white and set on the south side of what is now referred to as Sign Hill. During Goldenberg and Carroll’s evaluation of the sign, they noted the presence of the remains of an electrical sign that was constructed during the 1930s above the concrete sign. The electrical sign blew down in a windstorm in the 1940s, and the remains observed by Goldenberg and Carroll were not considered important due to their lack of integrity (Goldenberg and Carroll 1996). The sign lies near the trails that are a part of this study. A copy of the nomination form can be found in Appendix B. Eleven studies have been conducted within a quarter-mile of the study area, as listed in Table 2. Three cultural resources are documented within a quarter-mile of the study area (Bevk 2017; Fragoso 1995a, 1995b). These resources are buildings that do not extend into the study area. 334 11 There are no reported ethnographic villages or camps in or near the study area (Kroeber 1925; Levy 1985:485). Review of late 19th and early 20th century historical maps and aerial photos show no buildings or structures within the study area (General Land Office 1864; USCS 1857, 1869; USACE 1939, 1943; USGS 1896, 1899, 1915, 1947, 1950, 1956). Table 2. Studies conducted within a Quarter-mile of the Study Area. Author Date S# Archaeological Consulting and Research Services 1974 3032 Billat 2000 27744 BioSystems Analysis, Inc. 1989 11396 Cartier 1982a 4925 Cartier 1982b 5949 Cartier 1997 19400 Chavez 1974 5052 ESA+Orion 2009 36313 Hylkema 1996 18468 Losee 2017 48810 Wills 2016 51959 Based on landform age, our analysis of the environmental setting, and incorporating the Byrd et al. (2017) analysis of sensitivity for buried sites, there is a low (1.0) potential for buried archaeological site indicators within the study area. Field Survey Procedures An intensive field survey of the study area was completed by Julia Karnowski on April 3, 2023. One and one quarter hours were spent in the field and field conditions were sunny but cool. Ground visibility ranged from excellent to poor, with vegetation being the primary hindrance. In addition to our field survey, some of the hillside sign letters were inspected. Field Survey Findings Archaeology Some broken glass was observed where the former electrical sign was located on the ridge top. Given Goldenberg and Carroll did not find these were important features they were no t closely examined (1996). Built Environment Some of the footings to the former electrical sign were observed but not documented as Goldenberg and Carroll found that they were not important. No other buildings or structures were observed within the trail routes. 335 12 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS No archaeological site indicators were observed within the study area. The application of buried sites model indicates a low potential for buried resources within the study area. A few remains of the former electrical sign that once stood on the ridge of Sign Hill and some glass fragments were observed. These things were not found important when Goldenberg and Carroll were conducting their evaluation of the hillside sign. The hillside sign lies outside of the current study area; however, some of the letters were examined during this study. Archaeological Recommendations No recommendations are warranted. Built Environment Recommendations No recommendations are required for the remains of the former electrical sign that are located on the ridge top. The hillside sign, as mentioned, is listed on the National Register and the California Register (Goldenberg and Carroll 1996). The City is in the process of determining what needs to be done to stabilize and maintain the sign letters. It is our recommendation that the City work with an architectural historian or at minimum, have an architectural historian review any proposed work to ensure it would meet the guidelines outlined in The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Grimmer 2017). Accidental Discovery In keeping with the CEQA guidelines, if archaeological remains are uncovered, work at the place of discovery should be halted immediately until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the finds as required (§15064.5 [f]). Prehistoric archaeological site indicators include: obsidian and chert flakes and chipped stone tools; grinding and mashing implements (e.g., slabs and handstones, and mortars and pestles); bedrock outcrops and boulders with mortar cups; and locally darkened midden soils. Midden soils may contain a combination of any of the previously listed items with the possible addition of bone and shell remains, and fire-affected stones. Historic period site indicators generally include: fragments of glass, ceramic, and metal objects; milled and split lumber; and structure and feature remains such as building foundations and discrete trash deposits (e.g., wells, privy pits, dumps). Per the requirements of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15064.5(e) if human remains are encountered during the course of the project, excavation or disturbance of the location must be halted in the vicinity of the find, and the county coroner contacted. If the coroner determines the remains are Native American, the coroner will contact the Native American Heritage Commission, who will then identify the person or persons believed to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The most likely descendent makes recommendations regarding the treatment of the remains with appropriate dignity. 336 13 SUMMARY Tom Origer & Associates completed a cultural resources study for the Sign Hill Master Plan, South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. The study was requested and authorized by WRA, Inc. The study was conducted to meet the requirements of the City) and those of the CEQA. The South San Francisco Hillside Sign is not located within the study area, but in close proximity to it. The City is contemplating stabilization work and so brief recommendations were provided as specific methods have not yet been determined. No cultural resources were found within the study area; therefore, no project-specific recommendations were made. Documentation pertaining to this study is on file at Tom Origer & Associates (File No. 2023-014S). 337 14 MATERIALS CONSULTED Alexander, P. and C. Hamm 1916 History of San Mateo County. Burlingame Publishing, Burlingame. Archaeological Consulting and Research Services 1974 Report of the Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Proposed San Bruno Mountain County Parks, San Mateo, County, California. Document S-3032 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park. Bean, L. (Editor) 1994 The Ohlone Past and Present. Ballena Press, Menlo Park. Beardsley, R. 1948 Culture Sequences in Central California Archaeology. In American Antiquity Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 1-28. 1954 Temporal and Areal Relationships in Central California Archaeology. Reports of the University of California Archaeological Survey 24-25. Berkeley, California. Bevk, A. 2017 Primary Record for P-41-002554. Document on file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park. Billat, L. 2000 Letter report regarding the Nextel Communications Wireless Telecommunications Service Facility – San Mateo County. Document S-27744 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park. BioSystems Analysis, Inc. 1989 Technical Report of Cultural Resources Studies for the Proposed WTG-West, Inc. Los Angeles to San Francisco and Sacramento, California Fiber Optic Cable Project. Document S-11396 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park. Bonilla, M. 1998 Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Francisco South 7.5' Quadrangle and part of the Hunters Point 7.5' Quadrangle, San Francisco Bay Area, California. Open-File Report OF-98-354. United States Geological Survey. Bromfield, D. 1894 Official map of San Mateo County, California. Schmidt Label & Lith. Co. San Francisco. Byrd, B. and R. Allen 2011 Archaeological Sensitivity Assessment for the Sunnyvale-Velasco Hope San Francisco Redevelopment Project, City of San Francisco, California. Document S-38298 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park. Byrd, B., A. Whitaker, P. Mikkelsen, and J. Rosenthal 2017 San Francisco Bay-Delta Region Context and Research Design for Native American Archaeological Resources Caltrans District 4. On file at the Caltrans District 04 Office of Cultural Resource Studies, Oakland, California. 338 15 Byrd, B., A. Whitaker, P. Mikkelsen, J. Rosenthal, J. Meyer, and P. Kaijankoski 2017 Discovering Sites: Geoarchaeological Approaches to Site Sensitivity and Predictive Modeling. In, San Francisco Bay-Delta Region Context and Research Design for Native American Archaeological Resources Caltrans District 4. B. Byrd, A. Whitaker, P. Mikkelsen, and J. Rosenthal. Pp 4-1 through 4-13. On file at the Caltrans District 04 Office of Cultural Resource Studies, Oakland, California. Cartier, R. 1982a Limited Subsurface Testing for Archaeological Site Boundary Delineation for the Proposed South Slope Project in the County of San Mateo. Document S-4925 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park. 1982b Cultural Resources Evaluation of the South Slope Project on San Bruno Mountain in the County of San Mateo. Document S-5949 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park. 1997 Cultural Resources Evaluation for the Spruce School Project in the City of South San Francisco. Document S-19400 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park. Chavez, D. and M. Holman 1974 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of San Bruno Mountain, Phase Two. Document S-5052 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park. Cowan, R. 1977 Ranchos of California: A List of Spanish Concessions 1775-1822 and Mexican Grants 1822- 1846. Academy Library Guild, Fresno, California. Denny, Edward & Company 1913 Denny's Pocket Map of San Mateo California. Edward Denny & Company, San Francisco. Department of Parks and Recreation 1976 California Inventory of Historical Resources. State of California, Sacramento. Erlandson, J., T. Rick, T. Jones, and J. Porcasi 2007 One if by Land, Two if by Sea: Who Were the First Californians? In: California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity. (pp 53-62) T. Jones and K. Klar, editors. AltaMira Press. Lanham, MD. ESA+Orion 2009 Crystal Springs Pipeline No. 2 Replacement Project, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California. Document S-36313 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park. Fragoso, N. 1995a Historic Resources Inventory form for P-41-000406. Document on file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park. 1995b Historic Resources Inventory form for P-41-000408. Document on file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park. 339 16 Fredrickson, D. 1973 Early Cultures of the North Coast Ranges, California. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis. 1994 Archaeological Taxonomy in Central California Reconsidered. In Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California Archaeology, edited by R. E. Hughes, pp. 91-103. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility, volume 52. University of California, Berkeley. Friedman, I. and R. Smith 1960 A New Dating Method Using Obsidian: Part I, The Development of a Method. American Antiquity. 25(4): 476-522. General Land Office (GLO) 1864 Plat of the Rancho Buri Buri. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Goldenberg, N. and J. Carroll 1996 National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet for the South San Francisco Hillside Sign. Document NRIS Reference Number 96000761 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park. Golla, V. 2011 California Indian Languages. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Grimer, A. (Revised by) 2017 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Hi storic Buildings. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Services Technical Preservation Services. Washington, D.C. Groza, R. 2002 An AMS Chronology for Central California Olivella Shell Beads. Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, California. Groza, R., J. Rosenthal, J. Southon, and R. Milliken 2011 A Refined Shell Bead Chronology for Late Holocene Central California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 31(2):13-32. Heizer, R. and F. Fenenga 1939 Archaeological Horizons in Central California. American Anthropologist, Vol. 41, pp. 378- 399. Hoover, M., H. Rensch, E. Rensch, and W. Abeloe 1966 Historic Spots in California. 3rd edition. Stanford University Press, Stanford. Hoover, M., H. Rensch, E. Rensch, W. Abeloe, and D. Kyle 1990 Historic Spots in California. 4th edition. Stanford University Press, Stanford. 2002 Historic Spots in California. 5th edition. Stanford University Press, Stanford. 340 17 Hylkema, M. 1996 Historic Properties Survey Report (HPSR) and Negative Archaeological Survey Report for the Proposed Installation of Modular Classrooms at Spruce, Martin, Ponderosa, and Skyline Schools, South San Francisco Unified School District, San Mateo County, California. Document S-18468 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park. Kashiwagi, J. and L. Hokholt 1991 Soil Survey of San Mateo County, Eastern Part, and San Francisco County, California. United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with the University of California Agricultural Experiment Station. King, J. 2004 Surface and Subsurface Archaeological Sensitivity. In Landscape Evolution and the Archaeological Record: A Geoarchaeological Study of the Southern Santa Clara Valley and Surrounding Region. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis, University of California. Kneese, G. 1927 Official Map of San Mateo County, California. San Mateo County Surveyor, San Mateo County. Kroeber, A. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Levy, R. 1978 Costanoan. In California edited by R. Heizer, pp. 485-495. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, W. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Lillard, J., R. Heizer, and F. Fenenga 1939 An Introduction to the Archaeology of Central California. Sacramento Junior College Department of Anthropology, Bulletin 2, pp. 93, figs. 20 and map, pls. 31). Losee, C. 2017 Letter Report Regarding Cultural Resources Investigation for AT&T CCL00162 “South San Francisco” 920 Stonegate Drive, South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California 94080. Margolin, M. 1978 The Ohlone Way. Heyday Books, Berkeley. Meighan, C. 1955 Archaeology of the North Coast Ranges, California. Reports of the University of California Archaeological Survey No. 30. University of California, Berkeley. Milliken, R. 1995 A Time of Little Choice. Ballena Press, Menlo Park. Milliken, R., R. Fitzgerald, M. Hylkema, R. Groza, T. Origer, D. Bieling, A. Leventhal, R. Wiberg, A. Gottsfield, D. Gillette, V. Bellifemine, E. Strother, R. Cartier, and D. Fredrickson 2007 Punctuated Cultural Change in the San Francisco Bay Area. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn Klar, pp. 99-124. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, California. 341 18 Moore and DePue 1878 Moore and DePue’s Illustrated History of San Mateo County, California. G.T. Brown, San Francisco. Moratto, M. 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, San Francisco. Munz, P. and D. Keck 1973 A California Flora and Supplement. University of California Press, Berkeley. Nelson, N. 1909 Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Region. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 7(4). Berkeley. Office of Historic Preservation 1995 Instructions for Recording Historic Resources. Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. 2012 Historic Property Directory. Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. 2021 Built Environment Resources Directory. Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. Origer, T. 1987 Temporal Control in the Southern North Coast Ranges of California: The Application of Obsidian Hydration Analysis. Papers in Northern California Anthropology, Number 1, Berkeley. Rosenthal, J. and J. Meyer 2004 Landscape Evolution and the Archaeological Record: A Geoarchaeological Study of the Southern Santa Clara Valley and Surrounding Region. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis, University of California. South San Francisco Historical Society 2004 South San Francisco. Arcadia Publishing. San Francisco. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation 1976 California Inventory of Historic Resources. Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. Teixeira, L. 1997 The Costanoan/Ohlone Indians of the San Francisco and Monterey Bay Area: A Research Guide. Ballena Press: Menlo Park. Tremaine, K. 1989 Obsidian as a Time Keeper: An Investigation in Absolute and Relative Dating. Master’s Thesis, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California. 1993 Temporal Ordering of Artifact Obsidians: Relative Dating Enhanced Through the Use of Accelerated Hydration Experiments, in There Grows a Green Tree, edited by Greg White, Pat Mikkelsen, William R. Hildebrandt, and Mark E. Basgall, pp. 265-275. University of California Center for Archaeological Research at Davis Publication No. 11, Davis, California. 342 19 United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 1939 San Mateo. 15' tactical map. War Department, Washington, D.C. 1943 San Mateo. 15' tactical map. War Department, Washington, D.C. United States Coast Survey (USCS) 1857 Map Showing the Approaches to San Francisco California. 1/10,000 scale. Department of Commerce, United States Coast and Geodetic Survey, Washington D.C. United States Coast and Geodetic Survey 1869 Topographic Map of the San Francisco Peninsula, California. 1:40,000 Department of Commerce, United States Coast and Geodetic Survey, Washington D.C. United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1896 San Mateo. 15’ series map. Geologic Survey, Washington, D.C. 1915 San Mateo. 15’ series map. Geologic Survey, Washington, D.C. 1947 San Francisco South, California. 7.5’ map series. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1950 San Francisco South, California. 7.5’ map series. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1956 San Francisco South, California. 7.5’ map series. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1968 San Francisco South, California (photorevised from the 1956 edition). 7.5’ map series. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. Wills, C. 2016 Letter Report Regarding Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Results for T- Mobility LLC Candidate SF03114A (Hillside Elks Lodge), 920 Stonegate Drive, South San Francisco, San Francisco County, California. Document S-51959 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park. 343 APPENDIX A Native American Contact Copies of Correspondence 344 Native American Contact Efforts Sign Hill Master Plan South San Francisco, San Mateo County Organization Contact Action Results Native American Heritage Commission Email 3/20/23 The Native American Heritage Commission replied with a letter dated April 3, 2023, which indicated that the Sacred Lands File has no information about the presence of Native American cultural resources in the project area. A list of additional contacts was provided. Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista Irene Zwierlein Email 3/20/23 No response has been received as of the date of this report. Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe Tony Cerda Email 3/20/23 No response has been received as of the date of this report. Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan Ann Marie Sayers Kanyon Sayers- Roods Letter 3/20/23 Email 3/20/23 No response has been received as of the date of this report. Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area Monica Arellano Letter 3/20/23 No response has been received as of the date of this report. The Ohlone Indian Tribe Andrew Galvan Desiree Vigil Email 3/20/23 No response has been received as of the date of this report. Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band Kenneth Wood Email 3/20/23 No response has been received as of the date of this report. 345 Sacred Lands File & Native American Contacts List Request NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 1550 Harbor Blvd., Suite 100 West Sacramento, CA 95691 (916) 373-3710 (916) 373-5471 – Fax nahc@nahc.ca.gov Information Below is Required for a Sacred Lands File Search Project: Sign Hill Trails County: San Mateo USGS Quadrangles Name: San Francisco South Township 3S Range 5W Section(s) Rancho Buri Buri Land Grant MDBM Date: March 20, 2023 Company/Firm/Agency: Tom Origer & Associates Contact Person: Taylor Alshuth Address: PO Box 1531 City: Rohnert Park Zip: 94927 Phone: (707) 584-8200 Fax: (707) 584-8300 Email: taylor@origer.com Project Description: The project proponent is proposing to develop 1.75 miles of trail segments within Sign Hill Park in South San Francisco. 346 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION Page 1 of 1 April 3, 2023 Taylor Alshuth Tom Origer & Associates Via Email to: taylor@origer.com Re: Sign Hill Trials Project, San Mateo County To Whom It May Concern: A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The results were negative. However, the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites. Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received. If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify me. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: Cody.Campagne@nahc.ca.gov. Sincerely, Cody Campagne Cultural Resources Analyst Attachment CHAIRPERSON Laura Miranda Luiseño VICE CHAIRPERSON Reginald Pagaling Chumash SECRETARY Sara Dutschke Miwok COMMISSIONER Isaac Bojorquez Ohlone-Costanoan COMMISSIONER Buffy McQuillen Yokayo Pomo, Yuki, Nomlaki COMMISSIONER Wayne Nelson Luiseño COMMISSIONER Stanley Rodriguez Kumeyaay COMMISSIONER [Vacant] COMMISSIONER [Vacant] EXECUTIVE SECRETARY Raymond C. Hitchcock Miwok/Nisenan NAHC HEADQUARTERS 1550 Harbor Boulevard Suite 100 West Sacramento, California 95691 (916) 373-3710 nahc@nahc.ca.gov NAHC.ca.gov 347 Amah MutsunTribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista Irene Zwierlein, Chairperson 3030 Soda Bay Road Lakeport, CA, 95453 Phone: (650) 851 - 7489 Fax: (650) 332-1526 amahmutsuntribal@gmail.com Costanoan Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe Tony Cerda, Chairperson 244 E. 1st Street Pomona, CA, 91766 Phone: (909) 629 - 6081 Fax: (909) 524-8041 rumsen@aol.com Costanoan Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan Kanyon Sayers-Roods, MLD Contact 1615 Pearson Court San Jose, CA, 95122 Phone: (408) 673 - 0626 kanyon@kanyonkonsulting.com Costanoan Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson P.O. Box 28 Hollister, CA, 95024 Phone: (831) 637 - 4238 ams@indiancanyon.org Costanoan Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area Monica Arellano, Vice Chairwoman 20885 Redwood Road, Suite 232 Castro Valley, CA, 94546 Phone: (408) 205 - 9714 monicavarellano@gmail.com Costanoan The Ohlone Indian Tribe Desiree Vigil, THPO 1775 Marco Polo Way, Apt. 21 Burlingame, CA, 94010 Phone: (650) 290 - 0245 dirwin0368@yahoo.com Bay Miwok Ohlone Patwin Plains Miwok The Ohlone Indian Tribe Andrew Galvan, Chairperson P.O. Box 3388 Fremont, CA, 94539 Phone: (510) 882 - 0527 Fax: (510) 687-9393 chochenyo@AOL.com Bay Miwok Ohlone Patwin Plains Miwok Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band Kenneth Woodrow, Chairperson 1179 Rock Haven Ct. Salinas, CA, 93906 Phone: (831) 443 - 9702 kwood8934@aol.com Foothill Yokut Mono 1 of 1 This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Sign Hill Trials Project, San Mateo County. PROJ-2023- 001755 04/03/2023 03:20 PM Native American Heritage Commission Native American Contact List San Mateo County 4/3/2023 348 Tom Origer & Associates Archaeology / Historical Research P.O. Box 1531, Rohnert Park, California 94927 ♦ www.origer.com Phone (707) 584-8200 March 20, 2023 Irenne Zwierlein Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista 3030 Soda Bay Road Lakeport, CA 95453 RE: Sign Hill Trails Project, South San Francisco, San Mateo County Dear Ms. Zwierlein: I write to notify you of a proposed project within San Mateo County, for which our firm is conducting a cultural resources study. The project proponent is proposing to develop 1.75 miles of trail segments within Sign Hill Park in South San Francisco. The City of South San Francisco is reviewing the project for California Environmental Quality Act compliance. This notification does not constitute formal consultation. Enclosed is a portion of the San Francisco South, Calif. 7.5’ USGS topographic quadrangle showing the project location. Sincerely, Taylor Alshuth Associate Email: Taylor@origer.com 349 Tom Origer & Associates Archaeology / Historical Research P.O. Box 1531, Rohnert Park, California 94927 ♦ www.origer.com Phone (707) 584-8200 March 20, 2023 Tony Cerda Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe 244 E 1st Street Pomona, CA 91766 RE: Sign Hill Trails Project, South San Francisco, San Mateo County Dear Mr. Cerda: I write to notify you of a proposed project within San Mateo County, for which our firm is conducting a cultural resources study. The project proponent is proposing to develop 1.75 miles of trail segments within Sign Hill Park in South San Francisco. The City of South San Francisco is reviewing the project for California Environmental Quality Act compliance. This notification does not constitute formal consultation. Enclosed is a portion of the San Francisco South, Calif. 7.5’ USGS topographic quadrangle showing the project location. Sincerely, Taylor Alshuth Associate Email: Taylor@origer.com 350 Tom Origer & Associates Archaeology / Historical Research P.O. Box 1531, Rohnert Park, California 94927 ♦ www.origer.com Phone (707) 584-8200 March 20, 2023 Ann Marie Sayers Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan P.O. Box 28 Hollister, CA 95024 RE: Sign Hill Trails Project, South San Francisco, San Mateo County Dear Ms. Sayers: I write to notify you of a proposed project within San Mateo County, for which our firm is conducting a cultural resources study. The project proponent is proposing to develop 1.75 miles of trail segments within Sign Hill Park in South San Francisco. The City of South San Francisco is reviewing the project for California Environmental Quality Act compliance. This notification does not constitute formal consultation. Enclosed is a portion of the San Francisco South, Calif. 7.5’ USGS topographic quadrangle showing the project location. Sincerely, Taylor Alshuth Associate Email: Taylor@origer.com 351 Tom Origer & Associates Archaeology / Historical Research P.O. Box 1531, Rohnert Park, California 94927 ♦ www.origer.com Phone (707) 584-8200 March 20, 2023 Kanyon Sayers-Roods Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan 1615 Pearson Court San Jose, CA 95122 RE: Sign Hill Trails Project, South San Francisco, San Mateo County Dear Ms. Sayers-Roods: I write to notify you of a proposed project within San Mateo County, for which our firm is conducting a cultural resources study. The project proponent is proposing to develop 1.75 miles of trail segments within Sign Hill Park in South San Francisco. The City of South San Francisco is reviewing the project for California Environmental Quality Act compliance. This notification does not constitute formal consultation. Enclosed is a portion of the San Francisco South, Calif. 7.5’ USGS topographic quadrangle showing the project location. Sincerely, Taylor Alshuth Associate Email: Taylor@origer.com 352 Tom Origer & Associates Archaeology / Historical Research P.O. Box 1531, Rohnert Park, California 94927 ♦ www.origer.com Phone (707) 584-8200 March 20, 2023 Monica Arellano Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area 20885 Redwood Road, Suite 232 Castro Valley, CA 94546 RE: Sign Hill Trails Project, South San Francisco, San Mateo County Dear Ms. Arellano: I write to notify you of a proposed project within San Mateo County, for which our firm is conducting a cultural resources study. The project proponent is proposing to develop 1.75 miles of trail segments within Sign Hill Park in South San Francisco. The City of South San Francisco is reviewing the project for California Environmental Quality Act compliance. This notification does not constitute formal consultation. Enclosed is a portion of the San Francisco South, Calif. 7.5’ USGS topographic quadrangle showing the project location. Sincerely, Taylor Alshuth Associate Email: Taylor@origer.com 353 Tom Origer & Associates Archaeology / Historical Research P.O. Box 1531, Rohnert Park, California 94927 ♦ www.origer.com Phone (707) 584-8200 March 20, 2023 Andrew Galvan The Ohlone Indian Tribe P.O. Box 3388 Fremont, CA 94539 RE: Sign Hill Trails Project, South San Francisco, San Mateo County Dear Mr. Galvan: I write to notify you of a proposed project within San Mateo County, for which our firm is conducting a cultural resources study. The project proponent is proposing to develop 1.75 miles of trail segments within Sign Hill Park in South San Francisco. The City of South San Francisco is reviewing the project for California Environmental Quality Act compliance. This notification does not constitute formal consultation. Enclosed is a portion of the San Francisco South, Calif. 7.5’ USGS topographic quadrangle showing the project location. Sincerely, Taylor Alshuth Associate Email: Taylor@origer.com 354 Tom Origer & Associates Archaeology / Historical Research P.O. Box 1531, Rohnert Park, California 94927 ♦ www.origer.com Phone (707) 584-8200 March 20, 2023 Desiree Vigil The Ohlone Indian Tribe 1775 Marco Polo Way, Apt. 21 Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: Sign Hill Trails Project, South San Francisco, San Mateo County Dear Ms. Vigil: I write to notify you of a proposed project within San Mateo County, for which our firm is conducting a cultural resources study. The project proponent is proposing to develop 1.75 miles of trail segments within Sign Hill Park in South San Francisco. The City of South San Francisco is reviewing the project for California Environmental Quality Act compliance. This notification does not constitute formal consultation. Enclosed is a portion of the San Francisco South, Calif. 7.5’ USGS topographic quadrangle showing the project location. Sincerely, Taylor Alshuth Associate Email: Taylor@origer.com 355 Tom Origer & Associates Archaeology / Historical Research P.O. Box 1531, Rohnert Park, California 94927 ♦ www.origer.com Phone (707) 584-8200 March 20, 2023 Kenneth Woodrow Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band 1179 Road Haven Court Salinas, CA 93906 RE: Sign Hill Trails Project, South San Francisco, San Mateo County Dear Mr. Woodrow: I write to notify you of a proposed project within San Mateo County, for which our firm is conducting a cultural resources study. The project proponent is proposing to develop 1.75 miles of trail segments within Sign Hill Park in South San Francisco. The City of South San Francisco is reviewing the project for California Environmental Quality Act compliance. This notification does not constitute formal consultation. Enclosed is a portion of the San Francisco South, Calif. 7.5’ USGS topographic quadrangle showing the project location. Sincerely, Taylor Alshuth Associate Email: Taylor@origer.com 356 357 APPENDIX B DPR 523 Forms Resource Documentation Archaeological site location information should be kept confidential to protect sites from damage by vandals and collectors 358 NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section number ———— Page ———— SUPPLEMENTARY LISTING RECORD NRIS Reference Number: 96000761 Date Listed: 7/11/96 South San Francisco Hillside Sign San Mateo CA Property Name County State N/A Multiple Name This property is listed in the National Register of Historic Places in accordance with the attached nomination documentation subject to the following exceptions, exclusions, or amendments, notwithstanding the National Park Service certification included in the nomination documentation. ?///*> Date'or Action Amended Items in Nomination: Historic Function: The historic functions: Recreation/Culture—Monumment/Marker & Recreation/Culture—Work of Art are added to better identify the resource with like properties already listed. Area of Significance: Social History is added as an area of significance. The amendments noted above reflect an attempt to match the property with other similar properties previously listed in the National Register. The SLR will not affect the State's NR program audit and has been discussed with Cynthia Howse of the CA SHPO. DISTRIBUTION: National Register property file Nominating Authority (without nomination attachment) 359 (O NPS Form 10-900 (Rev. 10-90) OMBNo. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form RECEIVED 2289 JUM2M6 *Wi. KtGISItK Or HISTORIC PLACES This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form (National Register Bulletin 16A). Complete each item by marking "x" in the appropriate box or by entering the information requested. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional entries and narrative items on continuation sheets (NPS Form 10-900a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer, to complete all items. 1. Name of Property_____________________________________________________ historic name South San Francisco Hillside Sign other names/site number 2. Location steet & number _______ city or town _________ state _____California Sign Hill Park N/A D not for publication South San Francisco code county.San Mateo ___________N/A D vicinity code 081 zip code 94Q80 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1986, as amended, I hereby certify that thisS nomination D request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property B meets D does not meet the National Register Criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant D nationally^ECS^tewide fl lp£atiy. ID See continuation sheet for additional comments.) C/C./9L Signature ofcerti State official Tst or reservation Of ite icer State or Federal agency and bureau In my opinion, the propertyD meetsD does not meet the National Register criteria. ( D See continuation sheet for additional comments.) Signature of commenting or other official/Title Date State or Federal agency and bureau 4. National Park Service Certification I, hereby certify that this property is: jntered in the National Register D See continuation sheet. D determined eligible for the National Register D See continuation sheet. D determined not eligible for the National Register D removed from the National Register D other (explain): _________ Date of Action 7////9C. 360 South San Francisco Hillside Sign Name of Property San Mateo, CA County and State 5. Classification Ownership of Property (Check as many boxes as apply) D private El public-local D public-State D public-Federal Name of related multiple property listing (Enter "N/A" if property is not part of a multiple property listing.) N/A________ Category of Property (Check only one box) D building(s) D district Dsite D structure 03 object Number of Resources within Property Contributing 1 Noncontributing __buildings ___sites ___structures ___objects 0 Total Number of contributing resources previously listed in the National Register 0 6. Function or Use Historic Functions (Enter categories from instructions) Other: Advertising, identification Current Functions (Enter categories from instructions) Other: Advertising, identification 7. Description Architectural Classification (Enter categories from instructions) No Style____________ Materials (Enter categories from instructions) Foundation:____________ Walls:________________ Roof:________________ Other: Concrete (Gunite) Narrative Description (Enter Categories from instructions) 361 South San Francisco Hillside Sign Name of Property San Mateo.CA County and State 8. Statement of Significance Applicable National Register Criteria (Mark V in one or more boxes for the criteria qualifying the property for National Registar listing.) m A Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. n B Property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. n c Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period,or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction. D D Property has yielded, or is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history. Criteria Considerations (Mark "X" in all the boxes that apply.) n A owned by a religious institution or used for religious purposes. n B emoved from its original location, n C a birthplace or a grave. n D a cemetery. n E a reconstructed building, objector structure, n F a commemorative property. D G less than 50 years of age or achieved significance within the past 50 years. Areas of Significance (Enter categories from instructions) Other; Citv Boosterism___ Period of Significance 19294946_____ Significant Date Significant Person (Complete if Criterion B is marked above) N/A____________________ Cultural Affiliation N/A________________ Architect/Builder Kneese. George A. Klassen. Robert A. Narrative Statement of Significance (Explain the significance of the property on one or more continuation sheets.) 9. Major Bibliographical References Bibliography (Cite the books, articles, and other sources used in preparing this form on one or more continuation sheets.) Previous documentation on file (NPS) D preliminary determination of individual listing (36 CFR 67) has been requested, n previously listed in the National Register n previously determined eligible by the National Register n designated a National Historic Landmark n recorded by Historic American Buildings Survey #_______________ n recorded by Historic American Engineering Record # _____________ Primary Location of Additional Data n State Historic Preservation Office n Other State agencyo Federal agency a Local government n University n Other Name of repository: 362 South San Francisco Hillside Sign Name of Property San Mateo,CA County and State 10. Geographical Data Acreage of Property 41 acres UTM References (Place additional UTM references on a continuation sheet) Zone Easting Northing 1 10 551020 4168660 2 10 551605 4168400 Verbal Boundary Description (Describe the boundaries of the property on a continuation sheet.) See attached Boundary Justification (Explain why the boundaries were selected on a continuation sheet.) See attached Zone Easting Northing 3 10 551580 4168280 4 10 550940 4168360 See continuation sheet. 11. Form Prepared By name/title Nancy Goldenberg and loni Carroll organization.Carev &. Co. Inc.date April 11. 1995 street & number, city or town__ 123Townsend St. 400 .telephone.(415)957-0100 San Francisco state California zip code.94107 Additional Documentation Submit the following items with the completed form: Continuation Sheets Maps A USGS map (7.5 or 15 minute series) indicating the property's location. A Sketch map for historic districts and properties having large acreage or numerous resources. Photographs Representative black and white photographs of the property. Additional items (Check with the SHPO or FPO for any additional items) Property Owner___________________________________________(Complete this item at the request of the SHPO or FPO.) name Citv of South San Francisco street & number P.O. Box 711 telephone (415)877-8500 city or town_South San Francisco state California zip code 94080 Paperwork Reduction Act Statement: This information is being collected for applications to the National Register of Historic Places to nominate properties for listing or determine eligibility for listing, to list properties, and to amend existing listings. Response to this request is required to obtain a benefit in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). Estimated Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 18.1 hours per response including the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining data, and completing and reviewing the form. Direct comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of this form to the Chief, Administrative Services Division, National Park Service, P.O. Box 37127, Washington, DC 20013-7127; and the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reductions Project (1024-0018), Washington, DC 20503.363 NFS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section 7 Page 1___ South San Francisco Hillside Sign San Mateo County, CA The South San Francisco Hillside Sign reads: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO THE INDUSTRIAL CITY It consists of large, flat concrete letters, painted white, set on the southern side of a steep, 581 foot high hill, that forms part of the San Bruno Mountains. A series of concrete footings are located higher on the hill, the remainder of an electric sign dating from the 1930s. Both the sign and the foundations are within the 41 acre Sign Hill Park, an area maintained by the city of South San Francisco. Although the foundations are obviously ruins (and are not being counted), the primary sign maintains a high degree of integrity, protected as it is within a relatively undeveloped park setting. The hillside sign forms three lines on the hill. The first line, reading "SOUTH," is 166 feet long; the second, reading "SAN FRANCISCO," is 484 feel long; and the third, "THE INDUSTRIAL CITY," is 628 feet long. The letters themselves range in height from 48 to 65 feet, in an anamorphtc arrangement on the contoured hill to create the illusion, from a distance, of straight, regularly-sized and spaced text. Individual legs of the letters are approximately ten feet wide. Letter width varies from a ten foot wide "I" to a 22 foot, 8 inch wide "S." The thickness of the letters appears to be no more than three or four inches, with approximately two inches on average rising above the ground. With regular maintenance by the city, the sign is in good condition. One exception is the letter "T" of the word "CITY." The vertical leg has slid 40 inches away from the horizontal cross bar: a problem completely undetectable except while standing on the letter itself. The letters are repainted annually with white paint, and the surrounding area cleared of brush. Above the sign, on the crest of the hill, stand the foundation from the electrical sign. The foundations consist of 35 concrete footings, each 18" square, arranged in a double row approximately 400 feet long. The footings vary in height from approximately one foot to approximately three feet. Nothing else remains of this sign. These footings, as remnants that lack integrity, are not being counted as a resource. Other elements within the park include unpaved footpaths that zig-zag up the steep hill, and a concrete bench at the crest of the hill. There are no other man-made features within the park. Sign Hill Park is steep, barren and relatively undeveloped. Vegetation consists primarily of grasses, with coyote bush, crimson sage, and California poppy. Pampas grass currently grows beneath the sign; it is soon to be replaced by native manzanita. There are no trees near the sign, but trees within the park include pine, eucalyptus, live oak and acacia. 364 NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section 8 Page 1 South San Francisco Hillside Sign San Mateo County, CA Summary Paragraph The South San Francisco Sign is eligible for the National Register under criterion A for its importance in promoting South San Francisco's ties with industry. In 1923 during the post-war boom, the local Chamber of Commerce decided to advertise the city's welcoming attitude toward industry on a hillside overlooking the city. The first whitewashed sign, reading "South San Francisco the Industrial City," was replaced six years later by a larger, more permanent sign bearing the same message. The choice of a hillside sign to advertise the city can be seen as an outgrowth of two civic boosting traditions: the electric Main Street slogan sign, and the hillside letter. In addition, the sign may be eligible in the context of aviation history. In 1929, the Daniel Guggenheim Fund for the Promotion of Aeronautics awarded a certificate to the city. The award, signed by Charles Lindbergh, was for having "completed the work of identification for the service of aerial navigation." More research is required to develop this context. Statement of Significance South San Francisco was planned as an industrial suburb in the tradition of Homestead, Pennsylvania and Pullman and East St. Louis, Illinois. Encouraged by their successful development of South Omaha into a bustling city centered on the meat-packing industry, some of the country's largest meat-packing companies (known as the Beef Trust) planned to repeat the success of South Omaha on the periphery of San Francisco. This plan, instigated by G.F. Swift in 1888, included a community of separate meat-packing companies around common stock yards and a town for the employees. Swift chose a site near Baden (an earlier community) for his industrial experiment: it was close enough to the market and labor pool of San Francisco and yet far enough away to ensure cheap land, low taxes and a virtual monopoly on local politics. Because other Swift plants were in "South Chicago" and "South Omaha," Swift reputedly favored the name "South San Francisco." In 1890, Peter Her, an agent of the Beef Trust, purchased a portion of Rancho Buri Buri, the original Mexican land grant covering more than 15,000 acres south of the San Bruno Mountains. In 1891 the South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company became owner of the land, which was then divided into industrial and residential districts. The South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company financed lighting, sewer connections, and water distribution to all homes. A second corporate body, known after 1894 as the Western Meat Company, took over eighty acres of bay-front land for stock yards and a meat-packing plant. In December 1892 the new $2.5 million meat-packing facility opened. Other industries followed the meat packers to South San Francisco: the Steiger Terra Cotta and Pottery Works, and the Baden Brick company in 1894; the paint manufacturer W.P. Fuller &. Company, the Molath Brick Company, and the South San Francisco Lumber company in 1898 (La Peninsula, May 1971); and the Pacific Jupiter Steel Company in 1903. 365 NFS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section 8 Page 2 South San Francisco Hillside Sign San Mateo County, CA In December 1907, construction was completed on the "Bayshore Railway Cutoff," and South San Francisco was finally on the main rail line to San Francisco, with tracks conveniendy located at the western edge of the factory district. At the same time, the Guggenheinvowned Copper Trust's intended smelter on San Bruno Point was successfully opposed by San Mateo County but supported by the townspeople. This clash with the county led to the incorporation of South San Francisco in 1908. After incorporation, more industries moved to South San Francisco, including Pacific Coast Steel, and Morgan Oyster Company in 1909, Shaw Batcher Steel Company in 1913, American Marble and Mosaic Works and Enterprise Foundry in 1914, and Growers Rice in 1916. (Kaufftnan 1976: 27.) Growth continued through the 1920s. A new City Hall, designed by Werner &. Coffey and built at a cost of $125,000, opened on November 11, 1920. The following newspaper editorial from the Enterprise describes the city's industrial scene just prior to construction of the Hillside Sign in the mid 1920s: South San Francisco is advancing impressively in industry. The Pacific Coast Steel company is well started on a million dollar program of improvements and enlargements. The Marchetti Motor Patents Inc. has purchased 100 acres of land for a factory here. The Cook Oil company has started actual construction of the plant on Linden avenue. The Metal and Thermit corporation has announced plans for a new $100,000 addition; the brass foundry of the Enterprise Foundry company will be in operation here next week; the Western Pipe and Steel company is spending $40,000 on a new tube mill; and the Pacific Gas and Electric company has approved plans and appropriated the money for an $8,000 office building. These developments, coming together, are making this period one of the greatest in South San Francisco's industrial history. Now let us advertise the fact to the world that we are an industrial city. (The Enterprise, September 7, 1928) 1923: The First Sign The idea for the hillside sign as an advertisement for the city of South San Francisco originated with the local Chamber of Commerce, which built the first, whitewashed sign in 1923 at a cost of $300. Because of the steep, varying slope and the rough terrain, the mapping out of each letter required a surveyor's skill. City Engineer George A. Kneese placed each letter so that the size and spacing were consistent when viewed from a distance (The Enterprise, Nov. 1, 1923). Each letter was carved out of the hillside and a mixture of lime, white cement and water was applied. When the large letter "U" was laid out on the hillside, it gave rise to much speculation around South San Francisco (The Enterprise, Oct 18, 1923); it was of course the central letter of the word "SOUTH." The whitewashed letters were complete by November 22, 1923, (The Enterprise, Nov. 22, 1923), in time for the opening of the nearby Tanforan Race Track season. The sign spelled out the same message that the concrete letters do today: 366 NFS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section 8 Page 3 South San Francisco Hillside Sign San Mateo County, CA SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO THE INDUSTRIAL CITY This first sign received national attention when it was published in Popular Mechanics magazine. Valued locally, the first sign was well maintained, with local high school boys hired at 40 cents per hour to remove grass overgrowth and apply fresh whitewash. 1929: The Second Sign Five years after installing the whitewashed sign, the South San Francisco Chamber of Commerce began to promote a more permanent, concrete sign. The original sign needed ongoing whitewashing, which eventually resulted in irregular letters; a new concrete sign would straighten the letters and reduce maintenance. Between coatings of whitewash, the original sign was hard to read and was characterized by the Chamber of Commerce as "intermittent advertising"; a permanent concrete sign would advertise the city "day and night from now on" (The Enterprise, March 23, 1928). As with the whitewashed sign, the goal of the concrete sign was to attract more industries and more potential homeowners to "The Industrial City." To maximize its advertising potential, the new sign was planned for the same site as the whitewashed sign. The location and orientation of the hillside meant that the sign could be viewed by increased traffic on El Camino Real, Skyline Boulevard (now Pacific Scenic Parkway), and the new Bayshore highway (now Highway 101), as well as by train passengers and aviators from nearby Mills Field (now San Francisco International Airport). The privileged perspective point, however, was the popular Tanforan Race Track on El Camino Real. A Chamber of Commerce committee, composed of E.C. Peck, chairman, W. H. Dinning, H. L Haaker and B. H. Truax, formed to plan the financing of the new sign. When the cost of installing the concrete sign was estimated at $5,000, this was deemed too great a burden on the membership of the organization. On Jan. 28, 1928, the Board of Directors requested City Council to place a proposition on the April ballot to publicly fund a new permanent sign. They succeeded, and Proposition 1 read as follows: "the proposition to levy a special tax of seven (7) cents on each one hundred dollars ($100.00) of the property assessed ... within the City of South San Francisco for the purpose of raising the sum of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) to be expended for constructing in said City a concrete hillside sign in said City to advertise South San Francisco the Industrial City." Many prominent citizens and citizens' groups supported the proposition, including the Women's Club of South San Francisco and the Exchange Club. The Rev. W.S. Kelly, pastor of St. Paul's, signed his weekly column in the Enterprise newspaper "Sincerely yours for the Big Sign on the Mountain Side." The Chamber of Commerce held a rally at City Hall on April 4, 1928, where Chamber president E. P. Kaufrman, vice 367 NFS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section 8 Page 4 South San Francisco Hillside Sign San Mateo County, CA president I.H. Potter, directors B.H. Truax and J.G. Walker, Mayor A.J. Eschelbach, Supervisor T.L Hickey, County Tax Collector Ambrose McSweeney, and Councilman Andrew Hynding proclaimed the merits of the permanent sign and encouraged support of the proposition (The Enterprise, April 7, 1928). Despite this support, the proposition failed to acquire the requisite two-thirds majority by a narrow margin. The supporters of the concrete hillside sign felt that "if submitted to the people on a ballot by itself it would carry" (The Enterprise, May 4, 1928). Editorials in the July 13 and 27, 1928, issues of The Enterprise support the Hillside sign and the calling of a special election. The July 27 editorial states "South San Francisco will yet have its Hillside Sign, advertising this city to the motorists of three arterial highways leading to San Francisco...It will be a land mark to the Mills Field aviators, and when it is built, South San Francisco will be on the map in large letters." (The Enterprise, July 27, 1928) The special election was set for September 11, 1928, and it passed with over two-thirds majority. Work commenced immediately and on October 1, 1928, plans and specifications for the work were presented to City Council by Robert Klassen, the assistant city engineer. The plans called for letters 48 feet high, giving a 23 foot height in perspective. The overall size of the three horizontal lines was to be 186, 480 and 628 feet respectively, about one-third longer than the whitewashed sign. The new sign was to be made using Gunite, a new process in 1928, by which cement is applied through a pressure gun to a reinforcing of steel wire. A brush coat of Portland cement was also specified. The outlines of the letters were laid out by a field party stationed at Tanforan Race Track, now the site of the Tanforan Shopping Center, creating perspective-corrected letters on the steep hillside. In the late fall of 1928, the South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company transferred land tide to the city for the construction and maintenance of the sign and to create a surrounding public park. Bids were opened by the City Council on Jan. 7, 1929, and were rejected as too high (The Enterprise, Jan 11, 1929). But by April 15, 1929, the Enterprise newspaper could happily announce that "After two elections, an unsatisfactory call for bids and several other long delays the contract to build South San Francisco's hillside sign was let Monday night to the Cement Gun Construction company of San Francisco at a figure of $4,845." The concrete sign was completed May 15, 1929. 1932: The Electric Sign A 388-foot long electric advertising sign was constructed by G. H. Thompson atop San Bruno Mountain in 1932, slightly higher and further west than the South San Francisco concrete sign. At the time of its construction it was claimed as the largest electrical sign in the world: 388 feet long, containing 6,000 light bulbs and 25,000 reflector lenses. Mounted on a large skeleton framework set on piers on top of the hill, it was lit only after dark. There were 14 separate and distinct flashes in different patterns and colors, alternating between South San Francisco and 14 other sponsors. The message changed every 15 seconds, advertising 368 NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section 8 Page 5_____ South San Francisco Hillside Sign San Mateo County, CA "South San Francisco The Industrial City," and such slogans as "Drink Acme Beer," "Buy Bakery Goods," "White King Washes Everything," and "Maxwell House Coffee - Good to the Last Drop." On a clear night, it was visible for miles. It was turned off in 1939 when the threat of war created the possibility of its becoming a beacon for attack on the airport. Only the concrete foundations remain today. Signage as a City Boosting Vehicle The South San Francisco Sign was seen as both a means of advertising, and as a symbol of the city's identity. It has served in this latter capacity to the present day. Speaking at a public rally in 1928 in support of the ballot measure to finance the sign, I. H. Potter, member of the Chamber of Commerce, made the following remarks: We are continually confused with 'butchertown' in San Francisco, and the one way to separate our city from southern San Francisco is to give ourselves a name plate such as the Hillside Sign. It is a means of identifying ourselves. Air travelers who embark from Mills Field will know where South San Francisco is and that it is proud enough to advertise itself...This is a day of advertising, and the Hillside Sign is one means of getting our name before the world at a nominal cost. (The Enterprise, April 6, 1928) The choice of a grandiose sign as a city boosting vehicle dates almost to the turn of the century. It has its antecedents in both the large, electric slogan signs which crowned many Main Streets (Modesto, Burlingame, and Redwood City, among other California communities, had these), and in the single, gigantic hillside letters, typically constructed of whitewashed stones or of concrete, which adorn hillsides near many cities and towns in the American West. These letters, which flourished between the years 1905 and 1915, were most often constructed and maintained by university students. The first such letter - and one certainly familiar to the citizens of South San Francisco because of its proximity, was the seventy-foot high "C" in the Berkeley Hills. University of California freshman and sophomore students constructed this symbol from a six-inch thick slab of concrete (Parsons 1988:16). Perhaps the most similar sign in California is the more famous but less intact "Hollywood" sign. In 1923, the year the first South San Francisco sign was carefully whitewashed on the hillside, a sign reading "Hollywoodland" was built to promote a subdivision of the same name along Beachwood Canyon. The sign consisted of 50 foot high metal letters, each supported on a wood and metal framework. Each letter was originally studded with 20-watt lightbulbs. In 1949, the "land" letters were removed and the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce took over maintenance. Declared a city landmark in 1973, it was completely reconstructed in 1978 (Chronicle, April 17, 1995). The Chamber of Commerce The local Chamber of Commerce, the organization originating the Hillside Sign concept, was an agency 369 NFS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section 8 Page 6 South San Francisco Hillside Sign San Mateo County, CA developed specifically to promote commerce and industry within the community. Created in 1913, the organization engaged in a wide variety of promotional activities. Its campaigns in the 'teens and '20s included developing a system to license peddlers and solicitors in 1913; convincing the city Board of Trustees to install sidewalks in 1918; endorsing displaying "South San Francisco" on road signs in 1921; and petitioning Pacific Gas and Electric Co. to construct a building in South San Francisco (Feuerstein 1989). Other organizations devoted to promoting South San Francisco at the time include The Manufacturer's Association, the Women's Club, the Land and Improvement Company and the Exchange Club. The South San Francisco Chamber of Commerce also prepared "City Boosterism" publications during the 1920s. One such publication, South San Francisco The Industrial City, which came out simultaneously with the construction of the second sign, extolls the virtues of South San Francisco. In addition to describing each of the major industries operating in South San Francisco at the time of publication, the pamphlet includes descriptions of the transportation system, labor force, residential real estate opportunities, and photos of the City Hall, Schools, Churches, the Public Library, and the Southern Pacific Station. The publication was evidently directed at potential new industries, as this forward by then Mayor Eshelbach relates: The basis of South San Francisco's growth and prosperity is its industries and the policy of the administration is to foster and encourage development. This policy has and is producing results. The Board of Trustees of South San Francisco, by its co-operative action, invites and welcomes new industries, and stands ready to serve you in the establishment of your plant at South San Francisco. (SSF Chamber of Commerce c.1928) The Sign's Impact and South San Francisco's Recent Past The signs, and related "City Boosting" activities were evidendy successful. South San Francisco was able to maintain 35 industrial operations through the depression of the 1930s - only one fewer than in 1928. Of these, four were meat-packing businesses, six were iron or steel plants and four were manufacturers of mechanical equipment. Other industries included two large paint factories, three other chemical works, three food packing establishments, two makers of airplane parts, a smelter for precious metals, and a manufacturer of radio equipment, in addition to industries producing lime, pottery, and printers' ink . (La Peninsula, May 1971) During the Second World War, the factories of South San Francisco participated in the biggest boom in shipbuilding in the nation's history. The Western Pipe and Steel shipyard grew from 3,000 employees in 1941 to 15,594 in 1944. Bethlehem Steel turned out steel plate for Western Pipe and other shipyards. Barrett <St Hilp began construction of concrete barges at the Belair shipyard in South San Francisco. Other industries, such as Swift and Armour, South San Francisco meat packers, also shifted to wartime production. 370 NFS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section 8 Page 7 South San Francisco Hillside Sign San Mateo County, CA The postwar years witnessed the abandonment of smokestack industries and unparalleled growth in light industry, warehousing, and residential development (Kauffman 1976:27). At the end of the Second World War the nation's economy was moving away from manufacturing to service industries; in South San Francisco, this led to the closing of its major manufacturers, including steel and meat packing. With the blessing of city government, a developer blasted away an SO-acre, solid rock hill and filled the adjacent marshlands. No smokestack industries, such as slaughterhouses, were planned for the new industrial park, but rather research and development, light industry, transportation, and wholesale trade. Later developments followed, including highrise structures, yacht harbors, hotels, and the establishment of the biotechnology giant, Genentech. In 1986, South San Francisco's Historic Preservation Commission designated Sign Hill a historic resource. The ruling led to heated debate over whether the Sign was still relevant. Television and newspaper coverage was extensive, as the longtime residents battled newcomers who regarded the "Industrial" label as demeaning and not befitting their sparkling new edifices. 1300 citizens signed petitions asking the City Council to uphold the Commission. Preservationists who wanted the sign maintained rallied and packed the council's meeting room with more than 200 persons, only one of whom spoke against the sign. The Historic Preservation Commission's decision was upheld unanimously by the City Council. The South San Francisco Hillside Sign, with its motto "The Industrial City," was built to celebrate the city's industrial beginnings and to promote its future. The sign announced to all the city's pride in its industrial base, and acted as a beacon to welcome new industries to the community. Authors' note: Uncited material in the above document originated with an earlier draft prepared by Mrs. Edna Harks. Only material that was added to this original draft, or verified by Nancy Goldenberg and Joni Carroll, is cited. 371 NFS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section 9 Page 1 South San Francisco Hillside Sign San Mateo County, CA Bibliography "And it was called The Industrial Ciry." Invitation to opening of exhibit by San Mateo County Historical Association and South San Francisco Historical Society. Blum, Joseph A. "South San Francisco-The Making of an Industrial City." California History, Maga^ing of Caiifronia Historical Society (Spring 1984) Vol. 113: 116434. Blum, Joseph A. "South City~The City That Could." San Francisco Sunday Examiner-Chronicle (Sept. 4, 1983): 3-6. Emch, Tom. "Life in South San Francisco." San Francisco Sunday Examiner-Chronicle, Caiifronia Living Can. 16, 1972): 14. Feuerstein, Carol. "75th Anniversary." SSF Business in Brief: A Publication of the South. San Francisco Chamber of Commerce. March/April, 1989. Genentech, Inc. Advertisement identifying biotechnology as Industry in the South San Francisco Chamber Directory at South San Francisco, 1994. Groth, Paul, Ph.D. Letter to Department of Architecture and Landscape, March 14, 1988, at the University of California, Berkeley, CA. Harks, Edna, Historic Preservation Commissioner; and Lou Dell' Angela, Citizen. "Letter for and against Sign Preservation," Circulated to City Council, 1986, at South San Francisco. Hynding, Alan. From Fronitier to Suburb-The story of the San Mateo Peninsula. Belmont: Star Publishing, 1982: 102-109. Kaufman, Linda. "It was not by chance." La Peninsula, Journal of the San Mateo Historical Association (May 1971) Vol. 16: 2. Kaufrnan, Linda. South San Francisco, A History. South San Francisco: San Francisco Bicentennial Committee, 1976: 27. Lakey, Carl. "South City old-timers save sign." Pafo Alto Times Tribunal (Sept. 12, 1986): Cl. Lakey Carl. "This city's sign of the time refuses to change with them." Palo Alto Times Tribunal (Sept. 23, 1986): Cl. Lakey, Carl. "Sign with nine lives." Pafo Alto Times Tribunal (Sept. 15, 1986): Editorial. Parsons, James J. "Hillside Letters in the Western Landscape." Landscape Vol. 30, Number 1, 1988. Robertson, Patrick. Guinness Film Facts and Feats, 2nd ed. C 1985 Shoecraft, Don. "City's history now a Video." San Francisco Progress (Aug. 12, 1987). 372 NFS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section 9 Page 2 South San Francisco Hillside Sign San Mateo County, CA Siegman, Ken. "South San Francisco plans to grow." Palo Alto Times Tribunal (Apr. 20, 1985): Cl. Sign of the Times (Video). Sound Start Productions, Berkeley, CA. (1987). South San Francisco Chamber of Commerce. South San Francisco, The Industrial City. Designed and Printed by Bruce Brough, San Francisco, c. 1928. South San Francisco Enterprise Journal. Vol. 30, Sept. 20, Oct. 18, Nov. 23(1923): 1; Vol. 38, Jan. 13, Apr. 12, Apr. 17, May 10, May 17, Sept. 7, Sept. 14, Sept. 17, Sept. 28, Oct. 5, Nov. 28, Dec. 7 (1928): 1; Vol. 37, Jan. 11, Feb. 1, Apr. 17, July 9, July 17(1929):!. South San Francisco Enterprise Journal. Dec 22, (1984); Sept. 13, (1986); Oct. 15, (1986). "South San Francisco Video Documentary Available." South San Francisco Chamber of Commerce (1987) Vol. 49: No.10. Stranger, Frank M. "The Beginings of South San Francisco." Ibid. Treadwell, Edward F. "The Cattle King." Santa Cruz: Western Tanager Press (1981): 3245, 148-179. Yee, Robert S., Mayor of South San Francisco. "Letter for endorsement of Application," circulated March, 28, 1995. 373 NFS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section 10 Page 1 South San Francisco Hillside Sign San Mateo County, CA Boundary Description Parcel N° 012-351410, San Mateo County Boundary Justification The boundary describes Sign Hill Park, a 41-acre municipal park deeded to the city for the South San Francisco Hillside Sign. The boundary and area of Sign Hill Park remain unchanged. 374 NPS Form 10-900-a OMB No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section 11 Page 1 South San Francisco Hillside Sign San Mateo County, CA This form is based on research by Mrs. Edna S. Harks Historical Society of South San Francisco and Historic Preservation Commission 210 Eucalyptus Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 (415)583-3923 375 37 6 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 Appendix C APPENDIX C. TRAILS AND VISITATION ASSESSMENT 377 Sign Hill Open Space Management Plan Trails and Visitation Assessment | September 2023 2 1.0 TRAILS AND VISITATION 1.1 Setting 1.1.1 Facilities Sign Hill is publicly accessed via three main trailheads. The primary trailhead is located at the end of Ridgeview Court and includes a parking lot of seven spaces. The second trailhead is located at the end of Poplar Avenue with street parking only. The third trailhead is located on Spruce Avenue between Park Way and Beech Avenue with limited street parking. These trailheads are not named on City maps and referred to by City staff using the street names mentioned. There is a fourth entrance to Sign Hill located on Diamond Avenue, but this is largely known only to local residents of the area and is primarily a maintenance road access. Sign Hill has approximately two miles of hiking trails in total. The Ridge Trail is 0.77 miles (mi) long following the spine of the hill from the Ridgeview Court trailhead to the Spruce Avenue trailhead. Three trails begin at the Poplar Avenue trailhead and travel to the ridgeline connecting with the Ridge Trail: Iris Trail (0.27 mi) which travels directly to the summit of the hill; the Letters Trail (0.2 mi) which traverses the hill below the letters; and the Seubert Trail (0.36 mi) which climbs west of the summit of the hill. The Eucalyptus Loop Trail (0.27 mi) is shown to traverse the southwestern corner of Sign Hill, creating a loop off the Seubert Trail. All the main trailheads contain a bulletin kiosk and most trail junctions are identified with wayfinding signage. Additionally, there are two benches near the summit and one bench located at the Ridge Trail – Seubert Trail junction. 1.1.2 Erosion The main soil type at Sign Hill is the Candlestick-Kron-Buriburi Complex, and the hill slopes range from 30 to 75 percent (Attachment 1 - Figure 3) (National Resources Conservation Service, 2023). The Candlestick-Kron-Buriburi Complex, 30 to 75 percent slopes map unit is rated as Highly Susceptible, meaning that the soils of this map unit are highly susceptible to degradation following site disturbance, and the soils have a low capacity to resist erosion due to water and/or wind, salinization, sodification, depletion of organic matter and/or other nutrients, and reduction of soil depth to the point that the soil loses its capacity to support the desired plant community. In addition, these soils have a moderate susceptibility to sheet and rill erosion (erosion factor KWhole soil of 0.24). During severe storms in December 2022 and January 2023, large amounts of precipitation fell on Sign Hill causing the soil to erode quickly and dramatically, creating multiple gullies. City staff installed emergency check dams on one gully which had washed out sections of the Seubert and Eucalyptus Loop Trails, and on one gully that threatened to wash out two of the letters. 378 Sign Hill Open Space Management Plan Trails and Visitation Assessment | September 2023 3 Emergency check dams to control storm erosion between letters. 1.2 Methods 1.2.1 Trail Condition Assessment During the Spring of 2023, WRA staff assessed the condition of existing trails on Sign Hill using a qualitative measure of erosion; evidence of on-trail erosion was classified into Low, Medium, or High categories using the descriptions and examples in Table 4. Instances of trail erosion were marked using GPS and classified by staff on-site. Visitor-created trails were also identified and mapped. These trails deviate from the designated trails and are identified using visual indicators of vegetation trampling and soil compaction/loss. These trails deviate from the City designated and named trails and are identified using visual indicators of vegetation trampling and soil compaction/loss. Because nearly all of the Eucalyptus Loop Trail has been obscured by debris from the tree removals, it was not visible to be assessed in the field -the original alignment from City records is shown on Figure 4 instead (Attachment 1). Similarly, part of the Seubert Trail was washed out during severe storms in 2022-2023 leaving a gap seen in the trail map. 379 Sign Hill Open Space Management Plan Trails and Visitation Assessment | September 2023 4 Table 4. Definitions of Trail Erosion Categories EXAMPLE CATEGORY DEFINITION Letters Trail HIGH There are more than two deep ruts located along the length of the trail, and there are several observations that it significantly interferes with pedestrian activities where it causes trail users to create additional pathways to avoid this erosion feature. For this category, evidence of trail user impacts resulting from the erosion feature includes more than one of the following: trail widening, braided trails, unsanctioned trails, soil compaction, and vegetation trampling Ridge Trail MEDIUM There are one or two noticeable ruts forming along the length of the trail, and there are some observations that it significantly interferes with pedestrian and cycling activities. For this category, evidence of trail user impacts resulting from the erosion feature includes one of the following: trail widening, braided trails, unsanctioned trails, soil compaction, and vegetation trampling. Letters Trail LOW There is a shallow rill forming along the length of the trail, but there are no observations that it significantly interferes with pedestrian activities. There is no evidence of trail users negatively impacting adjacent vegetation to avoid this erosion feature. 380 Sign Hill Open Space Management Plan Trails and Visitation Assessment | September 2023 5 1.2.2 Visitation Level Assessment Visitation to Sign Hill was estimated using a combination of manual data collection and automated counters across the three main trailheads of Ridgeview Ct, Poplar Ave and Spruce Ave during the spring of 2023. Note that visitors accessing the site from both Diamond Ave and Ash Ave are included in the estimate for the trailhead at Spruce Ave. The entrance at Diamond Ave consists of a gated access road while the entrance at Ash Ave consists of a visitor created trail. Because the access points converged at the same point on the Ridge Trail, it was clear to WRA technicians that visitors from different areas of the surrounding neighborhood were using the closest possible entrance. Counts were conducted at the convergence point on the Ridge Trail to capture this use. Data from both weekdays and weekend days were used to develop a general estimate for average daily visitation. Manual counts were used to collect observational data of activity types of visitors. Data supporting the visitation estimate for Spruce Ave TOTAL VISITORS Diamond 32 (74%) Spruce 11 (26%) TOTAL ENTRIES AND EXITS Entry 27 Exit 18 1.3 Results 1.3.1 Trail Condition Though relatively few instances of high levels of erosion were found (Figure 4 ), observed eroded areas cover relatively long sections of trail, such as on the Letters Trail. In the case of the Ridge Trail, the long duration of medium erosion covers an extremely steep section and has resulted in a proliferation of visitor created trails as people try to avoid eroded sections and take a less steep route. For the Iris Trail, the area of high erosion occurs in and around steep steps. An analysis of trail segments found slopes for the Ridge, Iris, and Seubert Trails to be steeper than 16 percent— the generally acceptable maximum for non-accessible hiking trails shown in Table 5 (California State Parks, 2019). Additional visitor created trails provide access to destinations such as the Hillside Sign themselves and an old, rusty car along a secondary ridgeline with views to the east. 381 Sign Hill Open Space Management Plan Trails and Visitation Assessment | September 2023 6 Table 5. Trail Slopes TRAIL SEGMENTS AVERAGE % SLOPE EXISTING TRAILS Letters Trail 14% Eucalyptus Trail 9% Letters Trail 14% Ridge Trail 28% Iris Trail 27% Seubert Trail 24% While no visitor created trails currently exist at the summit of the hill, vegetation trampling is a concern along the Ridge Trail because of populations of golden violets and other host plants and nectar flowers for the endangered butterfly species. On the eastern slopes of Sign Hill, as well as the Ridge Trail, there are on-going restoration areas where SSF have been planting native species. SSF has installed fencing to protect these plants from trampling by visitors. 1.3.2 Visitation The trails on Sign Hill are open to use by pedestrians, and dogs are allowed while on-leash. Biking is not allowed on trails. Parking is limited at Sign Hill; however, SSF city staff have observed that many visitors live nearby and access Sign Hill by walking, often visiting multiple times per week. Based on data collected during spring 2023, visitation to Sign Hill is estimated at 100 visits on average per day for weekdays, and 170 visits on average per day for weekend days. Visitation was estimated for each main trailhead: Ridgeview Court, Poplar Avenue, and Spruce Avenue. Note that visitation via the Spruce Avenue trailhead included counts from an adjacent access road on Diamond Avenue and a visitor created trail on Ash Avenue, as they converge at the same location on the Ridge Trail. The Ridgeview Court trailhead had the highest visitation, followed by Poplar Avenue, and Spruce Avenue had the fewest number of visits. Chart 1. Average daily visitation by trailhead 48.5 32.8 20.6 76.6 62.6 32.5 0 50 100 Ridgeview Ct Poplar Ave Spruce/Diamond Average Daily Visitation by Trailhead Weekday Weekend 382 Sign Hill Open Space Management Plan Trails and Visitation Assessment | September 2023 7 On-site observational data collected during spring 2023 shows that approximately 1/3 of visitors participated in dog walking while at Sign Hill. These data also show that nearly 2/3 of visitors were hiking or walking, and a small proportion of visitors were using the trails for running. Though illegal biking use was not observed during the data collection period, SSF City staff have occasionally observed cyclists using Sign Hill’s trails. Chart 2. Percentage of use by activity type 62% 5% 33% Activity Type Hiking Running Dog walking 383 Sign Hill Open Space Management Plan Trails and Visitation Assessment | September 2023 8 2.0 REFERENCES California State Parks. (2019). Trails Handbook. Sacramento: Department of Parks and Recreation. National Resources Conservation Service. (2023). Web Soil Survey, Soil Survey Area: San Mateo County, Eastern Part, and San Francisco County, California. United States Department of Agriculture. 384 Sign Hill Open Space Management Plan Trails and Visitation Assessment | September 2023 9 Attachment 1. Figures 385 Sign Hill Open Space Management Plan Trails and Visitation Assessment | September 2023 10 386 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 Appendix D APPENDIX D. COMMUNITY OUTREACH MATERIALS 387 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Outreach Materials | September 2023 2 1.0 ROUND 1 SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 1.1 English Language Version Introduction The City of South San Francisco is seeking community input to create the Sign Hill Master Plan. Sign Hill Open Space is located off Hillside Boulevard on Ridgeview Court in South San Francisco. In addition to serving as a monument in North San Mateo County, Sign Hill provides 65 acres of open space, including almost two miles of hiking trails and unparalleled views of the San Francisco Bay. Sign Hill is a valuable and historic local resource for the community and a critical habitat for endemic plants and wildlife on the Peninsula. The Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan will guide future development of the trail system to enhance public access and visitor experiences while protecting the biological and cultural resources. Your participation in this survey will help us better engage the public as patrons and stewards of Sign Hill and create a master plan that meets the needs of the site and the community for years to come. Questions 1. Have you ever visited Sign Hill? • Yes • No 2. How did you hear about Sign Hill? Select all that apply. • I live in the neighborhood. • From a friend or family member • City of South San Francisco resources (e.g., website, community facilities, programs) • Local media (e.g., newspaper, magazine, social media) • Other (please specify) 3. How often do you visit Sign Hill? • Daily • Weekly • Monthly • Every few months • Rarely • Other (please specify) 4. With whom do you visit Sign Hill? Select all that apply. • By myself • Family • Friends • Pet(s) • Community group • Other (please specify) 388 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Outreach Materials | September 2023 3 5. How do you get to Sign Hill? Select all that apply. • Walk • Bike • Car • Public transportation • Other (please specify) 6. How do you most often access Sign Hill? • Poplar Avenue • Ridgeview Court • Spruce Avenue • Other (please specify) 7. Why do you visit Sign Hill? Select all that apply. • Connect with nature • Observe plant and animal habitats • Individual exercise • Outdoor activity with family or friends • Passive relaxation • Enjoy the views • Outing with pet(s) • Other (please specify) 8. What do you like best about Sign Hill? Select ONE (1). • Walking trails • Native flora and fauna • Benches for seating • Views and scenery • Other (please specify) 9. What features do you feel would improve the visitor experience at Sign Hill? Select your top TWO (2) choices. • Better way-finding signage leading to Sign Hill • An enhanced entry area • Trail enhancements • Signage to identify habitats and plant/animal species • More seating areas • More waste management resources (e.g., trash bins, dog waste stations) • Environmental education programs • Other (please specify) 10. If you have never heard of or visited Sign Hill, what factors would increase the likelihood of your visiting in the future? • More awareness/information about the site • Better access and accessibility • Better way-finding signage leading to Sign Hill • More things to do • Improved trail network • Programs that match my interests • Volunteer opportunities • Seating aeras 389 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Outreach Materials | September 2023 4 • Waste management resources (e.g., trash bins, dog waste stations) • Recreation options • Transit options • Nothing • Other (please specify) 11. What characteristics are most important to you for the future of Sign Hill? Select your top TWO (2) choices. • Accessibility/inclusiveness • Variety of experiences • Sustainability and conservation • Natural beauty • Pet-friendly • Opportunities for exercise • Educational opportunities • Other (please specify) 12. What is your age group? • Youth: Under 18 • Young Adult: 19 to 34 • Adult: 35 to 64 • Senior: Over 65 13. What race do you identify with? • Caucasian or White • African American or Black • Hispanic/Latino(a) • Asian • Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander • Native American or Alaska Native • Two or more races • Prefer not to say 14. Where do you live? • In the neighborhood immediately surrounding Sign Hill • In another area of South San Francisco • In another city in the San Francisco Bay Area • Other (please specify) 1.2 Spanish Language Version Introducción La Ciudad de South San Francisco está buscando la opinión de la comunidad para crear el Plan Maestro de Sign Hill. Sign Hill Open Space está ubicado en Hillside Boulevard en Ridgeview Court en South San Francisco. 390 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Outreach Materials | September 2023 5 Además de servir como monumento en el condado norte de San Mateo, Sign Hill ofrece 65 acres de espacio abierto, incluyendo casi dos millas de senderos para caminatas y vistas incomparables de la Bahía de San Francisco. Sign Hill es un recurso local valioso e histórico para la comunidad y un hábitat crítico para las plantas endémicas y la vida silvestre en la Península. El Plan Maestro de Sign Hill Open Space guiará el desarrollo futuro del sistema de senderos para mejorar el acceso público y las experiencias de los visitantes, al mismo tiempo protege los recursos biológicos y culturales. Su participación en esta encuesta nos ayudará a involucrar mejor al público como patrocinadores y administradores de Sign Hill y crear un plan maestro que satisfaga las necesidades del sitio y la comunidad en los próximos años. Preguntas 1. ¿Alguna vez has visitado Sign Hill? • Sí • No 2. ¿Cómo te enteraste de Sign Hill? Seleccione todas las opciones que corresponden. • Vivo en el barrio. • De un amigo o familiar • Recursos de la Ciudad de South San Francisco (por ejemplo, sitio web, instalaciones comunitarias, programas) • Medios locales (por ejemplo, periódico, revista, redes sociales) • Otro (especifíquese) 3. ¿Con qué frecuencia visitas Sign Hill? • Diario • Semanal • Mensual • Cada pocos meses • Raramente • Otro (especifíquese) 4. ¿Con quién visitas Sign Hill? Seleccione todas las opciones que corresponden. • Por mí mismo • Familia • Amigos • Mascota(s) • Grupo comunitario • Otro (especifíquese) 5. ¿Cómo llegas a Sign Hill? Seleccione todas las opciones que corresponden. 391 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Outreach Materials | September 2023 6 • Caminar • Bicicleta • Coche • Transporte público • Otro (especifíquese) 6. ¿Cómo accedes con mayor frecuencia a Sign Hill? • Avenida del Álamo • Corte de Ridgeview • Avenida Spruce • Otro (especifíquese) 7. ¿Por qué visitas Sign Hill? Seleccione todas las opciones que corresponden. • Conéctate con la naturaleza • Observar hábitats de plantas y animales • Ejercicio individual • Actividad al aire libre en familia o con amigos • Relajación pasiva • Disfruta de las vistas • Excursión con mascota(s) • Otro (especifíquese) 8. ¿Qué es lo que más te gusta de Sign Hill? Seleccione UNO (1). • Senderos • Flora y fauna autóctonas • Bancos para asientos • Vistas y paisajes • Otro (especifíquese) 9. ¿Qué características crees que mejorarían la experiencia del visitante en Sign Hill? Seleccione los DOS (2) mejores opciones. • Mejor señalización que conduce a Sign Hill • Un área de entrada mejorada • Mejoras en los senderos • Señalización para identificar hábitats y especies vegetales/animales • Más zonas de descanso • Más recursos de gestión de residuos (por ejemplo, contenedores de basura, estaciones de desechos para perros) • Programas de educación ambiental • Otro (especifíquese) 10. Si nunca has oído hablar o visitado a Sign Hill, ¿qué factores aumentarían la probabilidad de su visita en el futuro? • Más conocimiento/información sobre el sitio 392 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Outreach Materials | September 2023 7 • Mejor acceso y accesibilidad • Mejor señalización que conduce a Sign Hill • Más cosas que hacer • Mejoradas redes de senderos • Programas que coinciden con mis intereses • Oportunidades de voluntariado • Aeras de asientos • Recursos de gestión de residuos (por ejemplo, contenedores de basura, estaciones de desechos para perros) • Opciones de recreación • Opciones de tránsito • Nada • Otro (especifíquese) 11. ¿Qué características son las más importantes para ti para el futuro de Sign Hill? Seleccione los DOS (2) mejores opciones. • Accesibilidad/inclusión • Variedad de experiencias • Sostenibilidad y conservación • Belleza natural • Se admiten mascotas • Oportunidades para hacer ejercicio • Oportunidades educativas • Otro (especifíquese) 12. ¿Cuál es su grupo de edad? • Juvenil: Menor de 18 años • Adulto joven: 19 a 34 • Adulto: 35 a 64 • Senior: Mayores de 65 años 13. ¿Con qué raza te identificas? • Caucásico o blanco • Afroamericano o negro • Hispano/Latino(a) • Asiático • Nativo de Hawái u otro Isleño del Pacífico • Nativo Americano o Nativo de Alaska • Dos o más razas • Prefiero no decir 14. ¿En dónde vives? • En el vecindario que rodea Sign Hill • En otra zona de South San Francisco • En otra ciudad del área de la Bahía de San Francisco • Otro (especifíquese) 393 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Outreach Materials | September 2023 8 2.0 ROUND 2 OUTREACH MATERIALS At the town hall outreach event, English and Spanish text were presented simultaneously as is represented here. 2.1 Survey and Town Hall Materials After hearing from the community about preferences for Sign Hill, the City of South San Francisco is seeking input on proposed trail concepts and other site details to create the Sign Hill Master Plan. Sign Hill Open Space is located off Hillside Boulevard on Ridgeview Court in South San Francisco. In addition to serving as a monument in North San Mateo County, Sign Hill provides 65 acres of open space, including almost two miles of hiking trails, and unparalleled views of the San Francisco Bay. Sign Hill is a valuable and historic local resource for the community and a critical habitat for wildlife on the Peninsula. The Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan will guide future development of the trail system to enhance public access and visitor experiences while protecting the biological and cultural resources. Your participation in this survey will help us better engage the public as patrons and stewards of Sign Hill and create a master plan that meets the needs of the site and the community for years to come. Después de escuchar a la comunidad sobre las preferencias de Sign Hill, la ciudad de South San Francisco está buscando información sobre los conceptos de senderos propuestos y otros detalles del sitio para crear el Plan Maestro de Sign Hill. Sign Hill Open Space está ubicado en Hillside Boulevard en Ridgeview Court en el South San Francisco. Además de servir como monumento en el Condado Norte de San Mateo, Sign Hill ofrece 65 acres de espacio abierto, que incluyen casi dos millas de senderos para caminatas y vistas incomparables de la Bahía de San Francisco. Sign Hill es un recurso local valioso e histórico para la comunidad y un hábitat crítico para la vida silvestre en la península. El Plan Maestro de Espacios Abiertos de Sign Hill guiará el desarrollo futuro del sistema de senderos para mejorar el acceso público y las experiencias de los visitantes mientras se protegen los recursos biológicos y culturales. Su participación en esta encuesta nos ayudará a involucrar mejor al público como patrocinadores y administradores de Sign Hill y crear un plan maestro que satisfaga las necesidades del sitio y la comunidad en los próximos años. 394 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Outreach Materials | September 2023 9 TRAIL OPTIONS OPCIONES DE SENDEROS According to the community surveyed during initial outreach, trail enhancements were top on the list for desired improvements at Sign Hill. Along with restoring habitats and reducing fire fuels, providing a safer, more engaging visitor experience is a primary focus of the Master Plan. With these priorities in mind, we have prepared three different trail options that will help determine the best future for Sign Hill. De acuerdo con la comunidad encuestada durante el alcance inicial, las mejoras en los senderos ocuparon los primeros lugares en la lista de mejoras deseadas en Sign Hill. Junto con la restauración de hábitats y la reducción de los combustibles para incendios, brindar una experiencia de visitante más segura y atractiva es un enfoque principal del Plan Maestro. Con estas prioridades en mente, hemos preparado tres opciones de senderos diferentes que ayudarán a determinar el mejor futuro para Sign Hill. All three of the options presented below include the following core trail improvements: Las tres opciones que se presentan a continuación incluyen las siguientes mejoras principales en los senderos: • Protect native plant species and restoration areas • Proteger especies de plantas nativas y áreas de restauración. • Maintain existing Letters Trail and most of Ridge Trail with erosion control treatments • Mantener Letters Trail existente y la mayor parte de Ridge Trail con tratamientos de control de erosión • Decommission visitor-created trails • Retirar senderos creados por visitantes Trail Option 1 Sendero Opción 1 The focus of this option is to reroute trails to reduce grades. Key features: El objetivo de esta opción es cambiar la ruta de los senderos para reducir las pendientes. Características clave: What do you like best/least about Trail Option 1? ¿Qué es lo que más/menos le gusta del Sendero Opción 1? Trail Option 2 Sendero Opción 2 The focus of this option is to add safe and sustainable stairs for a more engaging experience on Ridge Trail. This option includes all key features of Trail Option 1, plus stairs added on Ridge Trail. Key features: 395 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Outreach Materials | September 2023 10 What do you like best/least about Trail Option 2? El enfoque de esta opción es agregar escaleras seguras y sostenibles para una experiencia más atractiva en Ridge Trail. Esta opción incluye todas las características clave del Sendero Opción 1, además de las escaleras añadidas en el Ridge Trail. Características clave: ¿Qué es lo que más/menos te gusta del Sendero Opción 2? Trail Option 3 Sendero Opción 3 The focus of this option is to add new trails to offer a wider variety of views and experiences. This option includes all key features of Trail Options 1 and 2, plus three new trails or trail extensions. Key features: El enfoque de esta opción es agregar nuevos senderos para ofrecer una variedad más amplia de vistas y experiencias. Esta opción incluye todas las funciones clave de los Opciones 1 y 2, además de tres nuevos senderos o extensiones de senderos. Características clave: • What do you like best/least about Trail Option 3? • ¿Qué es lo que más/menos le gusta del Sendero Opción 3? • Which Trail Option do you prefer overall? Select ONE (1). • ¿Qué Sendero Opción prefiere en general? Selecciona UNO (1). • Why did you choose that option? • ¿Por qué elegió esa opción? AMENITIES COMODIDADES • Would you prefer traditional or modern style signs? Select ONE (1). • ¿Prefiere letreros de estilo tradicional o moderno? Selecciona UNO (1). • Would you prefer wood or metal material signs? Select ONE (1). • ¿Prefiere letreros de madera o de metal? Selecciona UNO (1). What style of seating would you prefer to see at Sign Hill? Select your top TWO (2) choices. • Concrete Benches • Composite Benches • Metal Benches • Reclaimed Log Seating • Wood Benches • Picnic Tables 396 Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan Outreach Materials | September 2023 11 What information/topics would you like to see on interpretive signs? Select your top TWO (2) choices. • Native Plants • Native Animals • History and/or Cultural Heritage of the Region • Geology / Natural History • Views from the Site (Areas, Landmarks, Historic Sites, etc.) What volunteer engagement opportunities would you prefer? Select your top THREE (3) choices. • Native Habitat Restoration • Fire Fuels Mitigation • Community Science / Nature Monitoring • Community Ambassador/Docent • Site Clean Up • Educational Site Walks for School/Youth Groups • Trail Maintenance 397 Sign Hill Park, City of South San Francisco Draft Open Space Master Plan | September 2023 Appendix E APPENDIX E. RESTORATION WORK SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES 398 Sign Hill Draft Open Space Master Plan Restoration Work Schedule | September 2023 2 Existing Vegetation Restoration Activities and Sensitive Species Monitoring and Timing on Sign Hill WORK TASK CATEGORY FREQUENCY WORK TASK SPECIES TYPE JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Invasive Plant Management Annual Bermuda Buttercup Invasive Grasses and Forbs (F=Flowering) F F F F F F F Invasive Plant Management Annual English Ivy F F F F Invasive Plant Management Annual Fennel F F F F F Invasive Plant Management Annual French Broom F F F F Invasive Plant Management Annual Ice Plant F F F F F F F F F F F F Invasive Plant Management Annual Italian Thistle F F F F F F Invasive Plant Management Annual Non-native grasses F F F F F F Invasive Plant Management Annual Pampas Grass F F F F F F Invasive Plant Management Annual Shortpod Mustard F F F F F F F Invasive Plant Management Annual Wild Radish F F F F F F Scrub Encroachment/ Fuels Management Annual Black Acacia Invasive Trees and Shrubs (F=Flowering) F F Scrub Encroachment/ Fuels Management Annual Cotoneaster F F F Scrub Encroachment/ Fuels Management Annual Eucalyptus F F F F F F 399 Sign Hill Draft Open Space Master Plan Restoration Work Schedule | September 2023 3 WORK TASK CATEGORY FREQUENCY WORK TASK SPECIES TYPE JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Scrub Encroachment/ Fuels Management Annual Dry Coyote Bush Removal Native Scrub (F=Flowering) F F F F F Scrub Encroachment/ Fuels Management Annual Pulling Young Coyote Bush F F F F F Biological Monitoring Annual Mission Blue Butterfly Special- Status Butterflies (Active) Late Peak Mid Biological Monitoring Reconnaissance Callippe Silverspot Butterfly Peak Peak Peak Biological Monitoring Reconnaissance San Bruno Elfin Peak Biological Monitoring 3-5 yrs Silver Bush Lupine (Mission) Host Plants (Flowering) Late Peak Peak Biological Monitoring 3-5 yrs Summer Lupine (Mission) Late Biological Monitoring 3-5 yrs Varied Lupine (Mission) Peak Biological Monitoring 3-5 yrs Golden Violet (Callippe) Peak Peak Biological Monitoring Reconnaissance Pacific Stonecrop (Elfin) Biological Monitoring 3-5 yrs Coast Iris Special- Status Plants (Flowering) Peak Peak Biological Monitoring 3-5 yrs Coast Rockcress Peak Peak Biological Monitoring 3-5 yrs Scouler's Catchfly Peak Peak Biological Monitoring Annual Trail Camera Trapping 400 Sign Hill Draft Open Space Master Plan Restoration Work Schedule | September 2023 4 WORK TASK CATEGORY FREQUENCY WORK TASK SPECIES TYPE JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Sign Hill Monument Maintenance Annual String-Trimming Letters Sign Hill Monument Maintenance Annual View- obstructing Scrub Removal Park Maintenance Seasonal / As Needed Erosion Control Park Maintenance Annual Trail Maintenance/Im provement Habitat Restoration Annual Seed Collection Habitat Restoration Annual Planting Restoration Plots Habitat Restoration Annual Monitoring Restoration Plots Habitat Restoration Seasonal / As Needed Irrigation of Planting Plots Habitat Restoration Seasonal / As Needed Fencing or Signage Installation Environmental Education/Commu nity Engagement Annual Sign Hill Stewards Environmental Education/Commu nity Engagement Annual Interpretive Hikes Administrative Annual Records Keeping/Grants/Reports/ Research/Etc. 401 Sign Hill Master Plan, South San Francisco Outreach Summary – Round Two Overview Input received during the second round of public outreach for the Sign Hill Master Plan identified priorities for trail enhancements and other site featuressite amenities.. Outreach was conducted in Summer 2023 via an online survey and an in-person Town Hall event at the City’s Municipal Services Building. These community engagement activities collected input about proposed trail locations and improvements, site furnishings such as seating and signage, and participant demographics. Most The majority of responses received during Round 2 of community outreach were from adults over age 35 living in the immediate Sign Hill neighborhood or another area of South San Francisco. According to write-in comments on the survey and at the in-person Town Hall event, many participants were users of Sign Hill familiar with the site’s current trails and natural features. Overall, the community members surveyed preferred the trail conceptTrail Option 3 which offering offered the most improvements to the site., and Trail Option 3This option was the top choice by a significant margin, collecting 66% of total votes from outreach participants. Participants said they chose Trail Option 3 as their favorite because it offered the largest variety of trails, made the site the most accessible for visitors of different abilities, and created the most opportunities for the community to enjoy Sign Hill. Criticism of Option 3 focused on concerns that the higher number of additional trails featured in this concept would interfere with the natural habitats, bringing more foot traffic to the site along with more risk of damage to protected areas. There was also some concern that the expanded trail system would increase both congestion at the site and disturbance to the neighborhood. Trail Option 2 followed in second place with 17% of votes, and Trail Option 1 received the least amount of support with only 7% of votes. While Trail Option 1 was praised for offering minimal changes which included making trails easier to access while preserving natural habitats, some participants felt the concept lacked sufficient improvements to serve the community’s needs for the future. Some respondents viewed Trail Option 2 as an amenable approach offering beneficial trail enhancements without making significant changes to the site, but the public was divided on the addition of stairs. Ten percent of participants said that they did not like any of the three trail options presented, and some voiced the opinion that Sign Hill should be left as-is. All outreach participants had an opportunity to provide feedback about each trail option and identify aspects they liked the most and the least, i.e., pros and cons. Participants were also asked to select preferences for seating and signage styles and materials. Though community members brought up a wide range of ideas and issues for the Sign Hill Master Plan to consider, the feedback collected generally focused on three main themes: nature, activity, and access and accessibility. 402 Sign Hill Master Plan, South San Francisco KEY LIKES/DISLIKES ABOUT TRAIL CONCEPTS Trail Option 1 Trail Option 2 Trail Option 3 Most Liked (Pro) • Minimally disruptive to the natural habitat • Good preservation of open space • Reduction of grades • Switchbacks • More accessible trails, easier to walk/hike • Less features, easier to maintain • Eucalyptus Trail Least Liked (Con) • Not enough improvement of site accessibility • Doesn’t add much to site • Not much variety or enhancement of features • Letters trail still too steep Most Liked (Pro) • Steps are a great addition • Combination of stairs and switchbacks improves accessibility • Minimal impact on natural environment Least Liked (Con) • Stairs are not needed • Stairs are harder to maintain • Stairs could be a tripping hazard Most Liked (Pro) • Expanded trail options allows more exploration • Trail variety • Improved access • Seubert/Iris extension • Liberty Trail • Stairs and switcbacks make trails easier and safer Least Liked (Con) • Too many trails, too complicated • Trail configuration too invasive, will negatively impact the natural environment • Stairs • Impact on neighborhood Themes Nature Preserving habitat, protecting trail environment, native plants, wood As seen in Round 1 feedback, the natural environment at Sign Hill is of prime importance to the community. Supporters of Trail Option 1 appreciated this concept’s minimal trail adjustments, advocating for a plan that maintained large amounts of open space and protected natural habitats as much as possible. As their overall favorite choice, however, only four outreach participants (7% of the total) selected Trail Option 1. While the bulk of outreach participants favored more robust trail upgrades (as shown in Trail Options 2 and 3), many community members still want to ensure that the potential impact on Sign Hill’s plant and animal species is thoughtfully considered for any improvements being proposed. Native habitat restoration was voted the most desired volunteer engagement program, native plant information was the most desired for interpretive signs, and native animal information was also popular, further illustrating the community’s strong interest in Sign Hill’s unique ecosystem. For seating and signage at the site, natural materials that would integrate with the natural landscape ranked highly. With over 50% of total votes, wood—in the form of either reclaimed wood seating (the top choice) or wood benches—was the most desired type of material for seating at Sign Hill, and wood was also well supported as the material for interpretive signs (50% of votes). 403 Sign Hill Master Plan, South San Francisco Activity Expanded options, more trails to hike, views, picnics, seating The community is interested in pursuing outdoor activities at Sign Hill. Most outreach participants favored concept options that offered new or updated trail configurations. Trail Option 3 received the highest total number of votes (38) during Round 2 outreach, and its robust features—including the new Liberty Trail and other trail extensions—were viewed as attractive enhancements to make Sign Hill more enjoyable for visitors. Survey responses indicated that the community wants more trails to hike and more engaging options to enjoy the site’s scenic views and other natural features. Outreach participants also supported picnic tables, an amenity to encourage activity and experiences, which finished as the second most desired seating type with 19% of total votes. Access & Accessibility Stairs, switchbacks, difficulties, reducing grades, trail maintenance, signage Facilitating better access to and within areas of Sign Hill was a priority identified by the community in Round 1 outreach, and feedback received during Round 2 continued to support pursuing such efforts as part of the Master Plan. The community praised all three Trail Options for their features to improve access and accessibility. The reduction of grades and the addition of switchbacks and stairs—all features that would increase trail safety and allow users of varying ages and abilities to experience the site— were frequently mentioned by outreach participants as favorite aspects of the proposed trail options. However, the stairs featured on the Ridge Trail in Trail Options 2 and 3 were a source of debate among community participants. While some respondents felt the stairs would be a benefit to families or those wanting a faster, more direct route up the trail, others expressed concern that the stairs would be more hazardous than helpful (potential tripping), would be difficult to maintain, and were not essential for regular trail use. Some respondents also suggested that the site could be made more wheelchair accessible, although none of the three plans presented specifically addressed this issue. The community also understands that improving access at Sign Hill means ensuring that the trails are properly maintained and in good condition. When asked about volunteer engagement opportunities, 50% of outreach participants voted for trail maintenance as their most desired choice, making it the second most popular volunteering option. Site signage, both wayfinding and interpretive, is another important and desired feature to enhance access and accessibility at Sign Hill by providing important information for visitors coming to and moving within the site. According to the survey and Town Hall feedback, outreach participants selected native plants and history and/or cultural heritage of the region as the two most preferred topics for interpretive signs. In terms of desired sign style, 62% of participants chose modern, while only 38% chose traditional. Methods & Results Online survey July 12-27, 2023 14 Questions 43 total responses (43 English, 0 Spanish) Town Hall (in-person) Wednesday, July 11, 2023 404 Sign Hill Master Plan, South San Francisco 10 Questions on Input Boards 13 participants See attached for full outreach results (PDF and Excel formats). 405 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-884 Agenda Date:10/25/2023 Version:1 Item #:10a. Resolution adopting the Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan for the City of South San Francisco. WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco (“City”)acts as a responsible steward of its natural open spaces and recognizes the value of the species that can be found there; and WHEREAS,Sign Hill is the City’s largest open space,providing recreational opportunities and habitat for endangered species as well as housing the historic Sign Hill letters; and WHEREAS,the City recognizes that management and protection of these valuable resources is paramount for the historic amenities, endangered species and recreational opportunities found on Sign Hill; and WHEREAS,the City was awarded a grant by the Metropolitan Transportation Committee (“MTC”)to fund the creation of the Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan; and WHEREAS,City staff solicited bids for consultants to draft the Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan in December of 2022 and entered into contract with Gates and Associates in January of 2023; and WHEREAS,the purpose of the Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan is to develop a clear set of goals and objectives to manage sensitive species,enhance trail conditions and accessibility,create more recreational opportunities and preserve the historic sign; and WHEREAS,the plan will serve as a tool to guide maintenance and enhancement activities on Sign Hill on and immediate, as well as long-term basis; and WHEREAS,with the final review process concluded,staff have brought the draft Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan before the Parks and Recreation Commission for their review, and now the City Council for adoption; and WHEREAS,the Parks and Recreation Commission voted unanimously to recommend City Council adoption of the Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan at the Commission’s regular meeting on October 17, 2023; and WHEREAS,the master plan sets forth guiding policies,anticipated goals and planned programs,but does not actually commit the City to adopt or fund any projects or programs,and individual improvement projects. Should they be undertaken by the City,they will be evaluated for environmental effects and applicable mitigation during their respective design and approval phases;as such,approval of the proposed master plan is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)and no further CEQA action would be required at this time. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby approves and adopts the Sign Hill Open Space Master Plan. City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/20/2023Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™406 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-386 Agenda Date:10/25/2023 Version:1 Item #:11. Consideration and approval of a First Addendum to the 2023-2031 Adopted Housing Element to incorporate comments from the Department of Housing and Community Development (Tony Rozzi,Deputy Economic and Community Development Director) RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution to approve a First Addendum to the 2023-2031 Adopted Housing Element and authorize staff to transmit to the Department of Housing and Community Development for certification. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION On January 25,2023,the City Council conducted a duly and properly noticed public hearing,reviewed the 2023-2031 Housing Element and all pertinent maps,documents and exhibits,including the Department of Housing and Community Development’s (“HCD”)findings,the City’s response to HCD’s findings,the staff report and all attachments,and oral and written public comments;and determined the Housing Element to be consistent with State law and recently updated General Plan.The City Council adopted the 2023-2031 Housing Element as a part of the General Plan on January 25, 2023. As part of the effort to adopt the 2023-2031 Housing Element prior to the January 31,2023 statutory deadline, the City Council also directed the Community Development Director or designee to file all necessary material with HCD for the Department to find that the Housing Element is in conformance with State Housing Element Law,and to make all non-substantive changes to the Housing Element to make it internally consistent or to address any non-substantive changes or amendments requested by the Department to achieve certification. On March 31,2023,the City received a comment letter from HCD stating that while the draft Housing Element addresses many statutory requirements,there are items to be enhanced in order to achieve certification.Since the receipt of the comment letter,the City has met with HCD staff during the months of April through October 2023 to discuss proposed edits intended to address HCD’s requested changes and obtain preliminary feedback on those edits.The recommended First Addendum to the Adopted Housing Element is the culmination of feedback from HCD,reflected in edits made pursuant to the revision authority provided under Resolution No. 20-2023. This First Addendum (Exhibit A to the companion resolution)contains additional clarifications and programs to serve the policies and goals previously adopted in the 2023-2031 Housing Element,without impacting or deleting previously adopted policies and goals.The additional clarifications and programs are also responsive to changes requested by HCD pursuant to discussions between the City and HCD.The First Addendum details each requested change and shows the redlined edits proposed to satisfy the HCD comment.Some additional programs have been introduced to ensure that the City continues to meet its statutory obligations and compliance with recent state law.These updates are to serve the policies and goals previously adopted in the 2023-2031 Housing Element,without deleting or impacting those previously adopted goals and policies.In summary, the updates include the following: 1.Housing Stock Windshield Survey with rehabilitation goals for each district; City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/20/2023Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™407 File #:23-386 Agenda Date:10/25/2023 Version:1 Item #:11. 2.Additional analysis of opportunity corridors for realistic development; 3.Timing updates for adoption of the Lindenville Specific Plan; 4.Additional analysis of non-vacant sites for future development; 5.Additional programs to comply with state law defining and permitting supportive housing,navigation centers, Domestic Violence shelters, and group residential uses; 6.Additional programs to ensure the following (sometimes these programs are just stating how the City already complies with state law to make HCD certification streamlined): a.No net-loss of existing units when redevelopment occurs; b.ADU reporting and promotion; c.Reasonable accommodations consistent with state law; d.By-right emergency shelter zoning in an area that permits residential uses (e.g.,not just allowed by-right in the Mixed Industrial Zoning District); e.Implementation of objective design standards; and f.Timing clarification on various programs and online posting locations already stated in the Adopted Housing Element. 7.Further analysis of development fees and governmental constraints,including land use controls and permit processing; and 8.Implementation matrix to ensure equitable and dispersed housing throughout the City. The City has posted this First Addendum and redlined Adopted Housing Element online ( <https://shapessf.com/the-housing-element/>) and shared with previous commenters inclusive of those who requested notice in writing to comply with the minimum seven-day public review period mandated by HCD (which commenced October 5, 2023). The period for comments is twenty days from posting to consideration by the Council at the October 25, 2023 meeting. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact with adoption of the First Addendum to the 2023-2031 Adopted Housing Element. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN The Adopted Housing Element for 2023-2031 complements and implements the goals of the ShapeSSF General Plan Update and will direct housing policy and investment for the next eight years. CONCLUSION The relatively minor edits captured by the First Addendum will provide the City of South San Francisco with an Adopted Housing Element ready for certification by the Department of Housing and Community Development. Certification is necessary to remain consistent with state law and eligible for any state grant funding. Staff recommends approval of the First Addendum and transmittal of the redlined Adopted Housing Element to HCD for final review. Associated Legistar Files: 1.23-673 - Resolution to Approve a First Addendum to the 2023-2031 Adopted Housing Element a.Exhibit A - First Addendum City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/20/2023Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™408 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-673 Agenda Date:10/25/2023 Version:1 Item #:11a. Resolution of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco Approving a First Addendum to the 2023- 2031 Adopted Housing Element. WHEREAS,the California legislature has found that “California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions.The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians,robbing future generations of the chance to call California home,stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses,worsening poverty and homelessness,and undermining the state’s environmental and climate objectives.” (Gov. Code Section 65589.5.); and WHEREAS,the legislature has further found that “Among the consequences of those actions are discrimination against low-income and minority households,lack of housing to support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing,reduced mobility,urban sprawl,excessive commuting,and air quality deterioration.” (Gov. Code Section 65589.5.); and WHEREAS,the legislature recently adopted the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330)which states that “In 2018,California ranked 49th out of the 50 states in housing units per capita…California needs an estimated 180,000 additional homes annually to keep up with population growth,and the Governor has called for 3.5 million new homes to be built over 7 years”; and WHEREAS,California Housing Element Law (Government Code section 65580 et seq.)requires that the City Council adopt a Housing Element for the eight-year period 2023-2031 to accommodate the City of South San Francisco (“City”)regional housing need allocation (RHNA)of 3,956 housing units,comprised of 871 very- low income units,502 low-income units,720 moderate-income units,and 1,863 above moderate-income units; and WHEREAS,under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3),CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment,and where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA; and WHEREAS,under CEQA Guidelines Section 15283,CEQA also does not apply to regional housing needs determinations made by the City pursuant to Government Code section 65584; and WHEREAS,the City prepared its 2023-2031 Housing Element in accordance with California Housing Element Law (Government Code section 65580 et seq.); WHEREAS,the City conducted extensive community outreach over the last three years as part of the ShapeSSF General Plan Update,with nearly 150 public engagement meetings or events,two public meetings before the Planning Commission, and two public meeting/hearings before the City Council; and WHEREAS,as provided in Government Code Sections 65352 -65352.5,the City mailed a public notice to all California Native American tribes provided by the Native American Heritage Commission and other entities listed and no California Native American tribe requested consultation; and WHEREAS,in accordance with Government Code Section 65585(b),on July 5,2022,the City posted the draft City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/20/2023Page 1 of 4 powered by Legistar™409 File #:23-673 Agenda Date:10/25/2023 Version:1 Item #:11a. WHEREAS,in accordance with Government Code Section 65585(b),on July 5,2022,the City posted the draft Housing Element and requested public comment for a 30-day review period,and on September 9,2022,after responding to public comments,the City timely submitted the draft Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) for its review; and WHEREAS,on December 7,2022,the City received a letter from HCD providing its findings regarding the draft Housing Element; and WHEREAS,on January 11,2023,the City published an updated draft Housing Element responding to HCD’s findings,requested public comment on the draft,and the City Council held a public meeting for a study session on the updated draft Housing Element,and comments from said study session were incorporated in the updated draft Housing Element; and WHEREAS,on January 19,2023,the Planning Commission held a duly and properly noticed public hearing and recommended that the City Council adopt the Housing Element by Resolution Nos.2910-2023 and No. 2911-2023; and WHEREAS,on January 25,2023 the City Council conducted a duly and properly noticed public hearing, reviewed the Housing Element and all pertinent maps,documents and exhibits,including HCD’s findings,the City’s response to HCD’s findings,the staff report and all attachments,and oral and written public comments; and determined the Housing Element to be consistent with State law and the recently Updated General Plan; and WHEREAS,on January 25,2023,the City Council adopted Resolution Nos.19-2023 and 20-2023 to:1)find and determine that the 2023-2031 Housing Element is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3)and 15283 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 65584 of the California Government Code;2)adopt the 2023-2031 Housing Element;3)find that the 2023-2031 Housing Element substantially complies with State Housing Element Law;4)direct the Community Development Director or designee to file all necessary material with HCD for the Department to find that the Housing Element is in conformance with State Housing Element Law;and 5)direct and authorize the Community Development Director or designee to make all non-substantive changes to the Housing Element to make it internally consistent or to address any non-substantive changes or amendments requested by the Department to achieve certification; and WHEREAS,on January 31,2023,the City timely transmitted the Adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) for post-adoption review; and WHEREAS,on March 31,2023 the City received a comment letter from HCD stating that while the draft Housing Element addresses many statutory requirements,enhancements will be necessary to achieve certification; and WHEREAS,since the receipt of the comment letter,the City has met with HCD staff during April -October 2023 to discuss proposed edits intended to address HCD’s requested changes and obtain preliminary feedback on those edits; and WHEREAS,pursuant to such preliminary feedback from HCD and the revision authority provided under Resolution No.20-2023,the City prepared a First Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element (“First Addendum)to address the changes requested by HCD;this First Addendum contains additional clarifications and programs to serve the policies and goals previously adopted in the 2023-2031 Housing Element,without impacting or deleting previously adopted policies and goals.The additional clarifications and programs are also responsive to changes requested by HCD pursuant to discussions between the City and HCD;as such, City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/20/2023Page 2 of 4 powered by Legistar™410 File #:23-673 Agenda Date:10/25/2023 Version:1 Item #:11a. responsive to changes requested by HCD pursuant to discussions between the City and HCD;as such, preparation of the First Addendum is within the revision authority provided under City Council Resolution No. 20-2023; and WHEREAS,the City has provided a seven-day public review period for the First Addendum which commenced October 5,2023;notice was sent to all interested parties who requested notice in writing as required by state law,and such notice and the First Addendum was posted on the City’s website on October 5, 2023 for public review.In addition,the City Council considered the First Addendum pursuant to a public meeting held on October 25,2023,at which time it considered the entirety of the reports and record before it and provided an opportunity for members of the public and all interested parties to be heard. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the City Council hereby finds that,based on substantial evidence in the record: 1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated by reference into this action. 2.Based on the entirety of the record before it, the City Council hereby continues to find that the First Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element, as shown in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein (“First Addendum”), and the Adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element (redline version accessible at <https://shapessf.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/SSF-Housing-Element-RHNA-6-Adopted-Draft- ) are exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) and 15283 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 65584 of the California Government Code, as it is a policy document which does not provide entitlements to any specific land use project and does not contain policies that have potential to result in any direct or indirect physical changes to the environment. Any individual development projects would further undergo additional environmental analysis at the time of future entitlements. Thus, it is covered by the common sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. It is also consistent with the statutory intent and provision that CEQA does not apply to regional housing needs determinations made by the City pursuant to Government Code section 65584. 3.The First Addendum contains additional clarifications and enhanced programs to serve the policies and goals previously adopted in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.These clarifications and enhancements include:clarifications regarding suitability and development potentials of parcels included in the Site Inventory;enhanced programs to affirmatively furthering fair housing such as addressing housing mobility and increasing housing choices throughout South San Francisco,removing barriers to accessible and affordable housing,increasing housing opportunities and public outreach,and further removing governmental constraints;and enhancements to evaluate the City’s progress in achieving its Housing Element goals.The clarifications and enhancements contained in the First Addendum are consistent with and responsive to the requirements of State Housing Element Law as provided in Government Code section 65580 et seq.,including but not limited to Government Code section 65583 (“Housing Element Law”).The 2023-2031 Housing Element and its First Addendum provide clear goals,quantified objectives and schedules of action to,among other things,affirmatively furthering fair housing,removing governmental and nongovernmental constraints,implementing actions regarding special needs and assisted housing,and meeting the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”) goals at specific income and affordability levels. City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/20/2023Page 3 of 4 powered by Legistar™411 File #:23-673 Agenda Date:10/25/2023 Version:1 Item #:11a. 4.Pursuant to Government Code sections 65585 (e)and (f)and Resolution No.20-2023,the City Council previously made specific findings under Exhibit A to Resolution No.20-2023 to determine the 2023- 2031 Housing Element is in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law.The City Council also determined that,based on substantial evidence in the record,including but not limited to high- density development trends,increase in market values,the desire to live in the South San Francisco community;factors employed to analyze site conditions and development potentials in selecting opportunity sites,and the City’s prior track record in providing high-density affordable housing development,that the existing uses on the non-vacant sites identified in the site inventory to accommodate RHNA are likely to be discontinued during the planning period and therefore do not constitute an impediment to planned residential development on the site during the planning period.The City Council finds that the First Addendum contains clarifications and analyses that further support findings made under Resolution No.20-2023 and as such,hereby continues to find and determine that existing uses on non-vacant RHNA sites are likely to be discontinued during the planning period and do not constitute an impediment to planned residential development on the site during the planning period. 5.The City Council continues to find that,pursuant to Government section 65585,the 2023-2031 Housing Element and its First Addendum incorporated input from the public and considered the findings, comments,and discussions made by the Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”)and by and between City and HCD,inclusive of the most recent discussions between HCD and the City between April - October 2023. 6.Consequently,the City Council hereby finds that the First Addendum,as shown in Exhibit A,is determined to be appropriate and responsive to HCD’s requested changes and in furtherance of adopted goals and policies in the Housing Element,all within the revision authority established by Resolution No. 20-2023. The City Council hereby approves the First Addendum. 7.The City Council hereby finds that the 2023-2031 Housing Element,inclusive of its First Addendum, continues to be in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law based on substantial evidence in the record. 8.This Resolution shall become effective upon adoption by the City Council. 9.The Community Development Director or their designee is hereby directed to file all necessary material with the Department of Housing and Community Development for the Department to find that the Housing Element is in conformance with State Housing Element Law and is further directed and authorized to make all non-substantive changes to the Housing Element to make it internally consistent or to address any non-substantive changes or amendments requested by the Department to achieve certification. Exhibit A - First Addendum City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/20/2023Page 4 of 4 powered by Legistar™412 400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 CITY COUNCIL 2023 FLOR NICOLAS, MAYOR MARK NAGALES, VICE MAYOR MARK ADDIEGO, MEMBER JAMES COLEMAN, MEMBER EDDIE FLORES, MEMBER SHARON RANALS, CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Department E-MAIL: planning@ssf.net State Department of Housing and Community Development October 5, 2023 C/O Land Use and Planning Unit 2020 W. El Camino Ave, Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95833 Re: City of South San Francisco 2023-2031 Housing Element Draft Submittal No. 4 Dear Mr. Paul McDougall, Please find the City of South San Francisco’s Addendum to the Adopted Housing Element for HCD determination that is complies with all state statutes. A word version summary of all Addendum edits is attached, as well as a redlined Adopted Housing Element for review. Please advise if this appropriately addresses HCD concerns listed in your guidance letters and if we are now ready for Certification. We look forward to the continued progress, Tony Rozzi, AICP | he/him | Deputy Director Economic and Community Development Department City of South San Francisco (650) 877-8535 | tony.rozzi@ssf.net 413 Page 2 of 34 SSF Draft Housing Element Submittal No. 4 to HCD – Track Changes Letter Only 400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 1. Include an analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(2).) Housing Stock Condition: The element mentions substandard housing based on ACS data as it captures units in substandard condition as self-reported in Census surveys. As stated in the previous review, the element must estimate the number of units in need of rehabilitation and replacement. This estimate should include local information from a recent windshield survey or sampling, estimates from the code enforcement agency, or information from knowledgeable builders/developers, including non-profit housing developers or organizations. The survey has been completed and is copied below for review and comments. Housing Stock Windshield Survey City staff completed a windshield survey of the whole City. As a whole, most of the residential neighborhoods in the City are in generally good condition and buildings are well-maintained. Within each Planning Sub-Area / Neighborhood, there are a mix of newer and older residential buildings; some of the older buildings are in more need of repair due to age of building, weather conditions, material deterioration, etc. (see below images). Key characteristics of each Planning Sub-Area / Neighborhood are highlighted below. Figure 1: Planning Sub-Areas Avalon-Brentwood • Generally newer homes in good condition. 414 Page 3 of 34 SSF Draft Housing Element Submittal No. 4 to HCD – Track Changes Letter Only 400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 Downtown • Mix of newer and older homes and multi-family residential buildings. • Oldest part of the City with many historic structures, some of which are in need of restoration. • More overcrowded part of the City, with higher percentage of rental properties that are not well-maintained and in need of repair. East of 101 • No existing residential. El Camino Real • Primarily commercial buildings with some newer mixed-use / multi-family developments in good condition. Lindenville • No existing residential. Orange Park • Generally newer homes in good condition. Paradise Valley/Terrabay • Newer homes north of Hillside Blvd / Sister Cities Blvd that are in good condition. 415 Page 4 of 34 SSF Draft Housing Element Submittal No. 4 to HCD – Track Changes Letter Only 400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 • Older area south of Hillside Blvd / Sister Cities Blvd has more homes that are in need of minor repair. Sign Hill • Generally newer homes in good condition. Sunshine Gardens • Generally newer homes in good condition. Westborough • Some older homes in need of repair, primarily due to deterioration from weather conditions. Winston Serra • Generally newer homes in good condition. Summary Overall, there are three neighborhoods where some portion of homes were noted for repair: 1. Downtown 416 Page 5 of 34 SSF Draft Housing Element Submittal No. 4 to HCD – Track Changes Letter Only 400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 2. Paradise Valley/Terrabay 3. Westborough For the Downtown area, overcrowding, rental stock that has not been maintained, and income levels are the primary determinants. Paradise Valley represents some of the older homes adjacent to Downtown and suffers from similar characteristics and demographics. Westborough’s location is defined by consistent weather and atmospheric influences on building materials. The following Housing Programs have been modified to focus repair investment in these neighborhoods: Program PRSV-1.1 – Minor home repair Annually Citywide with focus on identified lower opportunity and income areas 5 per year per District (5 Districts) Program PRSV-1.2 – Prioritize funding for housing rehabilitation Annually Program PRSV-1.3 – Provide low interest loans for housing rehabilitation Annually (HE Location Page 38): 2. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).) Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need… (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).) Realistic Capacity: The element must still account for the likelihood of residential development in zones that allow for 100 percent nonresidential development. For example, the element could discuss which zones allow 100 percent nonresidential development, evaluate all (residential and nonresidential) recent trends in the zones, discuss how often these developments include a residential component and account for that likelihood in the calculation of residential capacity. The Housing Element identifies three opportunity site corridors to meet RHNA Cycle 6 obligations: 1. Lindenville Opportunity Corridor 2. S. Airport Boulevard Opportunity Corridor 3. El Camino Real (North and South) Opportunity Corridor Each one of these corridors will be evaluated individually for the potential conflict between non-residential development and realistic residential development. 417 Page 6 of 34 SSF Draft Housing Element Submittal No. 4 to HCD – Track Changes Letter Only 400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 1. Lindenville Opportunity Corridor – red-lined edits beginning on P. 88 This sub-area is identified as Lindenville and covering 82 sites listed in Table 5-5 “Lindenville Corridor Housing Opportunity Sites”. Mixed-use and 100% residential uses and 100% non- residential uses are permitted throughout the selected opportunity sites, which are zoned either T3C, T4C, T4M, or T5C. Recent nonresidential trends in the City are almost entirely focused on Life Science Office development – this use is well capitalized, has available financing from both traditional markets and venture capital, and commands substantial rental rates once constructed. Life Science Office can out compete any other land use on a price per square foot basis. In order to manage the economic forces driving current Life Science Office development in the City, Life Science Office uses are not permitted in these zoning districts where they would otherwise displace potential housing development. Additionally, any other non-residential use is proposed to be Floor Area Ratio (FAR) restricted under the Lindenville Specific Plan zoning, as follows: Nonresidential FAR: 2.0 max. if residential on-site, 0.5 if no residential on-site For the Lindenville Corridor, previous allowable uses were confined to industrial uses only. No significant redevelopment projects have been proposed during the entire RHNA Cycle 5 period from 2015-2023 and this sub-area of the City could be categorized as stable with strong occupancy. The introduction of residential use to the area is likely to upend property values to some extent, particularly for long-time property owners with a low cost basis. Holistically, other development cycle forces aside from residential zoning also play an important role – the regional job/housing ratio, available land for residential development region wide, and a City’s streamlined review process all matter. Recent residential trends in South San Francisco suggest the construction of jobs continue to outpace housing units, there was limited land for residential development close to transit until the General Plan Update was adopted, and entitlement review processes are limted and quick (as explored in Chapter 4, page 50+). These factors combine to make stable, low occupancy industrial uses in the Lindenville Corridor viable residential opportunity sites. The pipeline project at 7 S. Linden Avenue is a great example – redevelopment of a single story industrial campus with over 550 rental units. Other potential pipeline applications (owner has expressed interest, hired architect, or otherwise entered into property sale negotiations with a residential developer) include: • 70 Unit Townhome Development on Railroad Avenue under the T4C Zoning • 40 Unit Townhome Development at 170 S. Spruce Ave under the T3C Zoning • 150 Unit Development on S. Spruce Ave under the T4C Zoning • 150 Unit Development at 1487 Huntington Ave under the T5C Zoning By limiting FAR development for 100% nonresidential development, the City is preserving the Lindenville Corridor for either A) adaptive reuse of existing buidlings for maker space and other light industrial users, or B) residential redevelopment that is permitted with high FAR 418 Page 7 of 34 SSF Draft Housing Element Submittal No. 4 to HCD – Track Changes Letter Only 400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 and density allowances. Our calculations for realistic capacity, however, are always based on minimum FAR to ensure a conservative optimism for redevelopment on opportunity sites. 2. South Airport Boulevard Opportunity Corridor This sub-area is identified as South Airport Boulevard and covering 41 sites listed in Table 5-6 “South Airport Boulevard Corridor Housing Opportunity Sites”. Mixed-use and 100% residential uses and 100% non-residential uses are permitted throughout the selected opportunity sites, which are zoned either T5C or T6UC. Recent nonresidential trends in the City are almost entirely focused on Life Science Office development – this use is well capitalized, has available financing from both traditional markets and venture capital, and commands substantial rental rates once constructed. Life Science Office can out compete any other land use on a price per square foot basis. In order to manage the economic forces driving current Life Science Office development in the City, Life Science Office uses are not permitted in these zoning districts where they would otherwise displace potential housing development. For the South Airport Boulevard Corridor, previous allowable uses were confined to hospitality, amenity, commercial, and industrial uses only. No significant redevelopment projects have been proposed during the entire RHNA Cycle 5 period from 2015-2023 and this sub-area of the City could be categorized as stable with strong occupancy up until COVID-19 when the hospitatly sector (Hotels, Convention Centers, for instance) was decimated. The introduction of residential use to the area is likely to upend property values to some extent, particularly for long-time property owners with a low cost basis. Holistically, other development cycle forces aside from residential zoning also play an important role – the regional job/housing ratio, available land for residential development region wide, and a City’s streamlined review process all matter. Recent residential trends in South San Francisco suggest the construction of jobs continue to outpace housing units, there was limited land for residential development close to transit until the General Plan Update was adopted, and entitlement review processes are limted and quick (as explored in Chapter 4, page 50+). These factors combine to make stable, low occupancy industrial uses or low performing hospitality uses in the South Airport Boulevard Corridor viable residential opportunity sites. The opportunity site at 245 S. Airport Boulevard is a great example – redevelopment of low cost, poorly reviewed hotel that has been on the market for sale could result in up to 480 units without State Density Bonus or maximum densities considered. Other potential pipeline applications (owner has expressed interest, hired architect, or otherwise entered into property sale negotiations with a residential developer) include: • 154 Unit Development on 100 Utah Avenue under the T5C Zoning Our calculations for realistic capacity, however, are always based on minimum FAR to ensure a conservative optimism for redevelopment on opportunity sites. 3. El Camino Real (North and South) Opportunity Corridor 419 Page 8 of 34 SSF Draft Housing Element Submittal No. 4 to HCD – Track Changes Letter Only 400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 This sub-area is identified as El Camino Real (North and South) and covering 29 sites listed in Table 5-7 and 5-8 “El Camino Real – North and South Corridor Housing Opportunity Sites”. Mixed-use and 100% residential uses and 100% non-residential uses are permitted throughout the selected opportunity sites, which are zoned T4C, T5C or RH-180. Recent nonresidential trends in the City are almost entirely focused on Life Science Office development – this use is well capitalized, has available financing from both traditional markets and venture capital, and commands substantial rental rates once constructed. Life Science Office can out compete any other land use on a price per square foot basis. In order to manage the economic forces driving current Life Science Office development in the City, Life Science Office uses are not permitted in these zoning districts where they would otherwise displace potential housing development. For the El Camino Real Corridor, previous allowable uses were included hospitality, amenity, commercial, mixed-use and residential uses. Substantial redevelopment activity has occurred on the residential and public investment side – the City’s new Park and Recreation Facility and Police Headquarters have been focused at the intersection of El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue. These public investments will anchor nearby residential projects just completed or in the pipeline, as discussed in the next section. Recent residential trends in South San Francisco suggest the market rate apartmetn development on the western side of US-101 has been very strong for the last eight years. The City has entitled or constructed over 2,000 units. Recently completed or pipeline/entitled projects along the El Camino Real Opportunity Corridor include: • 800 units at 1051 Mission Road entitled under and currently completing construction documents. • 172 units at 988 El Camino Real entitled and fully constructed. • 184 units at 180 El Camino Real entitled and currently completing construction documents. • 338 units at 410 Noor Avenue entitled and under construction. • 262 units at 1477 Huntington Avenue entitled. These numbers are based on actual entitled projects, all of which used maximum density and State Density Bonus Law with their applications. Our calculations for realistic capacity, however, are always based on minimum FAR to ensure a conservative optimism for redevelopment on opportunity sites. (HE Location Page 896): In addition, the element did not address comments related to the timing of specific plans completion and clarify whether appropriate zoning is in place prior to implementing the specific plans. For the three corridors identified above, all identified zoning used to calculate opportunity site capacity has been adopted and effective since November, 2022. 420 Page 9 of 34 SSF Draft Housing Element Submittal No. 4 to HCD – Track Changes Letter Only 400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 Additionally, the Lindenville Specific Plan is currently underway and funded primarily through an MTC/ABAG Priority Development Area grant. Funding must be used and the project must be completed by the December, 2023. The City is currently on track to complete the project in the Fall of 2023. The Lindenville Specific Plan may modify zoning to improve the capacity for residential development, but there are no proposed edits that would reduce capacity on any opportunity sites identified. Instead, the Lindenville Specific Plan will clarify specific zoning expectations and maintain or improve densities throughout the study area. Original General Plan assumptions of base density remain in the draft Housing Element to be conservative about residential unit yield. Adopted zoning is already in place to permit housing in Lindenville as part of the Housing Element opportunity site analysis. At this time, there is no schedule for the creation of a South Airport Corridor Specific Plan – the City is currently completing applications to submit to MTC/ABAG for expandion of a Priority Development Area to include this corridor for future study. In the interim, the City has adopted appropriate density and development standards to permit residential and mixed use development throughout the South Airport Corridor. A future specific plan, similar to the Lindenville Specific Plan, will simply refine design and development expectations but will maintain identified General Plan and zoning densities for purposes of opportunity sites RHNA assumptions. (HE Location Page 89): Nonvacant Sites Analysis: The element did not address this finding. While the element includes general statements related to the lifecycle of the types of uses that are on the existing sites, it does not provide support to demonstrate the potential for residential development on the sites identified in the inventory. See prior review. See analysis above as response. Edited below per HCD comments: 1. Expand discussion of existing uses, trends to demonstrate potential for redevelopment Nearly every opportunity site identified in the adopted Housing Element is non-vacant. This is the nature of fully built out cities in San Mateo County like South San Francisco. The existing operation/structures on many of the nonvacant sites is nearing the end of its useful life, however. The City has attempted to thoughtfully identify opportunity sites with the three study corridors (Lindenville, South Airport, and El Camino Real) that have underperforming commercial centers and low density industrial development – none of the identified sites have existing residential uses, although the City still proposes a new program for no net-loss as a proactive measure throughout South San Francisco. The City’s confidence level for these selected opportunity sites redevelopment is high – nearly every residential project that has been constructed since 2013 has been on underperforming or underdevelopment commercial properties within the Downtown area or its environs. While these sites are not as simple as green field development, the City’s experience and that of associated developers has grown tremendously over the last ten years. Akin to Redwood City’s downtown success, South San Francisco has mimicked the adoptiong of objective form based codes, streamlined review under SB 330, and poured 421 Page 10 of 34 SSF Draft Housing Element Submittal No. 4 to HCD – Track Changes Letter Only 400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 millions of Housing Trust Fund dollars into affordable housing projects for pre-development, land acquisition, and operation. Review of the City’s eight year performance under RHNA Cycle 5 through the Housing Element’s Annual Progress Report shows that 81% of the RHNA units were produced. Without the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent freeze on residential construction, well over 100% of total RHNA units (1,864) would have been issued construction permits. While the City has fallen short in producing the lower income RHNA units, this Housing Element has new programs in place to improve production – advocate and HCD recommendations have been incorporated throughout the Housing Element programs for RHNA Cycle 6. Those are the broad trends of development in South San Francisco. More specifically, identified pipeline projects provide clues to the City’s redevelopment potential. Table 5-2 indicates the current pipeline projects and existing uses, which are all quite similar to each other in existing operation and the RHNA Cycle 6 identified opportunity sites: Site Address APN Existing Use Acres 201 Baden Ave 199 Airport Blvd 012-335-120 012-335-110 Commercial 0.49 180 El Camino Real 014-183-110 Commercial 1477 Huntington Ave 014-184-999 Commercial 1.98 40 Airport Blvd 015-126-010 Commercial 1.63 421 Cypress Ave 209-213 Lux Ave 012-314-070 012-314-080 012-314-090 Commercial Parking Lot 0.58 455-463 Grand Ave 012-305-060 012-305-070 Commercial Parking Lot 0.32 7 S Linden Ave 014-074-010 Industrial 4.22 1051 Mission Rd 093-312-050 093-312-060 Vacant 5.9 124 Airport Blvd 100 Produce Ave 015-113-180 015-113-380 Commercial 4.12 423 Commercial Ave 012-323-200 Residential 0.14 These pipeline projects have been entitled for redevelopment on commercial property, some of which are income positive commercial or industrial uses such a restaurant, office park, and industrial warehouse facility. This variety of existing uses suggests that similar sites in the Lindenville, South Airport and El Camino Real corridors with hotels, commercial retail, or warehouse uses will also have redevelopment potential. Almost uniformly, the pipeline projects have existing structures that are single or two story buildings, at least fifty years old, with on-site parking that monopolizes the site. The opportunity sites selected throughout the three corridors for RHNA Cycle 6 share these characteristics as these sites historically have been redeveloped successfully in South San Francisco since 2013. Additionally, the opportunity sites are varied in size. While there are 422 Page 11 of 34 SSF Draft Housing Element Submittal No. 4 to HCD – Track Changes Letter Only 400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 some sites smaller than 0.5 acres, there are two pipeline projects of that size and proceeding with new residential units. The project at 201 Baden Avenue would be up to 82 units and entirely affordable. Finally, the opportunity sites selected are informed by expressed interest in redevelopment – many property owners reached out to City staff during the General Plan Update process to upzone and redevelop their properties with mixed use housing. Underperforming hotels (245 S. Airport Blvd) and commercial storage buildings (101 Utah Avenue) along South Airport Bouleveard, industrial food production facilities in Lindenville (151-171 S. Spruce Ave), and shuttered restaurants along El Camino Real (840 El Camino Real) have submitted preliminary applications or initiated conversations with the Planning Division to redevelop into housing. (P.951 in redlined HE) Replacement Housing Requirements: The element includes “comment noted” in response to HCD’s previous replacement housing requirements finding. However, Cell 112 of the electronic sites inventory has current residential use on 0.71 acres (APN #101-620-070) with nine lower-income and 48 moderate-income units. The element must include a program or remove the site. The replacement housing program must have the same requirements as set forth in Government Code section 65915, subdivision (c)(3). Resolved. An incorrect address was used to refer to a mixed use zoned property that is currently develped with a commercial fast casual restaurant. This address is 471 El Camino Real, not 455 El Camino Real as previously indicated. The site has been updated (Cell 112) in the revised HCD Sites Inventory Template to show the existing use as Commercial and will be resubmitted with the revised Housing Element. Additionally, the City of South San Francisco already introduced a Program to require no net loss meeting the expectations of replacement housing requirements, shown below and edited per HCD letter dated 06/18/23: Program PRSV-6.1 – Update Zoning Code to require no net loss. The City shall update the Zoning Ordinance to require that there is no net loss in the number of residential units during reconstruction or renovation. Replacement provisions will have the same requirements as set forth in Government Code section 65915, subdivision (c)(3). Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division Time Frame: No later than December 31, 2023 Funding Source: N/A, staff time (HE Location Page 93212) 423 Page 12 of 34 SSF Draft Housing Element Submittal No. 4 to HCD – Track Changes Letter Only 400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 Supportive Housing: The element includes further information towards addressing this finding. In addition, the element includes links to updated land use tables and definitions in the updated General Plan and companion zoning. However, the element needs to describe and analyze the City’s supportive housing standards and codes and demonstrate consistency with section 65583(c)(3) or revise programs. Specific code reference listed below: (3) Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. Transitional housing and supportive housing shall be considered a residential use of property and shall be subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. Supportive housing, as defined in Section 65650, shall be a use by right in all zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, as provided in Article 11 (commencing with Section 65650). Cal. Gov. Code § 65583 To address this, the City previously included a Program to refine zoning to be consistent with State Law and how Supportive Housing is regulated. Please see program below for details on action and deliverable date with updated per HCD letter dated 06/18/23: Program SNP-8.2 – Zoning for Supportive Housing and Permanent Supportive Housing. Amend zoning and permit procedures to permit supportive housing (as defined by Government Code section 65582) as a residential use in all zones allowing residential uses and only subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. In adddition, permanent supportive housing is a type of supportive housing that meets specific statutory requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65651, The City will also amend zoning to permit permanent supportive housing without discretionary action (including removing conditional use permits and statutory CEQA exemptions) in all zones allowing multifamily if meeting specific requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65651. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division Time Frame: No later than December 31, 2023. Funding Source: Staff time (HE Location Page 124222) Low Barrier Navigation Centers: The element includes further information on Low Barrier Navigation Centers. However, a Low Barrier Navigation Center, in the City’s Municipal Code is narrowly defined as a Domestic Violence Shelter and limits facilities to serving just a maximum of ten clients. In addition, the element includes a link to updated land use tables and definitions as part of the updated General Plan and companion zoning. However, the 424 Page 13 of 34 SSF Draft Housing Element Submittal No. 4 to HCD – Track Changes Letter Only 400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 element must demonstrate compliance with Government Code section 65660 and include programs as appropriate. Currently, the adopted Zoning Ordinance defines Low Barrier Navigation Center narrowly as a Domestic Violence Shelter. This type of use is limited to ten clients, which does not appear to be in conflict with Government Code Section 65660, which does not specify unlimited size for a Low Barrier Navigation Center. State code requires this use is by-right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses pursuant to Government Code Section 65660. The zoning classification should be updated, however, to match the Low Barrier Navigation Center definition and language and thus a new program has been introduced to ensure compliance, shown below and edited per HCD letter dated 6/18/23: Program CST-3.3 – Revise Zoning Definition for Domestic Violence Shelter to match the requirements of a Low Barrier Navigation Center under CA Government Code Section 65660 and 65662, including by-right zoning (without discretionary action) provisions, as applicable, in mixed use and non-residential zones permitting multifamily uses and meeting specific requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65652. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division Time Frame: No later than December 31, 2023 Funding Source: Staff time (HE Location Page 208125): Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Units: The element states that SRO units are no longer permitted in South San Francisco and existing SRO units are managed under the City’s legal non-conforming ordinance. In addition, the element states that group residential uses are permitted and meet the general goal of previous SRO developments but does not describe how. The element must describe how (development standards and permit procedures) SROs are allowed or add a program as appropriate. This description is being restated as the definitions in the adopted Zoning Ordinance have been updated to resolve this concern – staff previously misrepresented this response. Single Room Occupancy uses now fall under the City’s Group Residential Uses, defined below: Group Residential. Shared living quarters without separate kitchen or bathroom facilities for each room or unit, offered for rent for permanent or semi-transient residents on a weekly or longer basis. This classification includes rooming and boarding houses, dormitories and other types of organizational housing, private residential clubs, and residential hotels intended for long-term occupancy (30 days or more) but excludes Hotels and Motels (see Hotel and Motel), and Residential Care Facilities (see Residential Care Facilities). 425 Page 14 of 34 SSF Draft Housing Element Submittal No. 4 to HCD – Track Changes Letter Only 400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 Group Residential uses, are conditonally permitted in the RM-22, RH-37.5 and RH-50, RH- 180, DRM, DRH, DRC Zoning Districts with a Minor Use Permit. Group Residential uses are permitted by-right in the T3N Zoning District, and conditionally permitted in the T4M, T5C and T6UC Zoning Districts with a Conditional Use Permit. The Minor Use Permit and Conditional Use Permit process are described in detail starting on P.65. (HE Location Page 126132) Programs: The element does not include a complete site analysis; therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. A revised site analysis has been submitted for consideration and new programs listed/reflected in the updated redlines. AFFH analysis conducted with review of each relevant program and numerical goals to further fair housing have now been included in the evaluaiton matrix. Affected programs will be updated to include metrics and neighborhood focus areas, as appropriate, to ensure AFFH implementation. Site analysis is now complete with programs continued, modified, or newly introduced per HCD guidance. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): The element now assumes an average of 38 ADUs per year and assumes 304 ADUs over the eight-year regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) Cycle 6 period. In addition, ADU assumptions have been updated based on a four-year cycle (2019-2022) with available data and revisions after errors were found. The element should include a commitment to reconcile trends with reported units within the Cities submitted annual progress report. Further, as stated in the previous review, programs should commit to additional incentives and strategies, frequent monitoring (every other year) and specific commitment to adopt alternative measures such as rezoning or amending the element within a specific time (e.g., six months) if number and affordability assumptions are not met. Modified Program CRT-6.1 below and City will continue to rely on CRT-10.1 and CRT-10.2 to actively promote meaningful ADU construction and participation through a pilot construction management project and per HCD letter dated 6/18/23: Program CRT-6.1 – Continue to support the development of secondary dwelling units consistent with State Law and educate the community about these standards. City will continue to allow permissive design standards for ADUs with no parking required in most instances, reduced setbacks, larger units and ADUs allowed on both single- and multi-family zoned parcels. Actively promote participation in the City’s two-year pilot program Hello ADU for comprehensive project management support for ADU construction. City shall track compliance with ADU construction through the Annual 426 Page 15 of 34 SSF Draft Housing Element Submittal No. 4 to HCD – Track Changes Letter Only 400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 Progress Report to reconcile trends with actual ADU permits issued and commit to new ADU promotion programs if ADU construction falls more than 30% off-trend. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division; Planning Commission Time Frame: Annual reporting to HCD through the Annual Progress Report; if ADU production and affordability falls 30% below recent trend line assumptions, City shall adopt alternate measures (e.g., incentives, funding, development standard modification, rezoning) to maintain adequate sites to accommodate the regional housing need allocation by income group and promote ADU construction within six months. Funding Source: Staff time to promote program; City funding for promotion programs, additional construction management. (HE Location Page 94199) 3. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).) Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).) Land Use Controls: The element included additional information on land use controls. However, the analysis must specifically describe and analyze maximum lot coverage in the RH-50 zone, height limits in the RM-22, DRM, and T3 zones, maximum floor area ratios in the ETC zone without utilizing a community benefit, the FAA height constraint in the T6 zone, and whether there are minimum unit sizes. Additional analysis below to address these identified gaps and per HCD letter dated 6/18/23: • RH-50 Maximum Lot Coverage o RH-50 lot coverage is 65%, as shown in the adopted zoning standards Table 20.070.003: Development Standards – Residential Zoning Districts, available here: https://library.qcode.us/lib/south_san_francisco_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/t itle_20-division_ii-chapter_20_070-20_070_003 o When combined with other development standards, lot coverages of 65 percent facilitate achieving maximum densities. For example, after accounting for setbacks, parking, minimum open space and landscaping, even on a minimum 427 Page 16 of 34 SSF Draft Housing Element Submittal No. 4 to HCD – Track Changes Letter Only 400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 lot size of 5,000 square foot, the development standards would accommodate approximately six units or 50 units per acre. • RM-22, DRM, T3C Height Limits o RM-22 has a height limit of 35 ft/3 stories. When combined with other development standards, a height limit of 35 ft/3 stories facilitate achieving maximum densities. For example, after accounting for setbacks, parking, minimum open space and landscaping, even on a minimum lot size of 5,000 square foot, the development standards would accommodate approximately three units or 22 units per acre. o DRM has a height limit of 35 ft/3 stories. When combined with other development standards, a height limit of 35 ft/3 stories facilitate achieving maximum densities. For example, after accounting for setbacks, parking, minimum open space and landscaping, even on a minimum lot size of 5,000 square foot, the development standards would accommodate approximately three units or 22 units per acre. o T3C has a height limit of 50 feet and a maximum density of 60 du/ac. This zoning district with several opportunity sites is near single family, low density residential and the adotped height limit of 50 feet has been done to scale development appropriately. Staff has received a preliminary application for townhomes at 170/180 S. Spruce Avenue since adoption of the General Plan showing feasibility. The project actually proposes the minimum density of 20 du/ac at the two addresses and a height of approximately 35 feet – the project would be for-sale and provide 15% of the base density units at low and moderate income levels per adotped City Ordinance. o When combined with other development standards, a maximum FAR still permits maximum densities. For example, after accounting for setbacks, parking (zero minimum parking required), minimum open space and landscaping, even on a minimum lot size of 10,000 square foot, the development standards would accommodate approximately 46 units or 200 units per acre. • ETC Maximum Floor Area Ratio without Community Benefits o Maximum FAR is not indicated in adopted zoning that excludes Community Benefits. Community Benefits are only required for non-residential projects, however. For residential projects, density and height are the primary zoning controls. Permitted denisty is 200 du/ac and there is no height limit, other than Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) height constraints that begin at approxmately 200 feet, allowing for some of the largest residential project opportunities in South San Francisco. o When combined with other development standards, a maximum FAR still permits maximum densities. For example, after accounting for setbacks, parking (zero minimum parking required), minimum open space and landscaping, even on a minimum lot size of 10,000 square foot, the 428 Page 17 of 34 SSF Draft Housing Element Submittal No. 4 to HCD – Track Changes Letter Only 400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 development standards would accommodate approximately 46 units or 200 units per acre. • T6UC FAA Height Constraint o This zoning district is governed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) height limits, which typically do not have limitations until 150 feet or higher. T6UC allows Flex High Rise building types, which are permitted to go up to 12 stories (averaging around 120 feet) and therefore no constraints on potential residential construction for these opportunity sites is anticipated. o When combined with other development standards, a maximum height limit of 150 ft per FAA, for instance, still permits maximum densities. For example, after accounting for setbacks, parking (zero minimum parking required), minimum open space and landscaping, the development standards would accommodate approximately 46 units or 200 units per acre. • Minimum unit sizes in any of these zones? o No minimum sizes for residential units are required in any of the transect form based zoning districts. Only building form and function are managed by zoning, thereby creating maximum flexibility for density and development of opportunity sites. (HE Location Page 6465) Fees and Exactions: The element includes additional information on fees and exactions. However, the element must list and analyze planning fees including, but not limited to, conditional use permits (CUP), zone changes, general plan amendments, variances, site plans, specific plans, affordable housing in lieu fee, lot line adjustment, and other environmental fees. Based on the outcomes of the analysis, the element should include programs to address identified constraints. Per HCD request, the following fee schedule and related fees for a sample residential project are listed below to help illustrate the overall fees and exactions and their measure as a contraint. Additional information has been provided per HCD letter dated 6/18/23: Current Fee Schedule: https://www.ssf.net/home/showpublisheddocument/28173/638035828937770000 Planning fees are based on a cost recovery model and generally represent a minor proportion of total development costs per units. Sample Residential Project – 100 Unit Multi-family Development (85’ tall, 7 stories) Planning Fee Amount Residential -Multi Family Design Review $2,314 Categorical Exemption CEQA Clearance Environmental Consistency Analysis CEQA Clearance $185 OR $5,543 San Mateo County Environmental Documentary Handling Fee $50 City Attorney Reimbursement Deposit $2,000 429 Page 18 of 34 SSF Draft Housing Element Submittal No. 4 to HCD – Track Changes Letter Only 400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 Legal Notices $554 Inclusionary Housing Requirement – 15% of total units at base density or $308,000 per unit in lieu fee TBD TOTAL Anticipated Fees $5,103 - $10,461 depending on CEQA Clearance Costs • Total Fees as Percentage of Development/Construction Costs – Approximately 4% through review of all 20 Cities and County of San Mateo • No General Plan Amendment, Zoning Text Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, Specific/Master Plan, or Variance fees typically apply. No identified opportunity sites require special zoning or General Plan amendments – these are only required in unique circumstances and would not apply to any identified opprotunity sites. Therefore, no substantial fees aside from Design Review, Environmental Compliance Review, and City Attorney Review are required. As illustrated in the example above, the total anticipated fees represent 4 percent of development costs, placing South San Francisco as the fifth among its peers in San Mateo County for proportional fees. (HE Location Page 6768 - 71) Local Processing and Permit Procedures: The element includes information on processing and permit procedures. However, the element should further describe and analyze findings for the Design Review Board for multifamily units. The element should identify and analyze approval findings for impacts on approval certainty, the presence of processes or guidelines to promote certainty and add or modify programs as appropriate. The Design Review Board shall review all multifamily units for compliance with adopted objective design standards (adopted and effective since November, 2022). During the multi- family residential review process, the Design Review Board is allocated a SINGLE meeting to provide design comments before forwarding to the Planning Commission for project consideration and approval as long as the project meets all Design and Zoning standards. The process is already described in detail in the submitted Housing Element but some clarifications related to required findings is included below with a new program added. The following required findings are included below: 20.480.007 Required Findings A. The Chief Planner, Planning Commission, or City Council may only approve a design review application if it finds that the application is consistent with the purposes of this chapter and with the following: 1. The applicable standards and requirements of this Ordinance; 2. The General Plan and any applicable specific plans the City Council has adopted; 3. Any applicable design guidelines adopted by the City Council; 430 Page 19 of 34 SSF Draft Housing Element Submittal No. 4 to HCD – Track Changes Letter Only 400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 4. Any approved tentative map, Use Permit, variance, or other planning or zoning approval that the project required; and 5. The applicable design review criteria in Section 20.480.006 (“Design Review Criteria”) above. Staff is proposing a new program to edit Finding No. 5 reference to Section 20.480.006 to ensure consistent review of objective design standards only. Program CST-4.2 – Update Design Review Criteria to reflect objective design standards. With the recent updated Zoning Ordinance with objective standards for single-family and multi-family residential development, additional reference updates are necessary to ensure residential projects are reviewed under objective design standards only. Section 20.480.006 shall be updated to refer to adopted objective design standards only. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division Time Frame: No later than December 31, 2023 Funding Source: Staff time (HE Location Page 7376 and 209) Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance: The element was revised to state that reasonable accommodations would be provided “when so doing would be consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and it is not possible or practical to approve a variance” (page 70). However, the purpose of the reasonable accommodation is to provide a separate exception process to zoning and land use. As a result, the element must include a program to address this constraint. Per HCD guidance, City of South San Francisco will update the Zoning Ordinance via Program EQ-8.3, illustrated below: New Updated for HCD Review Program EQ-8.3 – Ensure accessibility requirements. When residential buildings are inspected for occupancy, check for posters that explain the right to request reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. Make this information available and clearly transparent on the City's website and fund landlord training and outreach on reasonable accommodations. Additionally, Chapter 20.510 provides the Waiver and Modifications process to establish an alternate means of granting relief from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when so doing would be consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and it is not possible or practical to 431 Page 20 of 34 SSF Draft Housing Element Submittal No. 4 to HCD – Track Changes Letter Only 400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 approve a variance. This procedure is intended, but is not limited to facilitating compliance with the Federal Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act by providing reasonable accommodation to persons with disabilities seeking fair access to housing through modification of the application of the City’s zoning regulations. If reasonable accommodation is not be provided appropriately and the City receives this feedback, modify Chapter 20.510 as needed with HCD input, if necessary.Update Chapter 20.510 with the HCD model ordinance provided at t.ly/dYdaJ to ensure compliance with Reasonable Accommodation requirements. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Building Division; Planning Division Time Frame: Ongoing and establish procedure by December 31, 2025. Funding Source: City funds, staff time (HE Location Page 187165) Programs: The element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints. Additional programs added in response to further analysis, as detailed above. AB-2339 Compliance per HCD Review Letter 3, dated 9/29/23 City of South San Francisco must comply with AB-2339 and introduce a new program showing that emergency housing shelters are by-right in a zone that currently permits residential zoning. A modified program has been introduced: Program CST-5.2 – Compliance with AB-2339 to allow by-right Emergency Shelters. In addition to the Mixed Industrial zone, the City will add a zoning district where residential uses are permitted to permit emergency shelters by-right (without discretionary action) (e.g.,T5 Corridor Zoning District (T5L) or similar). Zoning and permit procedures will be amended to meet all requirements pursuant to AB 2339, including amending the definition of emergency shelters, establishing or revising development standards if necessary and ensuring sufficient and suitable capacity to meet the need for emergency shelters, including proximity to services. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division Time Frame: Within 1 year of adoption Funding Source: Staff time (HE Location Page 199) 432 Page 21 of 34 SSF Draft Housing Element Submittal No. 4 to HCD – Track Changes Letter Only 400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 Program CST-4.1 (Implement Adopted Objective Design Standards): The program must include actions and timing to implement the objective standards. The current program language is included below and edited per HCD reviewer request: Program CST-4.1 – Implement adopted objective design standards. Implement the updated Zoning Ordinance with objective standards for single-family and multi- family residential development as projects are submitted. Implementation shall include review of each project under Section 20.480.006. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division Time Frame: Completed as part of General Plan Update and companion zoning. Objective Design Standards shall be implemented on a rolling basis as projects are submitted. Each residential project will be subject to no more than five public meetings and design feedback will be provided initially at the Design Review Board meeting, held once per month. Funding Source: Staff time (HE Location Page 194196) 4. Include a program which sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, which may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c).) Timing: As state in the previous review, to have a beneficial impact in the planning period and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element, programs must have specific commitment to housing outcomes and discrete timing (e.g., at least annually or by January 2024). While some programs have been revised, many programs still do not include specific timeframes that are associated with each action that are committed to in the program. For example, many programs have a range (e.g., 2023-2025), ongoing, or have timeframes of annual or bi-annual. The element must review all programs to ensure actions have a specific timeframe for implementation within the planning period. 1. Some programs are implemented daily, such as the following Program PRSV-2.1 below. Implementing an arbitrary AND specific timeframe makes no sense – some programs should only report on an annual basis while being implemented on a daily basis. Program PRSV-2.1 has been modified to attempt to find common ground with HCD repeat requests for discrete, somewhat arbitrary implementation dates. Similar edits are made throughout for programs that “have a range (e.g., 2023-2025), ongoing, or have timeframes of annual or bi-annual.” 433 Page 22 of 34 SSF Draft Housing Element Submittal No. 4 to HCD – Track Changes Letter Only 400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 Program PRSV-2.1 – 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. Responsibility: City Attorney; Fire Department; Department of Economic and Community Development – Building Division Time Frame: Ongoing implementation with reporting annually through the Annual Progress Report. Funding Source: City funds 2. Date ranges were also provided to give a best estimate for earliest and latest implementation. Based on the HCD comment, South San Francisco will select the latest date in the range for implementation, but of course, this ultimately weakens the program at the expense of HCD comments for a discrete deliverable date in lieu of a date range. Edits are made throughout for programs that “have a range (e.g., 2023-2025), ongoing, or have timeframes of annual or bi-annual.” (HE Location Page 196 212 for PRSV-2.1 and throughout Program for Updates) Monitoring and evaluation programs: The element contains programs that commit to evaluations or monitoring of activities. Many of the activities are done on a bi-annual basis. However, the programs lack specificity on what will be evaluated, if the activity will then be modified accordingly, and when those modifications will occur. Programs that need to be revised include Program EQ 5.1, CRT 2.2, and CRT 3.1. Edits completed to provide metrics or select an expert consultant to advise City on appropriate measurements. Modified per HCD letter dated 6/18/23 and 7/14/23. Program EQ-5.1 – Conduct a robust evaluation of the inclusionary housing program. Evaluate the effectiveness of delivering units for residents with the greatest housing needs (e.g., single parent families, child-friendly housing, accessible/visitable units for persons with disabilities) and make modifications as appropriate. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: Bi-annually Funding Source: City funds, staff time P. 179 183 in redlined HE 434 Page 23 of 34 SSF Draft Housing Element Submittal No. 4 to HCD – Track Changes Letter Only 400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 Program CRT-2.2 – Regularly review Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The City shall review the success of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, not more frequently than bi-annually, 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, and those persons with developmental disabilities, are provided. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division and Planning Division Time Frame: Evaluate bi-annually as part of Annual Progress Report and make revisions, as appropriate, within one year Funding Source: Staff time P. 184 194 in redlined HE Program CRT-3.1 – Review Commercial and Housing Linkage Fee. The City shall continue to implement the Commercial and Housing Linkage Fee, reviewing not more frequently than bi-annually, to determine if the fee is appropriate and keeping pace with affordable housing production needs. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division; City Council Time Frame: Evaluate annually as part of Annual Progress Report and make revisions, as appropriate, within one year Funding Source: City funds P. 184 195 in redlined HE Educational Materials programs: The element was revised to include commitments to provide educational and proactive outreach for a number of housing activities. However, the element does not state if those materials have already been developed or timing for development, and when they will be made available on the website or other locations. Programs to be revised include EQ 1.1, EQ 3.1, EQ 4.1, EQ 6.1, EQ 7.2, CRT 10.1, CRT 10.2, and CRT 11.1. Edits completed to provide clarity on whether documents were complete and how they are available and distributed. Program EQ-1.1 – Enforce equal housing opportunity laws. The City shall require that all recipients of locally administered housing assistance funds and other 435 Page 24 of 34 SSF Draft Housing Element Submittal No. 4 to HCD – Track Changes Letter Only 400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 means of support from the City acknowledge their understanding of fair housing law and affirm their commitment to the law. The City shall proactively provide materials to help with the understanding of and compliance with fair housing law by including these on the Housing Division website, distributing at all hosted housing events, and an annual communication via distribution mailing list, water bill, or similar to property owners. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Housing Division Time Frame: Ongoing – Annual reporting as part of CDBG Funding and Annual Progress Report. Legal notice posted regularly online here for more information: https://www.ssf.net/departments/economic-community-development/housing. Funding Source: Staff time P. 175 178 in redlined HE Program EQ-3.1 – Provide renter education and assistance. Continue to connect low-income residents to city, county, state, and non-profit resources that provide technical, legal, and financial assistance for renters facing eviction in multiple languages. The City shall proactively provide educational materials by including these on the Housing Division website, distributing at all hosted housing events, and an annual communication via distribution mailing list, water bill, or similar, to tenants. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development –Housing Division Time Frame: Offered daily from City staff and North County’s Core Services Provider YMCA. Supportive documents regularly posted online here for more information: https://www.ssf.net/departments/economic-community- development/housing. Funding Source: CDBG or HOME administrative funds, as available, staff time P. 177 180 in redlined HE Program EQ-.4.1 – Provide resident housing rights education. Provide education, outreach, and referral services for residents regarding their rights as tenants and buyers. The City utilizes CDBG funds to support Project Sentinel, a local fair housing nonprofit, to provide counseling, dispute resolution, and other services to residents. Project Sentinel assists both renters and homeowners with issues related to discrimination, landlord issues, housing privacy, reverse mortgages, eviction, foreclosure, and numerous other housing issues. The City shall proactively 436 Page 25 of 34 SSF Draft Housing Element Submittal No. 4 to HCD – Track Changes Letter Only 400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 provide educational materials by including these on the Housing Division website, distributing at all hosted housing events, and an annual communication via distribution mailing list, water bill, or similar, to tenants. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Housing Division Time Frame: Daily ad hoc support and Annual Training. Legal notice posted regularly online here for more information: https://www.ssf.net/departments/economic-community-development/housing. Funding Source: City funds, staff time, CDBG P. 178 182 in redlined HE Program EQ-6.1 – Increase affordable units. Increase the number of affordable rental and homeownership units in moderate and higher resource areas of South San Francisco through targeted redevelopment and gentle infill. Prioritize the development of the existing Municipal Services Building at 33 Arroyo Drive and any other jurisdiction owned assets for 100% affordable housing development partnership or jurisdiction-led project. The City shall proactively provide promotional materials on development opportunities by including these on the Housing Division website, distributing at all hosted housing events, and an annual communication via distribution mailing list to potential development partners. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division. Developer information provided at the following websites and updated regularly: https://www.ssf.net/departments/economic-community- development/housing/resources-for-developers and https://construction.ssf.net/. Time Frame: Evaluate annually as part of Annual Progress Report Funding Source: Staff time P. 180 184 in redlined HE Program EQ-7.2 – Fund home repair for low-income property owners and tenants. Continue to fund minor home repairs and implement a preference for projects in low opportunity census tracts identified in the AFFH analysis. Expand the program to assist renters. The City shall proactively provide educational materials by including these on the Housing Division website, distributing at all hosted housing events, and an annual communication via distribution mailing list, water bill, or similar, to property owners and tenants. 437 Page 26 of 34 SSF Draft Housing Element Submittal No. 4 to HCD – Track Changes Letter Only 400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Housing Division. Home repair information posted and updated online here: https://www.ssf.net/departments/economic-community-development/housing. Time Frame: Annually during CDBG Funding Public Hearings Funding Source: CDBG funds, as available P. 181-2186 in redlined HE Program CRT-10.1 – Maintain and update preapproved accessory dwelling unit (ADU) plans. Preapprove additional ADU plans from ADU vendors to expedite ADU permit processing if State law changes and current plan designs need adjustment. The City shall proactively provide educational materials by referring to these posted documents on the Planning Division website, distributing at all hosted housing events, and an annual communication via distribution mailing list, water bill, or similar, to property owners. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division Time Frame: Ongoing – current plans meeting all local and state codes are approved and available to residents here: https://www.ssf.net/departments/economic-community-development/planning- division/accessory-dwelling-units-junior-accessory-dwelling-units. Will be reported annually through the Annual Progress Report. Funding Source: Staff time, consultant time for plan updates through the Commercial Linkage Fee P. 192 204 in redlined HE Program CRT-10.2 – Continue ADU construction management program with Hello Housing or similar, to promote privately funded ADU construction. Continue operation of construction management program for ADU design, permitting and construction through Genentech grant of One Million dollars. The City shall proactively provide educational materials by including these on the Housing Division website, distributing at all hosted housing events, and an annual communication via distribution mailing list, water bill, or similar, to property owners. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division Time Frame: Ongoing while funding permits. Program details are posted and regularly updated here: https://www.ssf.net/departments/economic-community- 438 Page 27 of 34 SSF Draft Housing Element Submittal No. 4 to HCD – Track Changes Letter Only 400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 development/planning-division/accessory-dwelling-units-junior-accessory-dwelling- units and https://www.helloadu.org/. Funding Source: Staff time, consultant time for program administration using Genentech grant funding P. 192 205 in redlined HE Program CRT-11.1 – Connect residents to mortgage assistance resources. Provide mortgage assistance to help low-income homeowners at risk of foreclosure with financial or counseling support. Provide residents with resources and connections to HEART of San Mateo County, a countywide homeowner assistance program, and other non-profit homeowner assistance programs. The City shall proactively provide educational materials by including these on the Housing Division website, distributing at all hosted housing events, and an annual communication via distribution mailing list, water bill, or similar, to property owners. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development –Housing Division Time Frame: Ongoing with resources regularly updated and posted here: https://www.ssf.net/departments/economic-community-development/housing/fair- housing-legal-services. Funding Source: Staff time, City funding to Core Social Service Agencies P. 193 206 in redlined HE Program CRT-4.1 (Site Acquisition for Affordable Housing): The program was revised to include program planning annually. In addition, the element should describe what potential incentives will be offered and include proactive outreach to developers. Updated with potential incentives and proactive outreach to read as follows: Program CRT-4.1 – Site acquisition for affordable housing. 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. Annually, the City will meet with developers to discuss and identify development opportunities, and potential funding sources, potential impact fee waiver or funding contributions by the City, and attend residential and commercial broker conferences to identify opportunities. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Housing Division and Planning Division; Planning Commission; City Council 439 Page 28 of 34 SSF Draft Housing Element Submittal No. 4 to HCD – Track Changes Letter Only 400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 Time Frame: Annual Reports to City Council via Public Hearing, Closed Session, or Memorandum update on potential site acquisition with annual program planning Funding Source: Various P. 185 196 in redlined HE Program EQ 6.1 (Increase Affordable Units): The program should specify when it will make 33 Arroyo Drive and other jurisdiction owned assets available for disposition within the planning period and in accordance to the Surplus Lands Act. In addition, as 33 Arroyo drive was identified in the previous housing element cycle, the program should commit to make the site available by-right when at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c).) Program has been modifed as follows to commit to investigation of locally owned jurisdiction sites no later than December 31, 2030, however, the City is not able to pre commit to disposing this site given there are competing community uses that could be located on locally owned jurisdiction sites. This is particularly true for 33 Arroyo Drive. Program EQ-6.1 – Increase affordable units. Increase the number of affordable rental and homeownership units in moderate and higher resource areas of South San Francisco through targeted redevelopment and gentle infill. Prioritize the development of jurisdiction owned assets for 100% affordable housing development partnership or jurisdiction-led project and following the Surplus Lands Act. The City shall proactively provide promotional materials on development opportunities by referring to these posted documents on the Housing Division website, distributing at all hosted housing events, and an annual communication via distribution mailing list to potential development partners. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division Time Frame: No later than December 31, 2030, and evaluate annually as part of Annual Progress Report Funding Source: Staff time P. 180 184 in redlined HE Program CRT 9.1 (Create Affordable Housing Overlay Zone): The element now includes a commitment to “explore provisions for an affordable housing overlay zone that requires less that 100% of units at affordable income levels” However, it is unclear if the consideration will be done as part of the overlay zone implementation consistent with AB 2011 and SB 6 or if another overlay zone is being considered. If another overlay zone is being considered, the element must include specific timeframes for implementation. 440 Page 29 of 34 SSF Draft Housing Element Submittal No. 4 to HCD – Track Changes Letter Only 400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 Program has been updated to reflect the bifurcated process – The City will codify AB 2011 and SB 6 for simplicity no later than December 31, 2023 and will explore and implement a potential City-led overlay no later than December 31, 2026. See updated program below: Program CRT-9.1 – Create affordable housing overlay zone. Implement an affordable housing overlay zone consistent with AB 2011 and SB 6 that permits 100% affordable housing developments in as many appropriate zoning districts as possible. Additionally, and separately, explore provisions for a City-led affordable housing overlay zone that requires less than 100% of units at affordable income levels to ensure feasible opportunities. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division Time Frame: Updated zoning ordinance to reflect AB 2011 and SB 6 no later than December 31, 2023, and updated zoning ordinance consideration of a City-led affordable housing overlay zone that requires less than 100% of units at affordable income levels no later than December 31, 2026. Funding Source: Staff time to ensure zoning consistency with this General Plan goal. P. 190 202 in redlined HE 5. Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).) As stated in the prior review, Goals and actions must specifically respond to the analysis and to the identified and prioritized contributing factors to fair housing issues and must be significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified patterns and trends. Actions must have specific commitment, milestones, geographic targeting, and metrics or numeric objectives. The element was not revised to include milestones, metrics or numerical objectives, and geographic targeting. In addition, it is unclear which program actions relate to the prioritized contributing factors listed on page 152. Finally, most of the program commitments around AFFH are educational or commit to outreach. Many of the programs that significantly respond to fair housing issues only commit to “evaluate” and “consider” actions rather than provide a specific commitment. For example, as acknowledge in the AFFH analysis, the City faces a significant displacement risk. However, Program EQ 3.2 commits to conduct a public hearing to understand options for anti-displacement and Program EQ- 3.4 only commits to “evaluate” and if directed develop a just cause for eviction notice. The programs must provide a specific commitment to adopt appropriate anti- displacement strategies from the list of potential strategies that will be evaluated. This does not limit the City in adoption of other strategies in addition to those listed. Finally, the program 441 Page 30 of 34 SSF Draft Housing Element Submittal No. 4 to HCD – Track Changes Letter Only 400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 should provide specific timeframes for milestones when implementing this program including community workshops, feasibility analysis, and finally adoption of implementing policies. Programs EQ-3.2 and 5.1 have been updated with suggested HCD language per letter dated 6/18/23: Program EQ-3.2 – Conduct a public hearing to consider an anti-displacement plan. Explore Conduct a public hearing to understand options for an anti- displacement plan to halt displacement in the city, particularly in Downtown, Sign Hill, El Camino, and Sunshine Gardens, and establish policies and objectives, as appropriate, which may include a rent stabilization policy, just cause-eviction and harassment protections, tenant and landlord mediation programs, right of first refusal, rental assistance, tenant legal counseling, and a rent board to implement the program. As policies are developed and /adopted, develop objectives by which to measure the success of each program area based on best practices and professional guidance. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: 2023-2025 Funding Source: City funds, staff time P. 177 180 in redlined HE Program CST-5.1 – Permanent Supportive Housing. Group home housing is currently permitted in multiple residential only zoning districts with approval of a minor use permit to support the availability of housing choices for persons with special needs. Under HCD best practice guidance, however, requiring these housing types to obtain a special use or CUP could potentially subject housing for special needs populations to higher discretionary exceptions processes and standards where an applicant must, for example, demonstrate compatibility with the neighborhood, unlike other residential uses. Update Zoning Ordinance to allow by- right in all residential zoning districts allowing residential uses similar to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division Time Frame: 2023 Funding Source: Staff time P. 196 210 in redlined HE 442 Page 31 of 34 SSF Draft Housing Element Submittal No. 4 to HCD – Track Changes Letter Only 400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 Additionally, with guidance from HCD, staff has prepared the following matrix to evaluate all appropriate programs under the rubric of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) below, citing necessary edits to adopted Programs, including deliverables, timeline, and targeted numerical objectives. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Primary Action Matrix – Program Updates will apply Programs Timing Geographic Targeting Targeted Numerical Objective Housing Mobility and New Opportunity in Higher Opportunity Areas Program EQ-5.2 – Participate in a regional down payment assistance program to support Missing Middle housing demand. Quarterly Neighborhoods west of Highway 101 250 Households Program EQ-6.1 – Increase affordable units Annually Moderate and higher resource and income area neighborhoods Dispersed RHNA allocation Citywide so that each of Five Districts has a percentage of new housing relative to existing households with a goal of 200 units per District. Program EQ-6.3 – Affordable housing fund policy No later than 2025 Citywide (includes S. Airport Corridor) Allocation of up to $55,000 per unit in funding support for up to 1,000 units over RHNA Cycle Program CRT-2.1 – Implement Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Annually Citywide with focus on identified higher opportunity and income areas 15% of all new units minimum Program CRT-4.1 – Site acquisition for affordable housing Annually Citywide with focus on identified higher opportunity and income areas Parcel acquisition in each City district (5 Districts) Program CRT-4.6 – City led acquisition and/or development of new mixed-income affordable housing Annually Citywide with focus on identified higher opportunity and income areas 300 units with 20 percent target in higher income areas Program CRT-6.1 – Continue to support the development of secondary dwelling units and educate the community about this program Annually Citywide with focus on identified higher opportunity and income areas 38 units per year with 50 percent in relatively higher income neighborhoods Program CRT-10.1 – Maintain and update preapproved accessory dwelling unit (ADU) plans Annually Program CRT-10.2 – Continue ADU construction management program with Hello Housing or similar to promote privately funded ADU construction 2023-2025 Program CRT-6.2 – Continue to implement SB 9 units and subdivision allowances Annually Citywide with focus on identified higher 5 units per year with 50 percent in 443 Page 32 of 34 SSF Draft Housing Element Submittal No. 4 to HCD – Track Changes Letter Only 400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 opportunity and income areas relatively higher income neighborhoods Program CRT-7.2 – Allow housing on sites with institutional uses 2023-2025 Citywide with focus on identified higher opportunity and income areas 100 units during RHNA Cycle 6 Program CRT-9.1 – Create affordable housing overlay zone 2026 Citywide with focus on identified higher opportunity and income commercial corridor areas 200 units during RHNA Cycle 6 Program SNP-4.1 – Accessibility Modification Programs Annually Citywide with focus on identified higher opportunity and income areas 10 per year, as funding permits Program SNP-6.1 – Support a variety of housing unit designs, including larger housing units that can accommodate large families Annually Citywide 25% of all units as large family units during RHNA Cycle 6 Program SNP-9.1 – Continue to promote Home Sharing Annually Citywide with focus on identified higher opportunity and income areas 10 per year, with cooperation from County partners Place-Based Strategies toward Community Revitalization Program EQ-6.2 – Incentivize accessibility development Annually Citywide with focus on identified higher opportunity and income areas >5% of all units in an entitled project development Program EQ-7.1 – Prioritize Capital Improvement Program for vulnerable populations Annually Downtown, Orange Park, Lindenville, E101 and other areas with higher concentrations of lower-income households or vulnerable populations Lower income census tracts or flood prone tracts should receive largest proportion of CIP investment over period of RHNA Cycle 6 Program EQ-7.2 – Fund home repair for low- income Annually Lower opportunity census tracts 10 households per year as funding and County collaborations allow Program CRT-4.2 – Support and pursue funding applications for affordable housing Annually City-wide Apply to annual San Mateo County NOFA and Federal NOFA as partner with projects Program PRSV-1.1 – Minor home repair Annually Citywide with focus on identified lower opportunity and income areas 5 per year per District (5 Districts) Program PRSV-1.2 – Prioritize funding for housing rehabilitation Annually Program PRSV-1.3 – Provide low interest loans for housing rehabilitation Annually Program PRSV-2.1 – Enforce housing, building and safety codes Annually Citywide enforcement N/A 444 Page 33 of 34 SSF Draft Housing Element Submittal No. 4 to HCD – Track Changes Letter Only 400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 Program PRSV-3.1 – Direct CIP funding for infrastructure equitably Annually Downtown, Orange Park, Lindenville, E101 and other areas with higher concentrations of lower-income households or vulnerable populations Lower income census tracts or flood prone tracts should receive largest proportion of CIP investment over period of RHNA Cycle 6 Program QOL-3.1 – Implement the Active South City Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan Annually Citywide with focus on poorly connected neighborhoods (Westborough, Avalon, Buri Buri) Equitable allocation of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure miles over period of RHNA Cycle 6 Program QOL-4.1 – Implement the Active South City Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan Annually Citywide with focus on poorly connected neighborhoods (Westborough, Avalon, Buri Buri) Equitable allocation of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure miles over period of RHNA Cycle 6 Program QOL-5.1 – Implement the Zoning Ordinance to require amenity, active, outdoor and flex working spaces in new development Annually Citywide with focus on E101, S. Airport Corridor, Lindenville Corridor and El Camino Real Corridor Five percent increase in Citywide open space over period of RHNA Cycle 6 Program QOL-6.1 – Implement the Zoning Ordinance to require neighborhood Amenity uses in new development Annually Citywide with focus on E101, S. Airport Corridor, Lindenville Corridor and El Camino Real Corridor Five percent increase in Citywide open space over period of RHNA Cycle 6 Program SNP-1.3 – Facilitate multi- generational housing Annually Citywide with focus on identified higher opportunity and income areas ADU Construction Metrics – 38 per year, Citywide Displacement Risk Program EQ-1.1 – Enforce equal housing opportunity laws Annual or bi- annual City-wide with emphasis in areas of higher displacement risk Assist 100 households per year for RHNA Cycle 6 Program EQ-2.1 – Legal counsel and advocacy assistance Program EQ-3.1 – Provide renter education and assistance Program EQ-.4.1 – Provide resident housing rights education Program EQ-4.2 – Provide landlord housing rights education Program EQ-8.2 – Provide fair housing training Program EQ-3.2 – Conduct a public hearing to consider an anti-displacement plan 2025 Citywide TBD after evaluation Program EQ-3.4. Evaluate and, if directed under EQ-3.2, develop a local just cause for eviction ordinance to go above California’s 2025 Citywide TBD after evaluation 445 Page 34 of 34 SSF Draft Housing Element Submittal No. 4 to HCD – Track Changes Letter Only 400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 Tenant Protection Act (TPA), the state’s just cause for eviction law adopted in 2019 Program EQ-3.3 – Create a rental task force 2025 Citywide with focus on areas facing highest percentage of displacement (Old Town, Orange Park, Lindenville) TBD after evaluation Program EQ-8.1 – Create Preservation Plan 2023-2025 Citywide 100 units preserved over RHNA Cycle 6 period Program EQ-8.5 – Continue the Rental Assistance Pilot Program 2023 Citywide with focus on areas facing highest percentage of displacement (Old Town, Orange Park, Lindenville) 25 households assisted annually over RHNA Cycle 6 period, if program continued Program CRT-4.1 – Site acquisition for affordable housing Annual Citywide with focus on identified higher opportunity areas Parcel acquisition in each City district (5 Districts) Program CRT-9.2 – Preserve naturally- occurring affordable housing 2024 Citywide with focus on areas facing highest percentage of displacement (Old Town, Orange Park, Lindenville) Preserve 100 Units over RHNA Cycle 6 period Program CRT-9.4 – Explore adoption of a Community Opportunity to Purchase Act Policy 2024 Citywide with focus on areas facing highest percentage of displacement (Old Town, Orange Park, Lindenville) Provide 100 Units over RHNA Cycle 6 period Program PRSV-5.1 – Monitor at-risk units Annually Citywide with focus on areas facing highest percentage of displacement (Old Town, Orange Park, Lindenville) Preserve 50 Units over RHNA Cycle 6 period Program PRSV-5.2 – Assist tenants at risk of displacement Annually Citywide with focus on areas facing highest percentage of displacement (Old Town, Orange Park, Lindenville) Preserve 50 Units over RHNA Cycle 6 period P. 184 188 in redlined HE – inserted table and updated programs, as appropriate 446 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-932 Agenda Date:10/25/2023 Version:1 Item #:12. Report regarding a resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to execute a legal services agreement with Sher Edling LLP regarding PCB litigation (Sky Woodruff, City Attorney) RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to execute a legal services agreement with Sher Edling LLP regarding PCB litigation. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION PCBs are chlorinated hydrocarbons that are fire resistant,not readily biodegradable,and are difficult to destroy. Monsanto and its corporate predecessors were the manufacturers of virtually all PCBs in the United States. PCBs were used as cooling and insulating fluids in heavy-duty electrical equipment,including capacitors and transformers.For over 40 years,PCB electrical fluids were required in structures where the risks of fires or explosions were major concerns, including high-rise buildings, schools, hospitals, and industrial operations. Over time,PCBs came to be used in numerous products,including hydraulic fluids,lubricants,paints,and carbonless copy paper.The EPA has concluded that PCBs are probable human carcinogens.In 1979,EPA issued regulations prohibiting the production of PCBs.Despite the fact that PCBs have not been in wide use for decades, they are ubiquitous in the environment. In particular, they are found in old buildings, sewer systems, and in urban stormwater runoff. Thirteen cities initiated what became the class action lawsuit City of Long Beach v.Monsanto,in which the plaintiffs allege damages resulting from PCBs on behalf of a class of cities,counties and other governmental entities.The City of South San Francisco was named as one of 2,528 plaintiff class members of this lawsuit.A settlement of the class action was reached in June 2020.The City Council reviewed the terms of this settlement and determined it to be insufficient in addressing the damage to the City.It therefore opted not to join the class action settlement. The County of San Mateo and the other cities in the County made a similar determination and initiated a separate lawsuit against Monsanto,County of San Mateo et al.v Monsanto,et al.The law firm representing the County and cities is Sher Edling LLP.The County and other city plaintiffs have agreed to allow the City of South San Francisco to join the suit as a plaintiff.Approving the attached legal services agreement will formalize the City’s participation in the lawsuit.The next step would be for Sher Edling to file a motion with the court hearing the case to allow the City to be added as a plaintiff.Similar lawsuits have been filed in other counties, and it has not generally been an issue adding city plaintiffs. FISCAL IMPACT Sher Edling is representing the clients in this case on a contingent fee basis and is advancing costs related to the litigation. There is no immediate fiscal impact at this time. RELATIONSHIP TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN This action supports the Strategic Plan goals of Quality of Life and Fiscal Stability. City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/20/2023Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™447 File #:23-932 Agenda Date:10/25/2023 Version:1 Item #:12. CONCLUSION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to execute a legal services agreement with Sher Edling LLP regarding PCB litigation. City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/20/2023Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™448 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-934 Agenda Date:10/25/2023 Version:1 Item #:12a. Resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to execute a legal services agreement with Sher Edling LLP regarding PCB litigation WHEREAS,PCBs are chlorinated hydrocarbons that are fire resistant,not readily biodegradable,and are difficult to destroy.Monsanto and its corporate predecessors were the manufacturers of virtually all PCBs in the United States.The EPA has concluded that PCBs are probable human carcinogens.In 1979,EPA issued regulations prohibiting the production of PCBs.Despite the fact that PCBs have not been in wide use for decades,they are ubiquitous in the environment.In particular,they are found in old buildings,sewer systems, and in urban stormwater runoff; and WHEREAS,thirteen cities initiated what became the class action lawsuit City of Long Beach v.Monsanto,in which the plaintiffs allege damages resulting from PCBs on behalf of a class of cities,counties and other governmental entities.The City of South San Francisco was named as one of 2,528 plaintiff class members of this lawsuit.A settlement of the class action was reached in June 2020.The City Council reviewed the terms of the settlement and determined it to be insufficient in addressing the damage to the City.It therefore opted not to join the class action settlement; and WHEREAS,the County of San Mateo and other cities in the County made a similar determination previously and initiated a separate lawsuit against Monsanto,County of San Mateo et al.v Monsanto,et al.The law firm representing the County and cities is Sher Edling LLP.The County and other city plaintiffs have agreed to allow the City of South San Francisco to join the suit as a plaintiff.Authorizing the execution of the attached legal services agreement will formalize the City’s participation in the lawsuit. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,that City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby approve the attached legal services agreement with Sher Edling LLP. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager or designee is hereby authorized to sign the legal services agreement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager or designee is hereby authorized to take any other action consistent with the intent of this Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately. City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/20/2023Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™449 City of South San Francisco Legal Services Agreement 1 4856-1668-2046.v1 LEGAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO & SHER EDLING LLP REGARDING PCB LITIGATION 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES. This Agreement is made between Sher Edling LLP (hereafter referred to as “Attorney”) and the City of South San Francisco, California (hereafter referred to as “Client”). For purposes of this Agreement, “City Attorney” means the Client’s retained counsel regarding municipal law matters, Meyers Nave, LLP, or any other attorney designated by Client as its representative. This Agreement is required by California Business and Professions Code section 6147 and is intended to fulfill the requirements of that section. For reference purposes, this Agreement is dated as of October 25, 2023. 2. RETENTION OF FIRM RATHER THAN PARTICULAR ATTORNEY. Client is retaining the law firm of Sher Edling LLP, not any particular attorney, and attorney services to be provided to Client will not necessarily be performed by any particular attorney. 3. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF CLIENT. The City Attorney is the authorized representative to direct Attorney. The primary individual to communicate with Attorney regarding the subject matter of Attorney’s representation of Client under this Agreement is City Manager, Sharon Ranals, unless another representative is named by the Client or the City Attorney. This designation is intended to establish a clear line of authority between Client and Attorney but not to preclude communication between Attorney and other representatives of Client. 4. LEGAL SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED. The legal services to be provided by Attorney to Client are as follows: Representation of Client with respect to the following matters (collectively, the “PCB Action”): a. Contamination related to (i) polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); and/or (ii) other contaminants of concern identified by Client and approved by Attorney (collectively, the “Contaminants”). b. Claims and/or actions seeking equitable and legal relief, including but not limited to an abatement fund, and/or damages sustained by Client as a result of actual or threatened contamination, and the past, present, and any future cost incurred to remove the Contaminants, including all writs and appeals related thereto, including specifically and without limitation the action entitled County of San Mateo, et al., v. Monsanto Company, et al., Case No. 22-CIV-01667 (San Mateo Cty. Sup. Ct.), any proceedings upon removal or appeal of such action, and any writ proceedings related to such action. 5. LEGAL SERVICES SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED. It is the intent of the parties that Attorney will represent Client in a civil action or actions seeking equitable and legal relief, including but not limited to an abatement fund, damages, and/or injunctive relief in the 450 City of South San Francisco Legal Services Agreement 2 4856-1668-2046.v1 appropriate court or courts of the State of California and/or a United States District Court, as well as, if requested by Client and agreed to by Attorney (such agreement not to be unreasonably withheld), in any proceeding by writ or appeal related to that action. Legal services that are not to be provided by Attorney under this Agreement specifically include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Proceedings before any state or federal administrative or governmental agency, department, or board. However, with Client’s permission Attorney may elect to appear at administrative proceedings to protect Client’s rights in this litigation, without Client being assessed any additional attorney’s fee in connection with such appearance. This exclusion would not apply to any proceeding determined necessary to exhaust administrative remedies. b. Defending any legal action(s) against Client or its employees commenced by any person, with the exception of any cross complaints or counter claims filed in the PCB Action described in Paragraph 4. This exclusion would not apply to any legal action filed against Client or Client’s employees arising out of the PCB Action. c. Execution proceedings on any judgment. d. Any action with respect to any dispute arising under or concerning this Agreement. If Client wishes to retain Attorney to provide any legal services for matters excluded from this Agreement, a separate written agreement between Attorney and Client may be required which may require compensation to Attorney in addition to that set forth in Paragraph 8. Alternatively, Client would always have the option to engage other counsel to provide such legal services. 6. RESPONSIBILITIES OF ATTORNEY AND CLIENT. Attorney shall perform the legal services called for under this Agreement, keep Client informed of material progress and developments, and respond to Client’s inquiries and communications. Attorney shall work at all times under the direction and control of the City Attorney, who has the power to control and supervise the litigation. The City Attorney, as the Client’s chief legal officer, and subject to the review and approval, to the extent required, by the City Manager and the City of South San Francisco’s City Council, retains complete and final authority and control over all aspects of the PCB Action, including specifically (but not limited to) the following: • decisions regarding settlement of the case; • the course and conduct of the PCB Action; • the exercise of veto power over any decisions made by Attorney. In addition, any defendant in the PCB Action may contact City Attorney directly, without having to confer with Attorney, and attorneys from the City Attorney’s office with supervisory authority are to be personally involved in overseeing the litigation at all times. Client will be truthful and cooperative with Attorney and keep Attorney informed of 451 City of South San Francisco Legal Services Agreement 3 4856-1668-2046.v1 developments. Attorney will present status reports to Client as events reasonably warrant or at the reasonable request of Client. Attorney and Client mutually acknowledge that Attorney needs to be informed about Client’s plans and anticipated decisions that may materially affect the PCB Action. Attorney and Client mutually acknowledge that nothing in this Agreement is intended to interfere with Client’s decisions or judgments concerning the design, operation, or maintenance of its remediation decisions. Accordingly, Attorney and Client will work to assure that each keeps the other fully and timely informed about matters that affect the other. Attorney and Client will work to assure that each keeps the other fully and timely informed about matters that affect the other and Attorney shall consult in advance with and obtain the prior approval of the City Attorney concerning all substantive aspects of the PCB Action. Additionally, Attorney shall not make or distribute any press releases without the express permission and consent of the City Attorney. 7. CLIENT RETENTION OF DOCUMENTS. Client acknowledges its responsibility to undertake all necessary effort to identify, preserve, and retain documents concerning potential claims or defenses related to the PCB Action. Additionally, Client will suspend all document destruction policies and implement a litigation hold as necessary to ensure the preservation of relevant documents as advised by Attorney. This litigation hold applies to hard- copy documents; electronically stored data, including backup tapes, legacy systems, and metadata; calendars and planners; and data from text messaging, blogs and social networking sites. This includes preserving all relevant data, regardless of whether it is contained on business or personal computers, personal digital assistants, cell phones etc. The documents need to be preserved in the form in which they currently exist. Client represents that it has not altered or destroyed any relevant documents relating to the subject matter of the litigation since the time it first suspected that litigation on its behalf was likely. Client shall cooperate with Attorney in locating, preserving, and reproducing its records which may be material to the investigation, discovery, prosecution, and trial in the PCB Action. 8. CONTINGENCY FEE. The compensation that Attorney will receive for the legal services to be provided under this Agreement is set forth in this Paragraph 8 (collectively, the “Contingency Fee”). a. Contingency Percentage. Attorney will receive the following percentage of any Net Recovery (as defined below) (the applicable percentage, the “Contingency Percentage”): (i) If a settlement is obtained on or before the date that is 6 months after the complaint is filed, seven- and one-half percent (7.5%) of the Net Recovery; (ii) If the Net Recovery is obtained after the date that is 6 months after the complaint is filed and before the first formal designation of exchange of expert witnesses, fifteen percent (15%) of the Net Recovery. Attorney shall provide Client with reasonable notice of the date on which the first formal designation of exchange of expert witnesses is required in the case; or (iii) Thereafter, eighteen percent (18%) of any Net Recovery. 452 City of South San Francisco Legal Services Agreement 4 4856-1668-2046.v1 Attorney’s Contingency Fee = Contingency Percentage * Net Recovery b. Definition of Net Recovery. “Net Recovery” means the total present value of any Recovery (as defined below), whether by settlement, arbitration award, or court judgment, after the deduction of Costs (as defined in Paragraph 10 of this Agreement) at the Conclusion of Services (as defined in Paragraph 16). Net Recovery does not include any court awarded costs or attorney’s fees received by Client from any third party, except as otherwise provided in Paragraph 8(g) below. The Net Recovery is multiplied by the Contingency Percentage (set forth in Paragraph 8(a)) to calculate the Contingency Fee. Net Recovery = Cash Recovery + Value of Non-Cash Recovery – Costs c. Definition of Recovery; Contested Judgment and Settlement. “Recovery” means the sum of any Cash Recovery and Non-Cash Recovery (as those terms are defined below) without reduction or adjustment for Costs (as defined in Paragraph 10). “Contested Judgment” means any final (including conclusion of any appeals) contested court order, judgment, or contested arbitration award; “Settlement” means a Recovery obtained pursuant to any voluntary agreement, whether by settlement, mediation, or court stipulation. d. Cash Recovery. “Cash Recovery” means, without limitation, the total monetary amount received (whether by Contested Judgment or Settlement) as a result of the PCB Action, including an abatement fund, funded by defendant(s), arising out of an equitable judgment or settlement. “Partial Cash Recovery” means any Cash Recovery obtained prior to the complete resolution of the PCB Action. (i) A Partial Cash Recovery is to be used, first, to pay unreimbursed Costs advanced up to the date of such Partial Cash Recovery and, second, to pay any fees that Client owes to Attorney up to the date of such Partial Cash Recovery. (ii) Unless Attorney and Client agree otherwise in writing, any remaining Partial Cash Recovery received prior to the final resolution of the PCB Action is to be placed in a trust account administered by Attorney for the benefit of Client. The funds in the trust account may be drawn upon by Attorney to pay for any future Costs incurred in the PCB Action and/or for any future fees owed by Client to Attorney. e. Non-Cash Recovery. “Non-Cash Recovery” means, without limitation, the fair market value of any property delivered or potentially to be delivered to Client, services provided or potentially to be provided for Client’s benefit, and any other non-cash benefit, including but not limited to injunctive and/or 453 City of South San Francisco Legal Services Agreement 5 4856-1668-2046.v1 equitable relief (other than an abatement fund, which is included in the definition of Cash Recovery above), conferred on Client as a result of the PCB Action. (i) Client understands that a resolution of the PCB Action may involve defendants agreeing to provide Client with one or more non-monetary goods and services, for example (by way solely of illustration), an agreement to build green infrastructure, provide consulting services, or to provide other goods and/or services. The terms of a Contested Judgment or Settlement may be that such non-monetary goods and services are only to be delivered to Client in the event that certain circumstances come to pass (e.g., the Contaminants exceed certain minimum thresholds). However, even if there is no certainty that the non-monetary goods and services will ever be delivered, Client understands that any agreement or requirement for defendants to provide such non-monetary goods and services has value to Client (analogous to an insurance contract) and that Attorney will be entitled to a Contingency Fee on that value. (ii) Before the acceptance of any settlement offer that involves a Non-Cash Recovery, Attorney shall provide Client with an estimate of the value of the settlement offer and a calculation of the fee due on the settlement offer. Client will respond in writing, indicating whether or not Client accepts Attorney’s estimate of the value of the settlement of the offer and the calculation of the fee due. If Client wishes to pursue the settlement offer further but chooses not to accept the provided estimate and calculation of the fee due, the parties shall proceed as set forth in Paragraph 8(i) (Disagreements Concerning Value of Recoveries). f. Payments Outside of Net Recovery Recovery is intended to alleviate and offset the Client’s anticipated regulatory and remediation costs related to PCBs, which would otherwise be paid from public funds. However, even with a net fiscal benefit, payment from public funds may present logistical challenges. This provision is intended to address those concerns. This scenario only arises if Attorneys’ fees cannot be paid directly from the Recovery. In the event that any judgment and interpretation of this Agreement results in the Client having to pay a Contingency Fee from its own funds, rather than out of the Net Recovery and Client’s Contingency Fee is greater than either $10 million dollars in any given year or $20 million dollars in total, then Attorney and Client will meet in good faith to reach an agreement that minimizes the financial burden on Client while ensuring Attorney receives the fee provided by this Agreement. Should the parties fail to reach an agreement, Attorney and Client agree to mediation pursuant to Paragraph 8(h) before resorting to litigation or any other dispute resolution procedure. Should Recovery be secured in aggregate for a group of plaintiffs, Attorney will not be involved in the allocation of the Recovery among the group of plaintiffs. To the extent the Contingency Fee must be paid from Client’s own funds on a portion of an aggregate recovery 454 City of South San Francisco Legal Services Agreement 6 4856-1668-2046.v1 (rather than collected from the Net Recovery itself prior to disbursement to the group of plaintiffs), Client shall use reasonable efforts to agree on the allocation of funds among the group of plaintiffs within six (6) months after the settlement or judgment and will inform Attorney in writing of the allocation so that the corresponding Contingency Fee(s) may be determined. g. Fees on Future Recovery following Contested Judgment. Should Recovery following a Contested Judgment (whether Cash, Non-Cash, or a combination of the two) provide for payment or performance in the future (which may consist of one or more payments, or performance over a period of time), Client shall select one of the following options for payment of the Contingency Fee. Client shall make its selection in writing. If Client fails to elect an option within 30 days after the resolution of the Contested Judgment, the lump sum provision (subparagraph (i) of this paragraph) will apply. For purposes of calculating the net present value (“NPV”) of any Cash Recovery or Non- Cash Recovery under this Agreement, the discount rate used will be the interest rate for the 91- day treasury bill, as such interest rate is reported by the United States Federal Reserve in the weekly Federal Reserve Statistical Release closest in time to the date the terms of the Recovery for which the NPV is being calculated are known. (i) Lump Sum: Client will pay the Contingency Fee in a lump sum, with the amount due determined by applying the Contingency Percentage to the NPV of the sum of the Cash Recovery and the Non-Cash Recovery less Costs. Lump sum payment = (Contingency Percentage) * (NPV of Cash Recovery + NPV of Non-Cash Recovery – Costs) (ii) Annual Installments Over Three Years: Client will pay the Contingency Fee in three (3) annual installments, each comprising one-third of the total Contingency Fee due, with the annual installment determined by dividing by 3 the result obtained by applying the Contingency Percentage to the NPV of the sum of the Cash Recovery and the Non-Cash Recovery less Costs. The parties may mutually agree on a different payout term in writing. Annual payment over three years = [Contingency Percentage * (NPV of Cash Recovery + NPV Value of Non-Cash Recovery – Costs)] ÷ 3 (iii) Payment on Periodic Recovery with Ten Year Due Date: If Recovery is structured as a series of annual or other periodic awards (Cash or Non-Cash) to Client, upon receipt Client will pay 30% of each such periodic award to Attorney as a partial payment of the Contingency Fee until the Contingency Fee is paid in full, with the total amount due to Attorney determined by applying the Contingency Percentage to the NPV of the sum of the Cash Recovery and the Non-Cash Recovery less Costs. 455 City of South San Francisco Legal Services Agreement 7 4856-1668-2046.v1 Periodic payment = 30% * (Periodic Cash and Non-Cash Recovery Received by Client); provided, however, the sum of all periodic payments to Attorney may not exceed the total Contingency Fee Notwithstanding the foregoing, Client’s deadline to pay the Contingency Fee in full is the tenth anniversary of the Conclusion of Services. If the Contingency Fee is not paid in full by that time, the last payment made on or prior to the tenth anniversary of the Conclusion of Services must include the remaining Contingency Fee outstanding (the “Remainder”). Remainder = Total Contingency Fee – Contingency Fee Already Paid Each year, the parties will agree upon and confirm, in writing, the value of all Recovery received, all Recovery remaining, the total Contingency Fee paid, and the total Contingency Fee outstanding. h. Reasonable Fee if Contingency Fee Unenforceable. In the event the contingency fee portion of this Agreement is determined to be unenforceable for any reason or Attorney is prevented from representing Client on a contingency fee basis, Client shall pay a reasonable fee for the services rendered. The parties shall use best efforts to negotiate a reasonable fee. If they cannot do so, the fee shall be determined by mediation proceedings before the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (JAMS), with any costs of such proceedings born equally by the Client and Attorney, or, if mediation proves unsuccessful, by appropriate court action in accordance with Paragraph 26. Such reasonable fee shall take into account, among other things, the specific expertise of Attorney with regard to the PCB Action as well as the risk that Attorney took on by agreeing to represent Client and advance all litigation Costs in return for a contingency fee. i. Disagreements Concerning Value of Recoveries. In the event the parties disagree with respect to the value of any Cash or Non-Cash Recovery, they shall proceed as follows: Each party shall within 45 days select an appraiser qualified to conduct an appraisal of the value of the Recovery or settlement offer. The selected appraisers will then confer and within 30 days select a third qualified appraiser. The third appraiser will then be tasked with determining the value of the Recovery within 90 days. The third appraiser’s valuation will be final and binding on the parties regardless of the fact that such valuation may be an estimate or may be subject to further refinement or analysis. Client and Attorney shall each bear the expense of its own selected appraiser, and Client and Attorney shall share equally the expenses of the third appraiser. j. Court-Awarded Attorneys’ Fees. Client may obtain an award from the court of attorneys’ fees and/or Costs in the PCB Action. For example, certain claims may arise under statutes that provide for an award of attorneys’ 456 City of South San Francisco Legal Services Agreement 8 4856-1668-2046.v1 fees. Attorney agrees that if such an award is allowed for under the law then Attorney will endeavor to pursue such an award from the court on behalf of Client and defend Client against any claims that it owes defendants’ attorney fees. Any order awarding fees and/or Costs will not affect Client’s obligation to pay the Contingency Fee in accordance with this Agreement. Any attorney’s fee awarded by the court in connection with the PCB Action will not be considered part of the Net Recovery for purposes of calculating the Contingency Fee. Any Court- awarded Costs will also not be considered part of the Net Recovery for purposes of calculating the Contingency Fee. Any court award of fees received by Attorney will be applied as a credit against Client’s obligation to pay the Contingency Fee under this Agreement, and any court award of Costs to Attorney will be applied as a credit against Client’s obligation to reimburse Attorney for Costs under this Agreement. If the court-awarded fees exceed the fee to which Attorney would otherwise be entitled, the Contingency Fee will be the amount of the court-awarded fee. k. Negotiated Fee. Client understands that the attorney’s fee set forth in this Agreement is not set by law but rather is negotiable between Attorney and Client. 9. CO-COUNSEL. a. Attorney may decide to retain another attorney or law firm as associate counsel. Such other attorney or law firm may be compensated by Attorney for the reasonable value of the services performed on an hourly or per diem basis and not necessarily on a contingency basis. Such payment is the sole responsibility of Attorney and will not be charged back to Client as a Cost or otherwise. Client understands that under the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California, the division of a fee for legal services may be made only with Client’s written consent after a full disclosure to Client in writing that a division of fees will be made , the identity of the lawyers or law firms that are parties to the division, and the terms of the division. A decision by Attorney to retain associate counsel is subject to Client’s approval, which will not be unreasonably withheld. b. Client has the authority to retain additional outside consultants, including additional legal counsel, to assist the City Attorney with the PCB Action. Any such retention will be at Client’s sole expense and will not be considered a part of Costs, as defined in paragraph 10. 10. COSTS. a. Definition. “Costs” means costs reasonably and actually incurred by Attorney in connection with Attorney’s representation of Client under this Agreement, including but not limited to: (i) Court filing fees; (ii) Deposition costs; 457 City of South San Francisco Legal Services Agreement 9 4856-1668-2046.v1 (iii) Expert, consultant and investigator fees and expenses; (iv) Investigation costs; (v) Transportation; (vi) Meal and lodging for out-of-town travel; (vii) Messenger service fees (viii) Photocopying expenses (ix) Process server fees “Costs” does not include the following: the cost of full or part-time employees of Attorney (e.g., paralegals and law clerks). In addition, “Costs” does not include Client expenses incurred in providing information to counsel or defendants, damages claimed by others in the litigation, or other parties’ costs, if any, that Client is ultimately required to pay, all of which Client must pay without contribution by Attorney. Attorney shall advance Costs incurred in connection with Attorney’s representation of Client under this Agreement. b. Authorized costs. The Client authorizes Attorney to incur reasonable Costs and to retain consultants or expert witnesses reasonably necessary in Attorney’s and City Attorney’s judgment. Costs must be specific and confined to representation of Client. Attorney account for Costs as they are incurred by Attorney. No mark-up is to be attached to Costs. As such, Attorney and Client are jointly incentivized to keep Costs to a minimum. Regarding expert costs, Attorney and Client shall meet and confer regarding selection and retention of experts in the PCB Action and Attorney shall inform Client of the persons chosen and their charges. Client shall not unreasonably withhold approval of the selection and retention of such experts. c. In the event of Recovery for Client, Client will reimburse Costs. In the event Client obtains Recovery (whether by settlement, arbitration, judgment or otherwise) and pursuant to Paragraph 16 (Conclusion of Services), Client shall pay Costs within sixty (60) days after a final accounting provided by Attorney, unless otherwise agreed by the parties in writing. Any Client funds in the Attorney trust account may be put towards any unpaid balance of Costs. d. In the event of judgment for defendants, Attorney bears risk of costs. To the extent permitted by law and to the extent not based on the conduct of Client or City Attorney, Attorney will bear the risk of any defense costs taxed against Client in the event of an adverse ruling (such as sanctions for spoliation of evidence) or Contested Judgment for defendants in the PCB Action. As used in this section, “conduct” means (1) the failure to perform the terms 458 City of South San Francisco Legal Services Agreement 10 4856-1668-2046.v1 of this Agreement; or (2) any intentional, reckless, or negligent conduct that diverges from the Attorney’s recommended course of action and results in either an adverse ruling or a Contested Judgment for defendants. The application of this provision as to a discrete adverse ruling does not necessarily implicate this provision as to a Contested Judgment. e. Periodic statements of costs. Attorney shall provide Client with periodic statements of Costs incurred in the PCB Action at approximately quarterly intervals or at such other frequency as mutually agreed between Client and Attorney. At any time, Client may communicate with Attorney regarding Attorney’s estimates with regard to Costs that may be incurred in the future. f. Client expenses. Expenses incurred by Client in connection with retention of additional consultants, including outside counsel and/or experts, shall be paid for by Client and will not be considered Costs for purposes of this Agreement. 11. REPRESENTATION OF ADVERSE INTERESTS. If Attorney had a relationship with another party involved in the PCB Action, or with someone who would be substantially affected by the PCB Action, the Rules of Professional Conduct would require Attorney to disclose that to Client so that Client could evaluate whether that rel ationship causes Client to have any concerns over Attorney’s loyalty, objectivity or ability to protect Client’s confidential information. Client understands that currently, and from time to time, Attorney represents other municipalities, governmental agencies, governmental subdivisions, or other public or private individuals and/or entities in other actions or similar litigation where the defendants may be the same or similar to the defendants in the PCB Action, and that such work is a focus of Attorney’s practice. Client understands that Attorney would not take on this engagement if it required Attorney to forego representations like those described above. However, Client understands that damages collected from one or more of the same defendants in other suits prosecuted by Attorney could, theoretically, reduce the amount of money available from these same defendants in the PCB Action. Client was given an opportunity to confer with its own separate and independent counsel about this matter and has determined that it is in its own best interests to waive any and all potential or actual conflicts of interest which may occur as the result of Attorney’s current and continuing representation of cities and other public and/or private entities in similar litigations, because it enables Client to obtain the benefits of Attorney’s expertise. Therefore, Client consents that Attorney may continue to handle such work, and may take on similar new clients and matters, without disclosing each such new matter to Client or seeking the consent of Client while representing Client. Attorney may not take on such other work if it requires Attorney to be directly adverse to Client while Attorney was still representing Client in the PCB Action. In the event that Attorney represents other plaintiffs in similar litigation, costs that are incurred for the joint benefit of several plaintiffs shall be allocated, if possible, between the cases pro rata based on each plaintiff’s share of the recovery, or if such pro rata cost sharing based on recovery is not possible, then on a reasonable pro rata basis agreed upon between Client and Attorney. 12. SETTLEMENT. Decisions regarding settlement of the case are reserved exclusively to the discretion of Client and City Attorney. Attorney may not settle Client’s claim 459 City of South San Francisco Legal Services Agreement 11 4856-1668-2046.v1 without the approval of Client, which has the absolute right to accept or reject any settlement. Attorney shall notify Client of the terms of any settlement offer received by Attorney. 13. ORDER OR AGREEMENT FOR PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY’S FEES OR COSTS BY ANOTHER PARTY. The court may order, or the parties to the dispute may agree, that another party will pay some or all of Client’s attorney’s fees, costs, or both. Any such order or agreement will not affect Client’s obligation to pay contingency fees and Costs under this Agreement. However, in accordance with Paragraph 8 (Attorney’s Fees), any such amounts actually received by Attorney will be credited against the Contingency Fee or Costs, as applicable, incurred by Client. 14. DISCHARGE OF ATTORNEY. Client may discharge Attorney at any time by written notice effective when the notice is received by Attorney. Unless specifically agreed by Attorney and Client, Attorney will provide no further services and advance no further Costs on Client’s behalf after receipt of the notice. If Attorney is Client’s attorney of record in any proceeding, Client will execute and return a substitution-of-attorney form immediately on its receipt from Attorney. In the event Attorney is discharged without cause before the termination of the litigation, Client shall (1) reimburse Attorney for any and all Costs advanced by Attorney not later than thirty (30) days after receipt of a final cost accounting from Attorney, and (2) upon termination of the litigation, pay Attorney a fee consisting of the reasonable value of Attorney’s services performed up to the point of the discharge. Nothing herein may be construed to limit Client’s rights and remedies in the event of a discharge of Attorney for cause. 15. WITHDRAWAL OF ATTORNEY. Attorney may withdraw from representation of Client: (a) with Client’s consent, (b) upon court approval, or (c) if no court action is filed, for good cause upon reasonable notice to Client. Good cause includes, but is not limited to, Client’s breach of this Agreement, Client’s refusal to cooperate with Attorney, or any other fact or circumstance that would render Attorney’s continuing representation unlawful or unethical. Notwithstanding Attorney’s withdrawal for cause, Client will remain obligated to pay Attorney out of the Recovery a reasonable Attorney’s fee for all services provided, and to reimburse Attorney for all reasonable Costs advanced before the withdrawal. Attorney may terminate this Agreement at any time, without cause, by giving to Client not less than sixty (60) days prior written notice of termination, said notice to specify the effective date of the termination. Where Attorney terminates this Agreement without cause, Attorney shall not be entitled to the recovery of any Attorney fee or Costs, regardless of the status of the PCB Action, and regardless of whether or not any amounts of Recovery have been or are subsequently received by Client. 16. CONCLUSION OF SERVICES. The “Conclusion of Services” means when Attorney’s services conclude, whether by completing the terms of this Agreement or by discharge (under Paragraph 14) or withdrawal (under paragraph 15). Subject to Paragraphs 8 and 10, at the Conclusion of Services, all unpaid charges will immediately become due and payable, unless otherwise provided herein. Attorney shall notify Client in writing of the Conclusion of Services 460 City of South San Francisco Legal Services Agreement 12 4856-1668-2046.v1 and provide an accounting of Costs, fees, and other charges due. Attorney is authorized to apply any Client funds held in Attorney’s client trust account to pay unreimbursed advanced Costs. 17. LIEN. Except in situations where Attorney withdraws or is discharged, such situations being governed by Sections 14 and 15, Client hereby grants Attorney a lien on any and all claims or causes of action that are the subject of Attorney’s fee and/or Costs advanced under this Agreement. Attorney’s lien will be for any sums owing to Attorney for any unpaid Costs (under Paragraph 10) or fees (under Paragraph 8) at the conclusion of Attorney’s services. The lien will attach to any Recovery Client may obtain, whether by arbitration award, judgment, settlement or otherwise. 18. RELEASE OF CLIENT’S PAPERS AND PROPERTY. At the termination of services under this Agreement, Attorney will release to Client on request all of Client’s papers and property. Client’s papers and property include correspondence, deposition transcripts, exhibits, experts’ reports, legal documents, physical evidence, and other items in possession of Attorney reasonably necessary to Client’s representation. 19. CONFIDENTIALITY. This Agreement establishes the relationship of attorney- client between the parties hereto. Attorney shall hold all money and property of Client in trust for Client’s benefit, with all funds deposited and managed in Attorney’s client trust account as required by law, shall not divulge Client’s confidences, and shall be entitled to the candid cooperation of all Client’s employees in all matters related to the assigned files and any related actions. This Agreement is privileged and confidential and is subject to Business and Professions Code section 6149 and Evidence Code section 952 and 954. 20. DISCLAIMER OF GUARANTEE. Although Attorney may offer an opinion about possible results regarding the subject matter of this Agreement, Attorney cannot guarantee any particular result. Client acknowledges that Attorney has made no promises about the outcome and that any opinion offered by Attorney in the future will not constitute a guaranty. 21. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties. No other agreement, statement, or promise made on or before the effective date of this Agreement is binding on the parties. 22. SEVERABILITY IN EVENT OF PARTIAL INVALIDITY. If any provision of this Agreement is held in whole or in part to be unenforceable for any reason, the remainder of that provision and of the entire agreement will be severable and remain in effect. 23. MODIFICATION BY SUBSEQUENT AGREEMENT. This Agreement may be modified by subsequent agreement of the parties only by an instrument in writing, approved and executed in the same manner as the initial Agreement. 24. MEDIATION CLAUSE. If a dispute arises out of or relating to any aspect of this Agreement between Client and Attorney, or the breach thereof, and if the dispute cannot be settled through negotiation, Attorney and Client agree to mediation pursuant to Paragraph 8(g) before resorting to litigation, or any other dispute resolution procedure. 461 City of South San Francisco Legal Services Agreement 13 4856-1668-2046.v1 25. NO AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES OR COSTS IN ACTION ON AGREEMENT. Each party shall bear its own attorney’s fees and costs incurred in any action or proceeding concerning or arising out of this Agreement, or efforts to negotiate the matter, and the parties shall share equally the costs of any arbitrator, mediator, or other decision maker in any forum. 26. GOVERNING LAW. The terms and provisions of this Agreement and the performance of the parties hereunder are governed by the laws of the State of California. The venue of any action to enforce this agreement is the Superior Court in and for the County of San Mateo. 27. EFFECTIVE DATE OF AGREEMENT. This Agreement is effective on the date last executed below. Once effective, this Agreement will, however, apply to services provided by Attorney on this matter before its effective date. 28. AUTHORITY OF PARTIES. Each of the signatories to this Agreement warrants that he or she has the authority to enter into and execute this Agreement and to bind the entity or entities on whose behalf they sign. 29. EXECUTION. This Agreement may be executed in duplicate counterparts. This Agreement and future documents relating to this Agreement may be digitally signed in accordance with California law. Any party to this Agreement may revoke such agreement to permit digital signatures at any time by providing written notice to the other party. The foregoing is agreed to by: CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO (Client) Dated: By Sharon Ranals City Manager SHER EDLING LLP (Attorney) Dated: By Matthew K. Edling Partner 5507489.1 462 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-885 Agenda Date:10/25/2023 Version:1 Item #:13. Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.8) Property: Vacant Property on Sylvester Rd. north of Associated Rd., APN 015031090 Agency negotiators: Nell Selander, Economic & Community Development Director and Adena Friedman, Chief Planner Negotiating parties: Unknown at this time. Property is subject to tax sale by San Mateo County. Under negotiation: Price and terms City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/20/2023Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™463 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-949 Agenda Date:10/25/2023 Version:1 Item #:14. Closed Session: Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8) Property: 201 Baden Avenue (APN 012-335-100 and APN 012-335-110) Agency Negotiators:Nell Selander,Economic &Community Development Director and Danielle Thoe, Housing Manager Negotiating Parties: Eden Housing, Inc Under Negotiation: Price and terms City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/20/2023Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™464