Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-15-24 Planning Commission Meeting AgendaThursday, February 15, 2024 7:00 PM City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA Library Parks & Recreation Building, Council Chambers, Room 135 901 Civic Campus Way, South San Francisco, CA Planning Commission ALEX TZANG, Chairperson NORMAN FARIA, Vice Chairperson SAM SHIHADEH, Commissioner MICHELE EVANS, Commissioner SARAH FUNES-OZTURK, Commissioner AYSHA PAMUKCU, Commissioner JOHN BAKER, Commissioner Regular Meeting Agenda 1 February 15, 2024Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda How to observe the Meeting (no public comment): 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/planning-commission 3) Zoom meeting: https://ssf-net.zoom.us/j/82584801637 (Enter your email and name) Webinar ID: 825 8480 1637 Join by Telephone: +1 669 900 6833 How to Submit written Public Comment before the meeting: Email: PCcomments@ssf.net Members of the public are encouraged to submit public comments in writing in advance of the meeting. The email will be monitored during the meeting.The City encourages the submission of comments by 6:00pm on the date of the Public Hearing to facilitate inclusion in the meeting record. How to provide Public Comment during the meeting: COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER During a meeting, comments can only be made in person: Complete a 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 Americanswith 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 2/6/2024 2 February 15, 2024Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AGENDA REVIEW ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM STAFF PUBLIC COMMENT DISCLOSURE OF EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for Planning Commissioners to disclose any communications, including site visits, they have had on current agenda items, or any conflict of interest regarding current agenda items. CONSENT CALENDAR Consideration of draft minutes from the December 21, 2023 Planning Commission meeting 1. 12-21-23 PC Final MinutesAttachments: Report regarding determination under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and consideration of Master Sign Program and Design Review for Phase 1 of Southline Campus at 50 Tanforan Avenue in the Southline Campus (S-C) Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC). (Victoria Kim, Associate Planner) 2. Attachment 1_Draft Findings Attachment 2_Conditions of Approval Attachment 3_Plan Set Attachment 4_DRB Comment Letter Attachments: Master Sign Program and Design Review for a previously approved 195-unit multi-family residential development located at 401 Cypress Avenue in the Downtown Transit Core (DTC) Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and determination that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA. (Christy Usher, Senior Planner) 3. Attachment 2 - Project Plans Attachment 3 - Draft Findings and Conditions of Approval Attachments: Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/6/2024 3 February 15, 2024Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda Report regarding a resolution making findings and determining that the acquisition of several properties (APNs 091-022-010, 091-022-020, 091-022-030, 091-025-010, 091-034-080, and 015-031-090) as part of a Chapter 8 Tax Sale is in conformance with the South San Francisco adopted General Plan in accordance with provisions of State Planning Law (Govt. Code Section 65402) (Adena Friedman, Chief Planner). 4. Attach 1 Westborough Attach 2 Sylvester Attachments: Resolution making findings and determining that the acquisition of several properties (APNs 091-022-010, 091-022-020, 091-022-030, 091-025-010, 091-034-080, and 015-031-090) as part of a Chapter 8 Tax Sale is in conformance with the South San Francisco adopted General Plan in accordance with provisions of State Planning Law (Govt. Code Section 65402) 4a. Report regarding a resolution making findings and determining that the acquisition of real property located at 226-246 Grand Avenue is in conformance with the South San Francisco General Plan (Adena Friedman, Chief Planner). 5. Attach 1 - Grand Avenue PropertiesAttachments: Resolution making findings and determining that the acquisition of several properties at 226-246 Grand Avenue (APNs 012-315-130, 012-315-140, and 012-315-150) in conformance with the South San Francisco adopted General Plan in accordance with provisions of State Planning Law (Govt. Code Section 65402) 5a. PUBLIC HEARING Report regarding CEQA determination and entitlements for Design Review and a Transportation Demand Management Plan for a new seven-story office / R&D building with detached parking garage at 439 Eccles Avenue. (Stephanie Skangos, Senior Planner) 6. Attachment 1 - 439 Eccles Avenue Project Description & Data Attachment 2 - Design Review Board (DRB) Comment Letter, dated September 19, 2023 Attachment 3 - Applicant Response to DRB Comments and Recommendations, dated February 1, 2024 Attachments: Page 4 City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/6/2024 4 February 15, 2024Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda Resolution making findings and a determination that the proposed office / R&D project at 439 Eccles Avenue (“Project”) is fully within the scope of environmental analysis in the previously certified 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report, and the Environmental Checklist prepared for the Project demonstrates that the proposed Project qualifies for streamlined environmental review as there are no project-specific effects which are peculiar to the Project pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15183. 6a. Exhibit A - 2040 GPU EIR and Addendices Exhibit B - 439 Eccles Avenue Environmental Checklist Ex. B Attachment 1 - Standard Conditions and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ex. B Attachment 2 - Air Quality Calculations Ex. B Attachment 3 - Cultural Records Search, Native American Heritage Commission Response Ex. B Attachment 4 - Energy Calculations Ex. B Attachment 5 - Transportation Analysis Attachments: Resolution making findings and approving Design Review and a Transportation Demand Management Plan for the construction of a new seven-story office / R&D building within the Business Technology Park - High (BTP-H) Zoning District at 439 Eccles Avenue. 6b. Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval Exhibit B - 439 Eccles Avenue Project Plans, dated January 5, 2024 Exhibit C - Proposed TDM Plan, dated January 2024 Exhibit D - Tree Inventory and Assessment Report, dated August 16, 2023 Attachments: ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Annual Reorganization of the Chair and Vice Chair of the South San Francisco Planning Commission (Adena Friedman, Chief Planner) 7. The Commission has adopted a policy that applicants and their representatives have a maximum time limit of 20 minutes to make a presentation on their project. Non-applicants may speak a maximum of 3 minutes on any agenda item. Questions from Commissioners to applicants or non-applicants may be answered by using additional time. ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT Page 5 City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/6/2024 5 February 15, 2024Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda **Any interested party will have 15 calendar days from the date of an action or decision taken by the Planning Commission to appeal that action or decision to the City Council by filing a written appeal with the City Clerk as provided under Chapter 20.570 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. In the event an appeal period ends on a Saturday, Sunday, or any other day the City is closed, the appeal period shall end at the close of business on the next consecutive business day. The cost to appeal for applicants, residents, and all others is as set forth in the City’s Master Fee Schedule. Page 6 City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/6/2024 6 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:24-01 Agenda Date:2/15/2024 Version:1 Item #:1. Consideration of draft minutes from the December 21, 2023 Planning Commission meeting City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/6/2024Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™7 December 21, 2023 Minutes Page 1 of 3 MINUTES DECEMBER 21, 2023 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TIME: 7:00 PM AGENDA REVIEW No changes. ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM STAFF Cancelling January 4, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. CONSENT CALENDAR – Voting Key: (yes, no abstain) 1. Consideration of draft minutes from the November 2, 2023 Planning Commission Motion to approve: Commissioner Shihadeh, Second – Vice-Chair Faria, approved by roll call (5-0-0) Meeting Video: Planning Commission on 2023-12-21 7:00 PM (granicus.com) PUBLIC HEARING 2. Report regarding consideration of an application for a Use Permit to allow an indoor padel (racquet sport) facility at 550 Eccles Avenue in the Business Technology Park-High (BTP-H) Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC) and determination that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Class 1, Section 15301. (Victoria Kim, Associate Planner) ROLL CALL / CHAIR COMMENTS PRESENT: Chair Tzang, Vice Chair Faria Commissioners: Baker, Funes-Ozturk, Shihadeh ABSENT: Evans, Pamukcu STAFF PRESENT: Adena Friedman – Chief Planner – Christy Usher – Senior Planner – Victoria Kim – Associate Planner - Kelsey Evans - Clerk 8 December 21, 2023 Minutes Page 2 of 3 Public Hearing opened 7:06pm Public Hearing closed 7:17pm Motion to approve: Commissioner Shihadeh, Second – Vice-Chair Faria, approved by roll call (5-0-0) Meeting Video: Planning Commission on 2023-12-21 7:00 PM (granicus.com) 3. Report regarding consideration and recommendation of approval to City Council of a Zoning Text Amendment, a Development Agreement, Design Review and Sign Permit to allow for the installation of a 65-foot tall, double-faced, digital billboard on property located adjacent to 140 Beacon Avenue in a PG&E easement along HWY 101 & 280 in the Business Technology Park-High (BTP-H) Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and environmental analysis and determination under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of project consistency with a prior Mitigated Negative Declaration under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15164. (Christy Usher, Senior Planner) Public Hearing opened 7:20pm Public Hearing closed 7:40pm 3a. Resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council make a determination that the Outfront Media Digital Billboard Project at 140 Beacon Avenue is fully within the scope of environmental analysis as described in the 2015 Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and that the 2023 Addendum to the IS/MND is the appropriate environmental document for the project. Motion to approve: Vice-Chair Faria, Second – Commissioner Shihadeh, approved by roll call (5-0-0) Meeting Video: Planning Commission on 2023-12-21 7:00 PM (granicus.com) 3b. Resolution making findings and recommending the City Council approve a Development Agreement, Design Review and Sign Permit to allow for the installation of a 65-foot tall, double-faced, digital billboard on property located adjacent to 140 Beacon Avenue. Motion to approve: Vice-Chair Faria, Second – Commissioner Baker, approved by roll call (5-0-0) Meeting Video: Planning Commission on 2023-12-21 7:00 PM (granicus.com) 3c. Resolution making findings and recommending that City Council adopt a South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance amendment to amend Section 20.360.004 to allow four digital billboards along the US 101 corridor. Motion to approve: Vice-Chair Faria, Second – Commissioner Shihadeh, approved by roll call (5-0-0) 9 December 21, 2023 Minutes Page 3 of 3 Meeting Video: Planning Commission on 2023-12-21 7:00 PM (granicus.com) ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION None. ADJOURNMENT Chair Tzang adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:49PM. Adena Friedman, Chief Planner Alex Tzang, Chairperson or Norm Faria, Vice Chairperson Secretary to the Planning Commission Planning Commission City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco AF/af 10 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:24-100 Agenda Date:2/15/2024 Version:1 Item #:2. Report regarding determination under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)and consideration of Master Sign Program and Design Review for Phase 1 of Southline Campus at 50 Tanforan Avenue in the Southline Campus (S-C)Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC).(Victoria Kim, Associate Planner) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following action: 1.Determine that the proposed Master Sign Program is categorically exempt from CEQA per Section 15311(a),Class 11,On-premise Signs.And approve the entitlements request for Project (P23-0127) including Master Sign Program (SIGNS23-0032)and Design Review (DR23-0028)for Southline Campus located at 50 Tanforan Avenue. MOTION TO ADOPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION Move to determine the project is exempt from CEQA and approve the Master Sign Program subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION On July 13,2022,the City Council approved a Specific Plan,General Plan Amendment,Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendments,Design Review,Transportation Demand Management Plan,Vesting Tentative Map, and Environmental Impact Report for the Southline Campus to redevelop a 28.5-acre industrial site with up to 2.8 million square feet of transit-oriented office / R&D and amenity uses. The applicant is proposing a Master Sign Program for the southern portion (Phase 1)of Southline Campus that will form an integrated appearance.The Master Sign Program includes the following sign types:Monument, Wall Mounted,Shingle,Projecting,Awning and Canopy,and Skyline Signs (all detailed in Attachment 3, Master Sign Program Plan Set).Phase 1 of the Southline Campus is currently under construction,with a new commercial building, amenity building, and parking structure all underway. Monument Signage: The monuments signs would consist of Property and Building ID,Wayfinding,Parking Stall ID and Interpretative Landmark signs. ·Property and Building ID Signs -The Master Sign Program includes property (Sign Type S1,S2,and S3)and building monument signs (Sign Type S4)which will identify primary entries for vehicle drivers and walking visitors in southern portion of the Southline Campus.The primary and tertiary property signs are located at the intersections of Southline Avenue and Huntington Avenue,and the secondaryCity of South San Francisco Printed on 2/5/2024Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™11 File #:24-100 Agenda Date:2/15/2024 Version:1 Item #:2. signs are located at the intersections of Southline Avenue and Huntington Avenue,and the secondary property sign is at the junction of Southline Avenue and Dollar Avenue.Three building signs are distributed along Southline Avenue with tenant lists to direct pedestrian visitors. ·Wayfinding Signs -The vehicular directional signs (Sign Type V1 and V2)are located along the vehicular connector from Southline Avenue to Dollar Avenue.Pedestrian directory signs (Sign Type P1 and P2)are located near the amenities building at the crossroads of Southline Avenue and Huntington Avenue and these signs would be non-illuminated. ·Parking Stall ID Signs -Rules and Regulations signs (Sign Type R2)would be located at parking stalls and the signs would be non-illuminated. ·Interpretative Landmark Signs -Two landmark signs (Sign Type L1)are made of aluminum sheet,and they will be located in landscape areas near the amenities building. Wall Mounted Signage: Building address signs (Sign Type B3)are proposed for all buildings on the campus and four parking ID signs (Sign Type B4)will be mounted at the parking entrances (Building D).Restaurant ID (Sign Type A1)are proposed on the amenity building wall for restaurant entries and amenity ID wall mounted signs (Sign Type A3) will be on the building pilaster next to the primary entry or on the amenity building wall. Shingle Signage: Shingle signs (Sign Type A2)for individual tenants may vary on three layouts,but will not vary in total mass and sign area for full identification and navigating effectiveness.The total area of each shingle sign will be approximately 25 square feet with internal illumination. Projecting Signage: Two ID signs (Sign Type A4)from building pilasters are located near the amenity building entry.Placement, orientation,and dimensions may vary,depending on each location and architectural conditions.The total area of each proposed sign will be approximately eight square feet. Awning and Canopy Signage: Tenant entry signs (Sign Type B2)are proposed atop the building entries and centered at the leading canopy edge.Three awning and canopy signs will be fabricated aluminum channel logos and letters with internal illumination, with a maximum of 50 square feet in each sign area (two and a half feet tall, and 20 feet long). Skyline Signage: Individual tenant ID signs may vary on tenants’logos and font styles,but with no more than 220 square feet in size.Layout will be designed for maximum recognition and visibility.The Tenant ID signs (Sign Type B1)are proposed to indicate major tenants for identification from a prominent viewing distance and/or campus-wide view. The proposed skyline tenant signs will be fabricated aluminum reverse pan channel letters. City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/5/2024Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™12 File #:24-100 Agenda Date:2/15/2024 Version:1 Item #:2. ZONING CONSISTENCY South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC)Section 20.360.010 (Master Sign Program)describes that the purpose of a Master Sign Program is to provide a method for an applicant to integrate the design and placement of signs within a project with the overall development design to achieve a more unified appearance. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The Design Review Board (DRB)considered the Master Sign Program on January 16,2024.The DRB recommended the application for approval and recommended approval with minor comments (Ref.Attachment 4). GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE The project property is located within the Southline Campus Specific Plan,and the General Plan designation is Business and Professional Office.The Master Sign Program supports the intent of the Specific Plan and General Plan,as it helps to create an integrated signage plan for a new commercial campus,which is redeveloping underutilized warehouse and industrial buildings. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW It is staff’s evaluation that the proposed project is categorically exempt from environmental review under the provision of CEQA,Section 15311(a),On-premise Signs,as the Master Sign Program seeks to install on- premise signage as described above. CONCLUSION The Master Sign Program would create integrated signs for Phase 1 of the Southline Campus,to help support overall campus design and character.Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Master Sign Program, based on the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval. Attachments: 1.Draft Findings 2.Draft Conditions of Approval 3.Master Sign Program Plan Set 4.Design Review Board Comment Letter City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/5/2024Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™13 FINDINGS OF APPROVAL P23-0127: DR23-0028: SIGNS23-0032 50 TANFORAN AVE (As recommended by City Planning Staff on February 15, 2024) As required by the Master Sign Permit Application Procedures (SSFMC Section 20.360.003) and the Design Review Procedures (SSFMC Section 20.480), the following findings are made in support of Master Sign Program 50 Tanforan Ave in the Southline Campus (S-C) Zoning Districts in accordance with SSFMC Sections 20.290, 20.360, 20.460 and 20.480, based on public materials submitted to the City of South San Francisco Planning Division which include, but are not limited to: Application materials prepared by the applicant, dated submitted January 8, 2024; Planning Commission staff report dated February 15, 2024; and Conditions of Approval. Master Sign Program 1. The proposed signs are compatible in style and character with any building to which the signs are to be attached, any surrounding structures and any adjoining signage on the site. Supportive Evidence: Proposed signs are compatible in style and character with the buildings to which the signs are to be attached, any surrounding structures and any adjoining signage on the site because the proposed signs were designed to be in keeping with the architectural design of the buildings, using similar materials and colors. 2. Future tenants will be provided with adequate opportunities to construct, erect or maintain a sign for identification. Supportive Evidence: The Master Sign Program contains standards for all monument, wall mounted, shingle, projecting, awning and canopy, and skyline signs for the site. Any future tenants will be provided with adequate opportunities to construct, erect, or maintain a sign for identification. 3. Traffic signage and building addressing is adequate for pedestrian and vehicular circulation and emergency vehicle access. Supportive Evidence: The Master Sign Program includes the installation of address, wayfinding, and tenant ID signs for the entire site that will improve both pedestrian and vehicular circulation and emergency vehicle access. Design Review Findings 1. The applicable standards and requirements of this Ordinance. Supportive Evidence: The Master Sign Program (SSFMC Section 20.360) complies with the applicable standards and requirements of this Ordinance because as submitted and modified through the Design Review Process, 14 Findings of Approval this sign program meets or complies with the applicable standards included in Chapter 20.290 (Southline Campus Specific Plan District). 2. The General Plan and any applicable specific plans the City Council has adopted. Supportive Evidence: The Master Sign Program complies with the General Plan and Lindenville sub-area Plan. The proposed sign program is consistent with the policies and design direction provided in the South San Francisco General Plan for the Southline Specific Plan and Lindenville sub-area Plan by encouraging the creative economy and promoting job opportunities. 3. Any applicable design guidelines adopted by the City Council. Supportive Evidence: The Master Sign Program complies with any applicable design guidelines adopted by the City Council in that the proposed sign program is consistent with the Design Principles in Section 20.360.003. 4. The applicable design review criteria in Section 20.480.006 (“Design Review Criteria”). Supportive Evidence: The Master Sign Program complies with the applicable design review criteria in Section 20.480.006 (“Design Review Criteria”) because the project has been evaluated against, and found to be consistent with, the eight design review criteria included in the “Design Review Criteria” section of the Ordinance. 15 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL P23-0127: DR23-0028: SIGNS23-0032 50 TANFORAN AVE (As recommended by City Planning Staff on February 15, 2024) A. Planning Division requirements shall be as follows: 1. The applicant shall incorporate the recommendations of the Design Review Board and modify the Master Sign Program, as needed, per the direction and comments at their meeting of January 16, 2024. 2. The applicant is responsible for providing site signage during construction, which contains contact information for questions regarding the construction. 3. The construction drawings shall substantially comply with the Planning Commission approved plans, prepared by Corporate, dated January 8, 2024, as amended by the conditions of approval. 4. The total sign area for all signs included in the Master Sign Program shall not exceed the square footage as indicated in the Planning Commission approved plans. Sign area shall be calculated by blocking or boxing around the outside edge of the proposed signage, including the logo. 5. This permit shall not be construed to authorize any existing unpermitted signs on or within the property. Any such unpermitted signage, including but not limited to wall signage, monument signs and directional signs shall be removed before new signs authorized by this master sign permit are installed. 6. Any modification to the approved use, plans or conditions of approval shall be subject to SSFMC Section 20.450.012 (“Modification”), whereby the Chief Planner may approve minor changes. (Planning Division contact person: Victoria Kim, Associate Planner (650) 877-8535) 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 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:24-135 Agenda Date:2/15/2024 Version:1 Item #:3. Master Sign Program and Design Review for a previously approved 195-unit multi-family residential development located at 401 Cypress Avenue in the Downtown Transit Core (DTC)Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and determination that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA.(Christy Usher, Senior Planner) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission determine that the Master Sign Program (SIGNS23-0027)for “Celeste”,a previously approved multi-family residential development that is under construction and nearly complete,located at 401 Cypress Avenue is categorically exempt from CEQA per Section 15311,Class 11 and approve the project based on the proposed findings and subject to the proposed conditions of approval. MOTION TO ADOPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION (1)Move to determine the project is exempt from CEQA and approve the Master Sign Program subject to the attached findings and conditions of approval. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission and City Council previously approved the entitlements for a new 195-unit multi- family residential development located at 401 Cypress Avenue at the corner of Miller Avenue and Cypress Avenue (formerly called Cadence Phase 2,now renamed “Celeste”).The building is currently under construction and in the final phases with anticipated delivery of units to tenants within the next few months. Conditions of Approval for the project required that any future signage for these projects was subject to separate review and approval. DISCUSSION/ZONING CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC)Section 20.360.010 (Master Sign Program)states that the purpose of a Master Sign Program is to provide a method for an applicant to integrate the design and placement of signs within a project with the overall development design to achieve a more unified appearance. The proposed Master Sign Program is consistent with the high-quality materials,design,and character of the building.The proposed signage will be well-integrated into the project components and will provide clear wayfinding to and within the site for multiple modes of transportation.The proposed signage in the Master Sign Program will be of an appropriate scale and location,and will be consistent with the character and quality of the building. The Master Sign Program Project Plans are included as Attachment 2 to this staff report,and the proposed City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/6/2024Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™72 File #:24-135 Agenda Date:2/15/2024 Version:1 Item #:3. The Master Sign Program Project Plans are included as Attachment 2 to this staff report,and the proposed signage includes: In summary, the proposed signage includes: Wall Signage The applicant is proposing one vertical building-mounted sign to be located on the Miller Avenue frontage (south elevation).The proposed vertical sign includes illuminated channel lettering.Dimensions of the building wall sign are approximately 2’7”by 38’7”,or approximately 100 square feet in area.The channel letters will be illuminated from sunset or dusk to 9pm,7 days of the week and 365 days of the year.When not lit,the channel lettering appears black but when lit the letters appear white.The illuminated channel letters will also include dimmers. Awning Signage The applicant is proposing awning signage to be located on an overhang or canopy at the main entrance to the apartment building which is located at the corner of Miller and Cypress Avenues.Two awning signs are proposed:one sign faces Miller Avenue and one sign faces Cypress Avenue,and both will be up-lit.The dimensions of each of the awning signs are approximately 1.5 feet tall by five feet wide,approximately 7.5 square feet in area. Temporary Leasing Banner Signage Two temporary banners are proposed for grand opening purposes.These are permitted for six months.One banner is proposed on the north façade,oriented toward Highway 101.It is approximately 17 feet tall by five feet wide,approximately 85 square feet in area.A second temporary banner is proposed along the east (Cypress Avenue)frontage.The second temporary banner is approximately 25 feet tall by three feet wide,or approximately 75 square feet in area. Various directional, identification and regulatory signage is also proposed such as: ·Vehicle Directional Signage to direct visitors to major campus destinations and visitor parking. ·Address Signage to display the project’s address. ·Leasing Center Signage to direct visitors to the leasing. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The Design Review Board (DRB)considered the Master Sign Program on November 21,2023 and January 16, 2024.The DRB recommended the application for approval by the Planning Commission at the January DRB meeting after the applicant addressed their questions and concerns regarding the proposed signage from the previous DRB meeting(s). GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE The Project site is part of the Downtown Sub-Area as defined by the City of South San Francisco’s General Plan. The site’s General Plan designation is Downtown Transit Core. The Project is consistent with the guiding and implementing policies in the General Plan as it has been designedCity of South San Francisco Printed on 2/6/2024Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™73 File #:24-135 Agenda Date:2/15/2024 Version:1 Item #:3. The Project is consistent with the guiding and implementing policies in the General Plan as it has been designed to promote high density multi-family uses.The signage material,color,style,and placement will be functional, informational and compatible with the urban character of the Downtown sub-area.Implementation of the sign program would provide appropriate building identification for the development and as designed,would execute the vision of the General Plan for downtown redevelopment. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project proposes signage for an existing approved and CEQA cleared project.A categorical exemption for onsite signage per CEQA Section 15311, Class 11 applies to this Master Sign Program. CONCLUSION The applicant has worked closely with staff and the DRB to create a thoughtful,balanced and high-quality Master Sign Program for the Celeste residential project at 401 Cypress Avenue that is in scale with the building, compatible with the urban setting and functional for the tenants and their visitors.Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Master Sign Program application,per the draft Findings and Conditions of Approval. Attachments 1.Design Review Board Comment Letter(s) dated January 16, 2024 and November 21, 2023 2.Project Plans, dated February 1, 2024 3.Draft Findings and Conditions of Approval City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/6/2024Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™74 CELESTE 401 Cypress Ave, South San Francisco Master Sign Program Application February 1st, 2024 75 Sign Locations Leasing Sign 76 7 1 3 South Facade 4 Celeste Awning Sign Leasing Navigation Signage Parking Blade Sign Pedestrian Oriented Sign Macro-Wayfinding Sign 4 3 7 Downtown-Oriented Wall Sign1 Lease-Up Signage Temporary Lease-Up Sign Leasing Navigation Signage5 9 Celeste Awning and Address Number6 8 Celeste Banner North Façade Temporary Banner Sign2 Identity Sign 77 South Facade *Please note that the red boxes do not represent the size of the sign but rather indicate the location on the wall where the sign is to be placed. 78 Downtown-Oriented Wall Sign1 South facade Dimmers will be added to each letter. Letters will be illuminated between dusk-9pm.79 1 Wall Sign Purpose: This sign is intended for macro-level wayfinding that is visible both during the day and at night, this sign will reinforce a sense of place at the intersection of Miller and Cypress and help differentiate Celeste from the neighboring properties. This sign will assist individuals traveling on foot from downtown and by car to locate the Celeste property. Description: This illuminated vertical sign is prominently situated on the Miller façade. During the daytime, the letters will appear black against the light grey siding material. At night, the letters will be illuminated, and displayed as a white light. This sign is designed so that the illuminated letters do not emit light pollution, so that there is no impact to units adjacent to the lit letters. Dimension: 2’7 x 38’ 6 3/8” Total Area: 99.46 square feet Color: Black during daytime, illuminated white letters at night Illumination: Letters will be illuminated from dusk-9pm Material: Metal with white plex face with black perforated vinyl. Watts: Either 60 or 100W, dimmers will be added to ensure intended glow is achieved Downtown-Oriented Wall Sign 80 South Façade | Awning Sign Celeste Awning Sign3 South facade 81 South Façade | Awning Sign Celeste Awning Sign3 Celeste Awning Sign Purpose: This sign is intended to direct individuals to the main entrance, elevating its prominence and ambiance, and instilling a sense of arrival for residents. Description: This sign will be located over the main lobby entry and will be up lit by an LED bar. The font used for this sign is unique to the Celeste brand and used throughout the signage program. Dimension: 4’ 10 1/8” x 1’7” Total Area: 7.65 square feet Color: Black, to match surrounding awning Material: Aluminum Illumination: LED bar light, positioned horizontally below light Watts: 180W 82 Leasing Navigation Signage4 South facade 83 Leasing Navigation Signage4 Leasing Wayfinding Sign Purpose: This plaque sign is located outside the secondary lobby entry on Miller, the intent of this sign is to help potential residents navigate to the leasing office located on Cypress. Description: This plaque reflects Celeste colors and fonts and includes a simple diagram to help people navigate to the leasing office. Dimension: 2’6” x 2’6” Total Area: 6.25 square feet Color: Cream background with plum text. These colors are pulled from our branding guide. Material: Aluminum with acrylic letters Illumination: No illumination 84 Parking Blade Sign7 South facade 85 Parking Blade Sign7 Parking Sign Purpose: This sign serves the purpose of directing individuals arriving by car to the entrance of the parking garage, facilitating smooth vehicular circulation throughout the site, and effectively directing both current residents and prospective residents to the parking garage entrance. Description: This parking blade sign is branded with the project name and includes a parking symbol. The sign will be illuminated with a down light. Dimension: 1’6” x 8’ x 5 ½” Total Area: 12 square feet Color: Grey and white Illumination: Downlight located above the parking sign Material: Aluminum with acrylic letters Watts: 21 W Light Position: 12” above the sign 86 6 East Façade 6 9 5 Celeste Awning Sign Leasing Navigation Signage Parking Blade Sign Pedestrian Oriented Sign Macro-Wayfinding Sign 4 3 7 Downtown-Oriented Wall Sign1 Lease-Up Signage Temporary Lease-Up Sign Leasing Navigation Signage5 9 Celeste Awning and Address Number6 8 Celeste Banner North Façade Temporary Banner Sign2 Identity Sign 87 East Facade *Please note that the red boxes do not represent the size of the sign but rather indicate the location on the wall where the sign is to be placed. 88 5 Celeste Awning and Address Sign East facade 89 Leasing Wayfinding and Address Sign5 Leasing Wayfinding Sign Purpose: This plaque sign is positioned outside the secondary lobby entry on Miller, with the primary intent of assisting potential residents find their way to the leasing office located on Cypress. Description: This plaque is designed to reflect Celeste colors and fonts and includes a simple diagram to help people navigate to the leasing office. Dimension: 2’6” x 2’6” Total Area: 6.25 square feet Color: Cream background with plum text. These colors are pulled from our branding guide. Material: Aluminum with acrylic letters Illumination: No illumination 90 Celeste Awning and Address Sign6 East facade 91 6 Awning Sign Purpose: This sign is intended to direct individuals to the main entrance, elevating its prominence and ambiance, and instilling a sense of arrival for residents. Description: This sign will be located over the main lobby entry and will be up lit by an LED bar. The font used for this sign is unique to the Celeste brand and is used throughout the signage program. Dimension: 4’ 10 1/8” x 1’7” Total Area: 7.65 square feet Color: Black, to match surrounding awning Material: Aluminum Illumination: LED bar light, positioned horizontally below light Watts: 60 or 120 W Celeste Awning and Address Sign Address Sign Purpose: The primary purpose of this sign is to display the project's address. It not only complies with the building and fire department requirements for an entry sign but also conveys a sense of elevated quality compared to alternative signage options. Description: The address number will be affixed to the awning and fabricated in a metal that matches the awning. The numbers will be in the in the “Celeste” font and illuminated by a LED light positioned below address numbers. Dimension: 1’3 ¾‘’ x 2’ 2 2/3” Total Area: 2.71 square feet Color: Black to match awning Material: Aluminum Illumination: 60 or 120 W 92 Temporary Lease Up Banner9 East facade 3’-0” 93 Temporary Banner Purpose: The temporary lease-up banner on the apartment building serves the purpose of attracting prospective residents, promoting current leasing opportunities, and creating a sense of urgency and excitement around securing a new apartment. Description: This sign will be located along the East façade, the background will be a green, pulled directly from our branding guide. Dimension: 5’ x 41’ 10 5/8” Total Area: 209.17 square feet Illumination: Downlight located above sign Material: Vinyl Light Position: Downlight located 18” above the sign, up light located 24” below the sign Watts: 120 W Temporary Lease Up Banner9 94 North Façade Celeste Awning Sign Leasing Navigation Signage Parking Blade Sign Pedestrian Oriented Sign Macro-Wayfinding Sign 4 3 7 Downtown-Oriented Wall Sign1 Lease-Up Signage Temporary Lease-Up Sign Leasing Navigation Signage5 9 Celeste Awning and Address Number6 8 Celeste Banner North Façade Temporary Banner Sign2 Identity Sign 2 95 North Façade *Please note that the red boxes do not represent the size of the sign but rather indicate the location on the wall where the sign is to be placed. 96 2 North Façade Temporary Banner 97 2 101-Oriented Monument Sign Purpose: The temporary lease-up banner on the apartment building serves the purpose of attracting prospective residents, promoting current leasing opportunities, and creating a sense of urgency and excitement around securing a new apartment. Description: This sign will temporarily display the property name on the north façade. Material: Vinyl Dimension: 16’ 9” x 4’7” Total Area: 76.77 square feet Mounting Detail: The mounting details will be the same as those used for the temporary banner along Cypress Ave North Façade Temporary Banner 98 Site Context 99 Building Layout – Floor 1 100 Building Layout – Floor 2 101 Building Layout – Floors 4-8 102 DRAFT FINDINGS OF APPROVAL P23-0108: DR23-0026, SIGNS23-0027 MASTER SIGN PROGRAM FOR CELESTE APARTMENTS 401 CYPRESS AVENUE (As recommended by City Staff on February 15, 2024) As required by the Master Sign Permit Application Procedures (SSFMC Section 20.360.010) and the Design Review Procedures (SSFMC Section 20.480), the following findings are made in support of a Master Sign Program at 401 Cypress Avenue in the Downtown Transit Core (DTC) Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC), based on public testimony and materials submitted to the South San Francisco Planning Commission which include, but are not limited to: project plans prepared by Bayside dated February 1st, 2024; and Planning Commission hearing of February 15, 2024. Master Sign Program 1. The proposed signs are compatible in style and character with the buildings to which the signs are to be attached, any surrounding structures and any adjoining signage on the site because the proposed signs were designed to be in keeping with the architectural design of the buildings, using similar materials and colors; 2. The Master Sign Program contains standards for all wayfinding and identification signage for the site. Any future tenants will be provided with adequate opportunities to construct, erect or maintain a sign for identification; and 3. The Master Sign Program includes the installation of wayfinding and identification signage that will improve both pedestrian and vehicular circulation and emergency vehicle access. Design Review 1. The Master Sign Program complies with the applicable standards and requirements of this Ordinance because as submitted and modified through the Design Review Process, this sign program meets or complies with the applicable standards included in Chapter 20.090 (Downtown Caltrain Station Area Zoning Districts); 2. The Master Sign Program complies with the General Plan the City Council has adopted because the proposed sign program is consistent with the policies and design direction provided in the South San Francisco General Plan for the Business Commercial land use designation; 103 3. The Master Sign Program complies with any applicable design guidelines adopted by the City Council in that the proposed sign program is consistent with the Design Principles in Section 20.360; and 4. The Master Sign Program complies with the applicable design review criteria in Section 20.480.006 (“Design Review Criteria”) because the project has been evaluated against, and found to be consistent with, each of the eight design review criteria included in the “Design Review Criteria” section of the Ordinance. DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL P23-0108: DR23-0026, SIGNS23-0027 MASTER SIGN PROGRAM FOR CELESTE APARTMENTS 401 CYPRESS AVENUE (As recommended by City Staff on February 15, 2024) A) Planning Division requirements shall be as follows: 1. The applicant shall comply with the City's Standard Conditions of Approval for Commercial, Industrial, Mixed-Use and Multi-Family Residential Projects and with all the requirements of all affected City Divisions and Departments as contained in the attached conditions, except as otherwise amended by the following conditions of approval. 2. The construction drawings shall substantially comply with the approved plans prepared by Bayside, dated February 1, 2024, as approved by the Planning Commission in association with SIGNS23-0027, and as amended by the conditions of approval. The final plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the Chief Planner. 3. The total sign area for all signs included in the Master Sign Program shall not exceed the square footage as indicated in the Planning Commission approved plans. Sign area shall be calculated by blocking or boxing around the outside edge of the proposed signage, including the logo. 4. Any modification to the approved use, plans or conditions of approval shall be subject to SSFMC Section 20.450.012 (“Modification”), whereby the Chief Planner may approve minor changes. 5. Temporary Banner(s) shall be removed 6 months from installation. 6. The building wall signage shall include dimmers to allow for adjustments in brightness as determined by the Chief of Planning. 104 7. The applicant shall provide a light level test and/or demonstration to the Chief Planner for sign off prior to operation. (Planning Division contact: Christy Usher, 650-877-8535) B) Fire Department requirements shall be as follows: 1. Provide documentation that the wall mounted banners are made of flame retardant material or have been treated with approved flame retardant product. Fire Department Contact: Ian Hardage at (650) 829-6645 C) Engineering Division requirements shall be as follows: The conditions for approval are general conditions that apply to your proposed project and are based on the set of plans dated February 1, 2024, for above permit number; including supplemental documents. Any and all improvements stated below are at no cost to the City. All applicable City of South San Francisco engineering permits, including associated fees and deposits, are to be paid by the Applicant. For standard development conditions, go to: http://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=2362 The Engineering Division reserves the right to include additional conditions during review of the building permit application. 1. All building projections above and/or within public right-of-way is prohibited. Any exception granted by the City Engineer is on a case by case basis and will require an encroachment agreement with bonding and insurance agreement. 2. An Encroachment Permit is required for any work to be done within the public right- of-way. The Developer shall pay all permit and inspection fees, as well as any deposits and/or bonds required to obtain said permits. The encroachment permit pertains to the propose work spanning the existing drainage channel, which is a dedicated easement to the City. Engineering Division Contact: Anthony Schaffer at (650) 829-6667 105 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:24-57 Agenda Date:2/15/2024 Version:1 Item #:4. Report regarding a resolution making findings and determining that the acquisition of several properties (APNs 091-022-010,091-022-020,091-022-030,091-025-010,091-034-080,and 015-031-090)as part of a Chapter 8 Tax Sale is in conformance with the South San Francisco adopted General Plan in accordance with provisions of State Planning Law (Govt. Code Section 65402)(Adena Friedman, Chief Planner). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution making findings determining that the acquisition of several properties (APNs 091-022-010,091-022-020,091-022-030,091-025-010,091-034- 080,and 015-031-090)as part of a Chapter 8 Tax Sale is in conformance with the South San Francisco adopted General Plan in accordance with provisions of State Planning Law (Govt. Code Section 65402) MOTION FOR THE COMMISSION TO ADOPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1.Move to adopt a resolution making findings that the acquisition of several properties is in conformance with the South San Francisco adopted General Plan. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION With some exceptions,such as for publicly owned lands,all properties are required to pay property taxes.In San Mateo County,these taxes are collected by the San Mateo County Tax Collector’s Office.Some property owners become delinquent in paying their property taxes and other special assessments and liens that appear on the property tax bill.In these cases,the Tax Collector’s Office follows lengthy procedures to collect such debts, but eventually may sell these properties at tax auctions if the debts remain unpaid. Typically,properties are sold at what is known as a Chapter 7 public auction,which notices tax defaulted properties to the public and allows anyone to participate in the auction to purchase a property.Once a list of tax defaulted properties is established for a Chapter 7 public auction,the County provides notice of this list to local jurisdictions.Local jurisdictions can object to the public sale of certain properties and request that those properties be held over for a Chapter 8 tax sale.At a Chapter 8 sale,public agencies may purchase tax defaulted properties for public purposes. In May 2023 the City received notice that the San Mateo County Tax Collector’s office would be conducting a Chapter 7 public auction for tax defaulted properties.Staff discussed the possible acquisition of some of these tax defaulted properties with Council in closed session on July 12,2023 and October 25,2023 and received direction to submit a letter to the County objecting to the inclusion of certain properties in the public auction, instead requesting these properties be subject to a Chapter 8 sale.On January 10,2024,City Council authorized staff to purchase these properties at the Chapter 8 sale,which is anticipated to be held in early 2024.Following City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/6/2024Page 1 of 4 powered by Legistar™106 File #:24-57 Agenda Date:2/15/2024 Version:1 Item #:4. is a brief description of the parcels. Remnant Frontage Parcels on Westborough Boulevard APNs 091022010, 091022020, 091022030, 091025010, 091034080 These remnant frontage parcels are 10-foot-wide strips along the southern edge of Westborough Boulevard, between Oakmont Drive and Olympic Drive (see Attachment 1 for a map of these parcels and images of recent conditions).These parcels contain numerous trees and unkept ground level vegetation spanning the area between the street and the rear yards of the homes backing up to Westborough Boulevard.The property owners have not maintained these properties for many years and,as a result,many of the trees now warrant significant trimming and/or removal.In recent years,Code Enforcement staff has cited one of the property owners,based out of Florida,to resolve hazardous tree issues and tall weeds,however,the property owner has been unresponsive.Several years ago,the City mitigated some hazardous trees and placed a lien against one of the properties to recoup these expenses. While the acquisition of these parcels provides short-term stability to these properties -ensuring they are maintained in good order and relieving the City of the time and cost associated with protracted Code Enforcement actions -it also provides longer-term opportunities for adding right-of-way,creating pathways, and adding more attractive landscaping.The need for these improvements and budget to support them have not yet been identified,but owning the properties allows for flexibility should the City wish to make these changes in the future. Portion of Sylvester Road APN 015031090 This property is a 17,162 square foot section of Sylvester Road north of Associated Road (see Attachment 2 for a map of this parcel and images of recent conditions).It is vacant right-of-way that is currently privately owned and surrounded by other privately-owned rights-of-way in the middle of a fully entitled life sciences redevelopment project at 120 E. Grand Avenue led by the Trammell Crow Company. The 120 E.Grand project,approved by the Planning Commission in May 2023,consists of two new office / R&D buildings,an amenity building,and a parking garage.The project requires access via Sylvester Road, either via acquisition of the roadway parcel or via easement,as well as a dedication to the City of a Public Utility Easement.This was included as part of the project’s Conditions of Approval (Engineering Mapping and Agreements Condition #15). Trammell Crow had intended to acquire the parcel at the public Chapter 7 tax auction,but the County Tax Collector’s Office withheld the property for sale at the Chapter 8 auction because it is a right-of-way parcel. Given complications with the public sale of rights-of-way in San Francisco over the past several years (most notably Presidio Terrace where both former Speaker Pelosi and the late Senator Feinstein lived),the County has instituted the practice of withholding right-of-way parcels for Chapter 8 auctions for public agencies to acquire. The City likewise objected to the sale of the property at the Chapter 7 sale and will have the ability to purchase City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/6/2024Page 2 of 4 powered by Legistar™107 File #:24-57 Agenda Date:2/15/2024 Version:1 Item #:4. The City likewise objected to the sale of the property at the Chapter 7 sale and will have the ability to purchase it at the Chapter 8 sale. It is the City’s intention to acquire the property at the Chapter 8 sale and then sell it to Trammell Crow to recoup the City’s costs.The City intends to sell it to Trammell Crow with protections put in place to preserve it as right-of-way,rather than maintain public ownership of the land,given the private ownership of the surrounding street network.This will facilitate the efficient and orderly development of the life science development. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE In accordance with provisions of State Planning Law (Govt.Code Section 65402),prior to acquisition of real property by the City,the Planning Commission,as the planning agency for the City,is required to find such acquisition is in conformity with the adopted general plan. The General Plan contains policy direction relevant to the acquisition of the subject parcels, including: ·Land Use Goal 4: High-quality residential neighborhoods. ·Land Use Policy 1.2: Connectivity in complete neighborhoods. ·Sub-Area Policy 36.4: Expand parks and walking trails in Westborough. ·Sub-Area Policy 16.1: Implement public realm improvements near the Caltrain station. ·Mobility Policy 2.1:Incorporate complete streets improvements into all roadway and development projects. The proposed purchase of these properties will ensure that the City is able to maintain property in a safe and accessible condition,and also will help to create to support cohesive redevelopment of the East of 101 area, with a focus on multi-modal access near the Caltrain station, thus conforming to the City’s General Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed purchase of these properties is consistent with the General Plan and previously entitled projects and does not contemplate additional development,therefore,no CEQA action is required by the Planning Commission at this time. CONCLUSION It is recommended that the Planning Commission make findings that determines that the purchase of multiple properties at a Chapter 8 sale (APNs 091-022-010,091-022-020,091-022-030,091-025-010,091-034-080,and 015-031-090)is in conformance with the South San Francisco adopted General Plan in accordance with provisions of State Planning Law (Govt. Code Section 65402). Attachments: 1.Westborough Parcels Map 2.Sylvester Parcel Map City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/6/2024Page 3 of 4 powered by Legistar™108 File #:24-57 Agenda Date:2/15/2024 Version:1 Item #:4. Associated Resolution 1.General Plan Conformance Resolution (Legistar File #24-58) City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/6/2024Page 4 of 4 powered by Legistar™109 Atachment 1: Westborough Parcels Loca�on Map and Images 110 Attachment 2: Sylvester Parcel Location Map and Images 111 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:24-58 Agenda Date:2/15/2024 Version:1 Item #:4a. Resolution making findings and determining that the acquisition of several properties (APNs 091-022-010,091 -022-020,091-022-030,091-025-010,091-034-080,and 015-031-090)as part of a Chapter 8 Tax Sale is in conformance with the South San Francisco adopted General Plan in accordance with provisions of State Planning Law (Govt. Code Section 65402) WHEREAS,in May 2023 the City received notice that the San Mateo County Tax Collector’s office would be conducting a Chapter 7 public auction for tax defaulted properties; and WHEREAS,in closed session meetings of City Council at its regular meetings on July 12,2023,and October 25,2023,Council provided direction to staff to object to the Chapter 7 sale of certain defaulted tax properties in order to acquire them via a Chapter 8 sale; and WHEREAS,these properties include five remnant parcels along Westborough Boulevard between Oakmont Drive and Olympic Drive (APNs 091022010,091022020,091022030,091025010,091034080)and one remnant right of way parcel on Sylvester Road north of Associated Road (APN 015031090); and WHEREAS,the properties along Westborough Boulevard have been the subject of past Code Enforcement action,are not properly maintained,and pose a nuisance to the community;acquiring them will stabilize the properties and provide the City with flexibility in the future should it wish to expand the Westborough right-of- way, construct pathways, or enhance landscaping; and WHEREAS,the Sylvester Road parcel is a key uncontrolled piece of property at the center of a large development surrounded by privately owned streets;acquiring the parcel and transferring it to the Trammel Crow Company in exchange for reimbursement of all costs associated with the action will allow for its maintenance and preservation as publicly accessible right-of-way; and WHEREAS,the City provided an objection in writing to the San Mateo County Tax Collector’s Office,which acknowledged receipt and withheld these properties from the public Chapter 7 sale; and WHEREAS, the County has indicated that a Chapter 8 tax auction may happen in the first quarter of 2024; and WHEREAS,as the regular meeting of the City Council on January 10,2024,Council authorized staff to purchase these parcels at a Chapter 8 tax auction; and WHEREAS,prior to purchase of real property by the City,the Planning Commission as the planning agency for the City is required to find such disposition is in conformity with the adopted general plan in accordance with Government Code section 65402; and, City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/6/2024Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™112 File #:24-58 Agenda Date:2/15/2024 Version:1 Item #:4a. WHEREAS,the General Plan contains several goals,policies and actions which support the purchase of the remnant parcels, in the interest of ensuring safe, well-maintained, and connected neighborhoods; WHEREAS,there are no developments contemplated with the proposed purchase of these properties,and as described the proposed acquisitions are consistent with the General Plan and previously entitled projects,and thus do not have the potential to create any significant environmental impacts. A.General Findings 1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. 2.The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco,315 Maple Avenue,South San Francisco,CA 94080, and in the custody of the Chief Planner. 3.The proposed purchases of these properties are consistent with the General Plan and previously entitled projects and does not contemplate additional development,therefore,do not have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment.Thus,no environmental review or action under the California Environmental Quality Act is necessary at this time. 4.Purchase of the remnant parcels on Westborough and Sylvester is consistent with the General Plan including the goals and policies described in the accompanying staff report,as they promote safety,well -maintained landscaped areas,and multi-modal connections,and also will help to create to support cohesive redevelopment of the East of 101 area,with a focus on multi-modal access near the Caltrain station. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in accordance with California Government Code section 65402,the location,purpose and extent of the proposed purchase of several properties on Westborough (APNs 091022010,091022020,091022030,091025010,091034080)and one property on Sylvester (APN 015031090) is in conformance with the City’s adopted General Plan. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/6/2024Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™113 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:24-143 Agenda Date:2/15/2024 Version:1 Item #:5. Report regarding a resolution making findings and determining that the acquisition of real property located at 226-246 Grand Avenue is in conformance with the South San Francisco General Plan (Adena Friedman,Chief Planner). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution making findings determining that the acquisition of real property at 226-246 Grand Avenue (APNs 012-315-130,012-315-140,and 012-315- 150)is in conformance with the South San Francisco adopted General Plan in accordance with provisions of State Planning Law (Govt. Code Section 65402) MOTION FOR THE COMMISSION TO ADOPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1.Move to adopt a resolution making findings that the acquisition of the 226-246 Grand Avenue property is in conformance with the South San Francisco adopted General Plan. BACKGROUND The long-time owners of four consecutive buildings spanning three parcels on Grand Avenue approached the City roughly one year ago with interest in selling 226-230 Grand Avenue,232-238 Grand Avenue,and 240-246 Grand Avenue (the “Properties”)(See Attachment 1).The sellers of the Properties have held them within the same family for over one hundred years.Currently,the Properties are home to successful ground floor commercial uses with vacant second floors.The General Plan designation for these properties is Grand Avenue Core (GAC),which the General Plan describes as the historic retail center of the city (maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR)from 1.5 up to 4.0 with community benefits;maximum residential densities up to 100 du/ac).The zoning is also GAC, implementing the General Plan. The Properties each measure approximately 7,000 square feet with 50 feet of frontage on Grand Avenue and Fourth Lane.Together they comprise roughly one-half of an acre.Located on the Properties are three two-story buildings with commercial uses on the ground floor and vacant single room occupancy hotels on the second floor.The Properties also include one single-story commercial building.Additionally,the Properties contain two garage/warehouse spaces fronting on 4th Lane. The full detail of the improvements found on each parcel includes: ·226-230 Grand Avenue (APN 012-315-130)includes 10,200 gross square feet within a two-story reinforced concrete building as well as 800 square feet of garage/storage space.The approximately 5,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space is occupied by Café Bunn Mi and Oasis Day City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/6/2024Page 1 of 4 powered by Legistar™114 File #:24-143 Agenda Date:2/15/2024 Version:1 Item #:5. 5,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space is occupied by Café Bunn Mi and Oasis Day Program. The upper floor is vacant. ·232-238 Grand Avenue (012-315-140)includes 9,400 gross square feet within a two-story reinforced concrete building.On the ground floor of the building there is an opening in the eastern wall which connects to the ground floor space of the 226-238 Grand Avenue building.The approximately 4,600 square feet of ground floor commercial space is occupied by Oasis Day Program and the Soccer Shop. The upper floor is vacant. ·240-246 Grand Avenue (012-315-150)includes two buildings fronting Grand Avenue.The easternmost building is a single-story wood-frame building (addressed as 238½Grand Avenue)of approximately 700 rentable square feet.Additionally,there is a two-story wood frame building containing 4,785 rentable square feet.There are three ground floor commercial units between the two buildings which are occupied by Country Cottage Cafe,Bitters &Bottles,and Burrell’s Hair Cutting Place.The upper floor contains three residential units (a three bedroom -one bathroom unit,a 2 bedroom -one bathroom unit, and a one bedroom - one bathroom unit) which are all vacant. DISCUSSION City Council met in closed session on April 26,2023 to discuss the possible acquisition of the Properties,both as a potential affordable housing development site as well as a way to protect existing ground floor commercial tenants.Council provided authorization to staff to begin evaluating the condition and value of the Properties. The City commissioned a Property Condition Assessments to understand the conditions of the Properties and better assess the cost of any future maintenance or retrofitting.The City engaged an economic development consultant,which subcontracted with an architecture firm,to complete proforma analysis contemplating various renovation and redevelopment scenarios.This served to demonstrate any future costs and value to the City of acquiring the properties.And finally,the City commissioned an appraisal to form the basis of its price negotiations. After completing this work,Council authorized staff to make a purchase offer and to negotiate with the property owner.The property owner accepted the City’s best and final purchase offer,and staff will present the Purchase and Sale Agreement to the City Council for approval on February 14, 2024. Future Property Uses The Properties are proposed to be acquired using the City’s Commercial Linkage Fee fund,Fund 823,which is collected from commercial developments exclusively for affordable housing programs and projects.There are many potential uses of the site -restoration of the single room occupancy hotels and returning them to service as affordable housing,renovating the upper floors of the buildings to more modern residential standards including a mix of studios and one-bedrooms,or a complete redevelopment of the site.The benefit of City ownership under this last scenario is that the historic nature of the commercial facades may be maintained,and the design and massing of the building is more closely controlled.This will allow the City to provide much- needed affordable housing,while also preserving commercial tenants that add vibrancy to the Downtown and facilitate the construction of buildings at a more pedestrian-scale, with ornamented design. City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/6/2024Page 2 of 4 powered by Legistar™115 File #:24-143 Agenda Date:2/15/2024 Version:1 Item #:5. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE In accordance with provisions of State Planning Law (Govt.Code Section 65402),prior to acquisition of real property by the City,the Planning Commission,as the planning agency for the City,is required to find such acquisition is in conformity with the adopted general plan. The General Plan contains policy direction relevant to the acquisition of the subject parcels, including: ·Land Use Goal 3:A diverse range of housing options that create equitable opportunity for people of all ages,races/ethnicities,abilities,socio-economic status,genders,and family types to live in South San Francisco. ·Land Use Policy 3.1: Create affordable and workforce housing. ·Land Use Policy 3.3 Encourage diversity of housing types and sizes. ·Land Use Goal 4: High-quality residential neighborhoods. ·Land Use Goal 9:High level of quality in architecture and site design in all renovation and construction of buildings. ·Land Use Policy 9.2: Encourage architectural and visual interest in new development. ·Downtown Sub-Area Goal 1:The City supports existing neighborhood commerce and provides opportunities to expand commercial Downtown. ·Downtown Sub-Area Policy 1.2: Support small locally-owned businesses. ·Downtown Sub-Area Goal 3:The City promotes new residential,mixed use,and employment uses to add business patrons and residents to create a sustainable and thriving Downtown,while maintaining a scale and character that is complementary to existing uses. ·Downtown Sub-Area Policy 3.5: Encourage Downtown parcel aggregation. ·Downtown Sub-Area Policy 4.1: Preserve existing affordable housing. ·Downtown Sub-Area Policy 4-2: Leverage publicly-owned land. ·Downtown Sub-Area Goal 5:New improvements are focused on Grand Avenue and Linden Avenue to restore these historic corridors to once again being the focus of the community. ·Downtown Sub-Area Policy 5.2: Maintain Downtown properties and businesses. ·Downtown Sub-Area Policy 6.1:Develop new buildings to be compatible with Downtown building scale and character. The purchase of these properties will allow the City to provide much-needed affordable housing in the Downtown,and facilitate the construction of attractive,appropriately scaled residential development,while also supporting commercial tenants,all in support and consistent with the goals and policies listed above,thus conforming to the City’s General Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed purchase of these properties is consistent with the General Plan and does not contemplate additional development,therefore,no environmental review or CEQA action is required by the Planning Commission at this time.Individual projects will be evaluated in accordance with CEQA for project specific City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/6/2024Page 3 of 4 powered by Legistar™116 File #:24-143 Agenda Date:2/15/2024 Version:1 Item #:5. impacts. CONCLUSION It is recommended that the Planning Commission make findings that determine that the purchase of real property located at 226-246 Grand Avenue (APNs 012-315-130,012-315-140,and 012-315-150)is in conformance with the South San Francisco adopted General Plan in accordance with provisions of State Planning Law (Govt. Code Section 65402). Attachments: 1.Grand Avenue Properties Map City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/6/2024Page 4 of 4 powered by Legistar™117 Attachment 1: Grand Avenue Properties 118 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:24-144 Agenda Date:2/15/2024 Version:1 Item #:5a. Resolution making findings and determining that the acquisition of several properties at 226-246 Grand Avenue (APNs 012-315-130,012-315-140,and 012-315-150)in conformance with the South San Francisco adopted General Plan in accordance with provisions of State Planning Law (Govt. Code Section 65402) WHEREAS,the long-time owners of four consecutive buildings spanning three parcels on Grand Avenue in Downtown South San Francisco approached the City in late 2022 with interest in selling 226-230 Grand Avenue, 232-238 Grand Avenue, and 240-246 Grand Avenue (the “Properties”); and WHEREAS,the Sellers of the Properties,Giffra Enterprises,LLC,have held them within the same family for over one hundred years; and WHEREAS,currently,the Properties are home to successful ground floor commercial uses with vacant second floors containing mostly single room occupancy hotels and three residential units; and WHEREAS, in 2023 the City Council directed staff to evaluate the Properties for potential acquisition; and WHEREAS,after completion of Property Conditions Assessments,financial and architectural analysis,and an appraisal, the City Council directed staff to negotiate the purchase of the Properties; and WHEREAS,the Properties will be acquired using the City’s Commercial Linkage Fee fund,Fund 823,which is dedicated to fund affordable housing programs and projects for households earning 120%of the area median income or less; and WHEREAS,purchase of these properties provides a unique opportunity for the City to develop affordable housing in the Downtown; and WHEREAS,prior to purchase of real property by the City,the Planning Commission as the planning agency for the City is required to find such disposition is in conformity with the adopted general plan in accordance with Government Code section 65402; and, WHEREAS,the General Plan contains several goals,policies and actions which support the purchase of the Grand Avenue parcels, in the interest of providing affordable housing and preserving existing businesses. A.General Findings 1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. 2.The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco,315 Maple Avenue,South San Francisco,CA City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/6/2024Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™119 File #:24-144 Agenda Date:2/15/2024 Version:1 Item #:5a. 94080, and in the custody of the Chief Planner. 3.The Planning Commission finds that the purchase of the parcels on Grand Avenue at 226-246 Grand Avenue is consistent with the General Plan.The General Plan contains policy direction relevant to the acquisition of the subject parcels, including: ·Land Use Goal 3:A diverse range of housing options that create equitable opportunity for people of all ages,races/ethnicities,abilities,socio-economic status,genders,and family types to live in South San Francisco. ·Land Use Policy 3.1: Create affordable and workforce housing. ·Land Use Policy 3.3 Encourage diversity of housing types and sizes. ·Land Use Goal 4: High-quality residential neighborhoods. ·Land Use Goal 9:High level of quality in architecture and site design in all renovation and construction of buildings. ·Land Use Policy 9.2: Encourage architectural and visual interest in new development. ·Downtown Sub-Area Goal 1:The City supports existing neighborhood commerce and provides opportunities to expand commercial Downtown. ·Downtown Sub-Area Policy 1.2: Support small locally-owned businesses. ·Downtown Sub-Area Goal 3:The City promotes new residential,mixed use,and employment uses to add business patrons and residents to create a sustainable and thriving Downtown,while maintaining a scale and character that is complementary to existing uses. ·Downtown Sub-Area Policy 3.5: Encourage Downtown parcel aggregation. ·Downtown Sub-Area Policy 4.1: Preserve existing affordable housing. ·Downtown Sub-Area Policy 4-2: Leverage publicly-owned land. ·Downtown Sub-Area Goal 5:New improvements are focused on Grand Avenue and Linden Avenue to restore these historic corridors to once again being the focus of the community. ·Downtown Sub-Area Policy 5.2: Maintain Downtown properties and businesses. ·Downtown Sub-Area Policy 6.1:Develop new buildings to be compatible with Downtown building scale and character. The purchase of these properties will allow the City to develop high-quality transit-oriented affordable housing in the Downtown,facilitate the construction of attractive,appropriately scaled residential development,and support and preserve existing businesses,all in support and consistent with the goal and policies listed above and thus conforming to the City’s General Plan. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in accordance with California Government Code section 65402,the location,purpose and extent of the proposed purchase of several properties at 226-246 Grand Avenue (APNs 012-315-130,012-315-140,and 012-315-150)is in conformance with the City’s adopted General Plan. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/6/2024Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™120 File #:24-144 Agenda Date:2/15/2024 Version:1 Item #:5a. City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/6/2024Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™121 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:24-21 Agenda Date:2/15/2024 Version:1 Item #:6. Report regarding CEQA determination and entitlements for Design Review and a Transportation Demand Management Plan for a new seven-story office /R&D building with detached parking garage at 439 Eccles Avenue.(Stephanie Skangos, Senior Planner) MOTIONS FOR THE COMMISSION TO ADOPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: (1)Move to adopt the Resolution making findings and CEQA determination; and (2)Move to adopt the Resolution making findings and approving Planning entitlements subject to the attached conditions of approval. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and take the following actions: 1.Adopt a Resolution making findings and a determination that the Project is consistent with the scope of environmental analysis in the previously certified 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report, pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15183 and no further environmental review would be required; and, 2.Adopt a Resolution making findings and approving the entitlements for Planning Project P23-0076, including Design Review DR23-0018 and Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Program TDM23-0006, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PROJECT OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND Site Overview The 439 Eccles Avenue project site is comprised of one 2.63-acre parcel located on the north side of Eccles Avenue approximately 700 feet north of the intersection with Forbes Boulevard.The project site has an existing 40,224 square foot,single-story tilt-up warehouse,currently vacant,and associated surface parking.The site is mostly flat, with elevations ranging from approximately 94 to 105 feet above mean sea level. The project site is flanked by a biotechnology company to the southwest,an event management company to the northeast, and a research and development center to the northwest. A freight forwarding center is across Eccles Avenue to the southeast, separated from the road by a Southern Pacific Railroad track.A Rails-to-Trails Path runs behind the northwest property line,separated from the project site by an approximately 20-foot-tall retaining wall. City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/6/2024Page 1 of 9 powered by Legistar™122 File #:24-21 Agenda Date:2/15/2024 Version:1 Item #:6. Project Description The project proposes to demolish the existing warehouse and construct a new seven-story,229,460 square foot research and development (R&D)building plus basement level (gross square footage of the new building, including the basement level,is 298,470 square feet),and an associated six-story parking garage with 448 parking stalls.The proposed office /R&D building has an approximately 32,500 square foot footprint,reaching a height of 122 feet above grade,with rooftop elements reaching 146 feet.The parking garage is proposed to reach a height of 66 feet with a footprint of 27,631 square feet.Site improvements would also include open space,landscaping,outdoor seating areas,pedestrian walkways,and vehicular circulation elements.The project site plan and architectural design is detailed in the Plan Set (Associated Entitlements Resolution, Exhibit B). Architectural Design The design for the 439 Eccles Avenue Project was inspired by the opportunities presented by the project site,as well as the general needs of biotechnology uses.The main building,rectangular in plan,will be a steel-framed structure clad in tinted glass and framed by two shrouds clad in warm-grey composite panels on the exterior side and wood-like paneling on the interior side.Each level above the third floor will have its own private outdoor balcony terrace,projecting from the South façade,which help to break up the massing of the street- facing façade. The detached parking structure will be a poured-in-place concrete structure with a shroud projecting to the south side with integral vertical metal panels,matching the color of the wood-like panels on the main building. The East façade of the parking garage facing the central plaza will have integral planters at various locations to soften the appearance of the structure.The top level of the structure will have a canopy of photovoltaic panels to convert sunlight to electrical power. Landscaping and Open Space The project provides landscaping and open space in the form of a central plaza,outdoor seating areas, balconies,pedestrian walkways,landscape buffers,and tree plantings throughout the site.Enhanced paving will be provided at the drop-off area,between the main building and parking structure,at the front terrace,and in the central plaza area.Additionally,within the exterior amenity spaces and central plaza,modular and concrete seating,recessed wall /step and bollard lighting,and low-water use native and adaptive plantings will be used to define various outdoor spaces as well as define circulation and heighten the sense of arrival and points of egress.The landscape areas throughout the site include C-3 filtration/Bio-retention zones to capture and treat building and site paving runoff which are integrated into the site landscape composition.The tree palette contains trees species to provide windscreens,feature plantings,and shade elements for open space and parking and circulation areas throughout the site.Landscape plans and planting palettes are included in the Plan Set (Associated Entitlements Resolution, Exhibit B). Access and Circulation The project proposes two vehicular driveways,one located central to the south side of the property to access the drop-off area and a west entry driveway to access the parking structure,and a third connection that would act as a fire and service lane,all on Eccles Avenue.Project parking will be provided in a detached six-story garage City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/6/2024Page 2 of 9 powered by Legistar™123 File #:24-21 Agenda Date:2/15/2024 Version:1 Item #:6. a fire and service lane,all on Eccles Avenue.Project parking will be provided in a detached six-story garage with one entrance /exit.The main building and parking garage will be separated by an internal plaza with site amenities,including outdoor seating,and pedestrian and bicycle pathways.The main building will have one main entrance directly facing the central plaza and parking garage.Long-term bicycle parking will be provided on the first level of the parking structure,and short-term bicycle parking will be provided adjacent to both building entrances.A passenger loading zone adjacent to the internal building entry,and accessible via the central driveway,can be used for carshare and taxi drop-offs and pick-ups.Accessible pedestrian and bicycle connections throughout the site, including to the adjacent multi-use Rails to Trails path, will be provided. Entitlements Request The Project is seeking the following entitlements, discussed in detail in this staff report: ·CEQA Determination ·Design Review ·Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan ZONING CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Proposed Use The project site is located within the Business Technology Park -High (BTP-H)Zoning District.Per South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC)Section 20.100.002 (“Use Regulations -Non-Residential Zoning Districts”), R&D and office uses are both permitted land uses by-right. Development standards for the BTP-H District are outlined in SSFMC Table 20.100.003 (Development Standards -Non-Residential Zoning Districts).As noted in the below table,the proposed project complies with the applicable development standards,including maximum floor area ratio (FAR)and maximum height.Note that the maximum base FAR in the BTP-H District is 0.5,with up to 2.0 permitted with payment of a Community Benefits Fee per SSFMC Chapter 20.395.As proposed,the project would be developed at a FAR of 2.0 and subject to the requirement for payment of a Community Benefits Fee applicable to the proposed FAR above 1.0. Additionally,the height maximum in the BTP-H District is the maximum permitted by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)regulations.The maximum proposed height of the office /R&D building is 122 feet, with rooftop elements reaching 146 feet,which was determined to be preliminarily consistent with FAA regulations.Prior to the issuance of a building permit,the applicant will be required to submit a determination of no hazard issued by the FAA. Table 1. Project Compliance with BTP-H Development Standards City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/6/2024Page 3 of 9 powered by Legistar™124 File #:24-21 Agenda Date:2/15/2024 Version:1 Item #:6. Additional Development Standards SSFMC Section 20.100.004 (Supplemental Standards)outlines several additional standards,including new objective design standards,applicable to projects located within a non-residential zoning district,including the BTP-H District.The project has been designed to comply with all required additional development standards for the BTP-H District. Site and Building Design Standards SSFMC Chapter 20.310 (Site and Building Design Standards)prescribes general citywide site and building design standards to be used in conjunction with the applicable base zoning district requirements and design standards.These standards contain requirements for building entrances,open space design and orientation,on- site circulation and parking,building materials and textures,and architectural integrity.The design of the project meets these standards,with a focus on high-quality design and materials,usable open spaces,and pedestrian and bicycle connections to and throughout the site. Parking Requirements Vehicle Parking The maximum number of allowed parking spaces for different land uses is regulated by SSFMC Section 20.330.004 (“Required On-Site Parking Spaces”).Maximum parking requirements are a tool to help ensure compliance with the City’s Transportation Demand Management ordinance.Pursuant to this section,office and R&D uses have different parking ratios.However,combined office and R&D buildings are subject to the parking requirements for R&D uses only,as office space has been considered in the establishment of the R&D parking ratio.Therefore,the proposal must meet the parking requirements for R&D uses,which is no more than 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft.Per the requirement and using the proposed gross square footage of the project City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/6/2024Page 4 of 9 powered by Legistar™125 File #:24-21 Agenda Date:2/15/2024 Version:1 Item #:6. 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft.Per the requirement and using the proposed gross square footage of the project (298,470 square feet),the project would need to provide no more than 448 total parking spaces.The proposed detached parking garage will provide a total of 448 parking spaces.Therefore,the project complies with the maximum parking requirements. Bicycle Parking SSFMC Section 20.330.007 (“Bicycle Parking”)establishes the requirements for short-term and long-term bicycle parking.The minimum number of on-site short-term and long-term bicycle parking spaces are based on the use and number of required automobile parking spaces.The following long-term bicycle parking requirements are applicable to the project. Short-term bicycle parking is not required for R&D uses. ·Long-term Bicycle Parking: Rate of 5% of the number of required automobile parking spaces. Per these requirements,the project must provide a total of 23 long-term bicycle parking spaces on site.The project includes the required number of long-term bicycle parking spaces within the detached parking structure on the first level.In addition to the long-term parking spaces,the project will also provide 23 short-term bicycle parking spaces adjacent to the building entrance as an additional amenity Loading Requirements SSFMC Section 20.330.009 (On-Site Loading)establishes requirements for on-site loading spaces for new buildings.Based on the project’s square footage,a total of five loading spaces would need to be provided. SSFMC Section 20.330.009(A)(1)includes a provision for a reduction in the number of loading spaces required,upon a finding by the Chief Planner and City Engineer that the applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that due to the nature of the proposed use, such loading space will not be needed. The project is proposing to include four loading spaces,and the applicant has commissioned a study by American Trash Management to provide justification for the reduction in loading spaces.Based on recent reports prepared by American Trash Management for similar projects in size and nature in the City that have concluded that less than five loading spaces is adequate,staff believes that the reduction of one loading space, for a total of four for the project, is supportable. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan Pursuant to SSFMC Chapter 20.400 (Transportation Demand Management),office /R&D uses between 50,000 and 400,000 sq.ft.of gross floor area are required to provide a TDM plan and are categorized as “Tier 3” projects.The minimum requirements for Tier 3 projects are to achieve a total of 40 points,in addition to annual monitoring to achieve a maximum of 60%of employees commuting via driving alone.Points in various quantities are awarded based on specific trip reduction measures;for instance,including promotional programs and materials as a TDM measure would result in 1 point,whereas including a TDM coordinator/point of contact for commute assistance would result in 5 points.In other words,a Tier 3 project would have to propose the number and type of trip reduction measures that would accumulate sufficient points to achieve 40 points. A draft TDM plan has been prepared for the project by Fehr +Peers (Associated Entitlements Resolution, City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/6/2024Page 5 of 9 powered by Legistar™126 File #:24-21 Agenda Date:2/15/2024 Version:1 Item #:6. A draft TDM plan has been prepared for the project by Fehr +Peers (Associated Entitlements Resolution, Exhibit C).The draft TDM plan provides a concise description of TDM Measures that the project will implement to achieve the 40-point minimum for Tier 3 projects,including seven City-mandated TDM measures and a number of optional measures,as outlined below.A draft Condition of Approval is included to ensure TDM compliance and annual reporting. Table 2. TDM Certification Checklist GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS The General Plan Land Use designation for the project site is Business Technology Park High (BTP-H),which is intended for high-density corporate headquarters, research and development facilities, and offices. City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/6/2024Page 6 of 9 powered by Legistar™127 File #:24-21 Agenda Date:2/15/2024 Version:1 Item #:6. The Project is consistent with the guiding and implementing policies in the General Plan as it has been designed to develop an underutilized site with a high-quality employment use.The site layout and building design architecture will contribute to and further shape the urban character of the East of 101 Area.The proposed office /R&D project is consistent with the land use designation,which promotes office /R&D facilities and supplementary uses. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The Design Review Board (DRB)reviewed the proposal on September 19,2023,and recommended approval with some minor design recommendations primarily focused on landscaping.The DRB comment letter is included as Attachment 2 to this staff report.Since review by the DRB,the design of the main building has been slightly changed to meet Fire Code requirements.The original design included an exterior stairwell at the front façade that was determined by the Fire Marshal to not be in compliance with exiting requirements.The front façade has been redesigned to enclose the stairwell,subsequently causing changes to the design and layout of the balconies found at each level.However,the majority of the building area maintains the original design reviewed by the DRB,and the Board’s original comments and recommendations are still applicable.The applicant has taken the DRB comments and recommendations into consideration and provided a response to each (see Attachment 3 to this staff report). IMPACT FEES The 439 Eccles Avenue Project is subject to the City’s impact and development fees,which are used to offset the impacts of new development on City services and infrastructure.The draft Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A to the Entitlements Resolution) list out the relevant impact fee estimates, summarized below: ·Childcare Fee: $346,484 ·Parks Fee: $812,288 ·Citywide Transportation Fee: $8M ·Commercial Linkage Fee: $4M ·Public Safety Impact Fee: $300,592 ·Library Impact Fee: $32,124 ·Community Benefits Program Fee: $2.3M ·Public Art Requirement: On-site, or in-lieu contribution of 0.5% of construction costs ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In 2022,the City Council certified a programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR)for the 2040 General Plan (State Clearinghouse #202102006)(CEQA Resolution,Exhibit A).The program EIR assessed the potential environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the 2040 General Plan Update,Zoning Ordinance Update and Climate Action Plan Update,which established new land use,development,and urban design regulations for the City over a 20-year planning period.The 439 Eccles Avenue Project proposal for an office /R&D building is in keeping with the envisioned use at the project site and in compliance with the City’s City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/6/2024Page 7 of 9 powered by Legistar™128 File #:24-21 Agenda Date:2/15/2024 Version:1 Item #:6. development standards. Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines states that no subsequent EIR need be prepared for a project where an EIR has previously been prepared unless the lead agency identifies subsequent changes in circumstances that were identified and not previously analyzed or would create new significant environmental effects.More specifically,Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines mandates that projects that are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning,a community plan,or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review,except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects that are peculiar to a project or its site.CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 specifies that when reviewing a project that meets the requirements of this section,a public agency shall limit its examination of environmental effects to those that the agency determines in an environmental checklist or other analysis. The environmental checklist and appendices prepared for the project by Lamphier-Gregory,Inc.,dated January 2024 (CEQA Resolution,Exhibit B)serves as substantial evidence that the current project is within the scope of the previous environmental analysis including the 2040 General Plan EIR and Mitigation,Monitoring,and Reporting Program (MMRP)and that subsequent CEQA analysis is not required for the proposed project.As demonstrated through the environmental checklist analyzing project impacts,there are no effects that are peculiar to the project,or were not previously identified,or have become more adverse due to new,previously unknown information. As such, no further environmental review would be required pursuant to Section 15162. Additionally,CEQA Guidelines section 15183 mandates that projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning,community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified would not require additional environmental review,except those necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site.In this case,the project is consistent with the Zoning and General Plan development densities and standards,and as demonstrated by the environmental checklist there are no peculiar or project/site specific impacts as outlined in Section 15183 that would trigger the need for additional environmental review thereunder.The project would be subject to all relevant mitigation measures included in the 2040 General Plan EIR MMRP (CEQA Resolution,Exhibit A - Final General Plan EIR). CONCLUSION The proposed 439 Eccles Avenue Project is consistent with both General Plan goals and the Zoning Ordinance requirements.The project would produce a seven-story state-of-the-art office /R&D building at 298,470 sq.ft. (gross square footage),a detached parking garage with 448 parking stalls,and includes enhanced connectivity and off-site improvements.Further,the proposed project is consistent with the City’s ongoing development of the East of 101 Area into a nationally recognized biotechnology /R&D center,and ultimately will provide quality jobs in South San Francisco.For these reasons,staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1.Adopt a Resolution making findings and a determination that the Project is consistent with Zoning/General Plan density and standards and the scope of environmental analysis in the previously City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/6/2024Page 8 of 9 powered by Legistar™129 File #:24-21 Agenda Date:2/15/2024 Version:1 Item #:6. Zoning/General Plan density and standards and the scope of environmental analysis in the previously certified 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report,pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15183 and no further environmental review would be required; and, 2.Adopt a Resolution making findings and approving the entitlements for Planning Project P23-0076, including Design Review DR23-0018 and Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Program TDM23-0006, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Attachments 1.439 Eccles Avenue Project Description & Data 2.Design Review Board (DRB) Comment Letter, dated September 19, 2023 3.Applicant Response to DRB Comments and Recommendations, dated February 1, 2024 Exhibits to Associated CEQA Resolution (24-22) A.2040 General Plan EIR (weblinks) B.439 Eccles Avenue Environmental Checklist 1. Standard Conditions and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2. Air Quality Calculations 3. Cultural Records Search, Native American Heritage Commission Response 4. Energy Calculations 5. Transportation Analysis Exhibits to Associated Entitlements Resolution (24-23) A.Draft Conditions of Approval B.439 Eccles Avenue Project Plans, dated January 5, 2024 C.Proposed TDM Plan, dated January 2024 D.Tree Inventory and Assessment Report, dated August 16, 2023 City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/6/2024Page 9 of 9 powered by Legistar™130 Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Avenue Project Description & Data 11 JANUARY 2024 Page 1 of 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Parcel & Zoning Information Assessor’s Parcel No. 015-071-260 Zoning Designation: BTP-H Parcel Area: 114,730 (2.634 Acres) Max. FAR 2.0 Max Floor Area 229,460 Sq. Ft. Existing Conditions  Single-story tilt-up concrete Warehouse @ 41,568 Sq. Ft.  Access off Eccles Avenue. via driveways at the East and West  Rectangular shaped site with the long dimension along Eccles Avenue. Rails to Trails Path follows the North property line. Proposed Project Vigilant Holdings is proposing to demolish the existing single-story tilt-up concrete warehouse and develop a Seven-Story Lab/Office Building and 5-½ Level Parking Structure. Building will include a full below-grade basement level, which would not count towards the FAR. Building will be a steel-framed structure clad in tinted glass, framed by two shrouds, clad in warm-grey composite panels on the exterior side and wood-like paneling on the interior side facing large balconies projecting from the South façade. Parking Structure will be a poured-in-place concrete structure with a Shroud projecting to the south side with integral vertical metal panels, matching the color of the wood-like panels on the main building. The East façade of the parking garage facing the central plaza shall have integral planters at various locations to soften the appearance of the structure. Primary vehicular access to the Building drop off area shall be via a driveway located central to the South side of the property. The Parking Structure shall be accessed via the West entry drive. Pedestrian access from Eccles will be adjacent to the central driveway to the main lobby which faces toward the central plaza. Service access will be via the East entry drive. Pedestrian access will be provided from the Building to the Rails-to-Trails to the North. Landscaping will be provided along Eccles, within the central plaza area, and West side of the Parking Structure. Enhanced paving will be provided at the drop-off area, between the Building and Parking Structure, at the front terrace, and in the central plaza area. Bio-filtration areas are provided adjacent to the Building and Parking Structure for treatment of Rainwater from their roof areas. 131 Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Avenue Project Description & Data 11 JANUARY 2024 Page 2 of 4 GENERAL PLAN & ZONING DESIGNATIONS:  SSF 2040 General Plan Business Technology Park – High (BTP-H)  SSF Zoning Map Business Technology Park – High (BTP-H) General Plan – Land Use Designations: Table 2 Business Technology Park - High: High-density corporate headquarters, research and development facilities, and offices (FAR ranges from 0.5 up to 2.0 with community benefits) Zoning Code Update: Table 20.100.002 – Use Regulations Non-Residential Zoning Districts Chapter 20.100 – Non-Residential Zoning Districts Business Technology Park - High: The BTP-H district provides area for campus-like environments for corporate headquarters, research and development facilities, and offices. Typical uses include incubator-research facilities, prototype manufacturing, testing, repairing, packaging, publishing and printing as well as offices and research and development facilities. Warehousing, distribution, manufacturing, retail, personal services, grocery and hotel uses are also allowed. The BTP-H district implements the General Plan’s Business Technology Park High land use designation. Table 20.100.002 – Use Regulations – Non-Residential Zoning Districts Proposed Use BTP-H Offices – Business & Professional Permitted Research & Development Permitted Table 20.100.003: Development Standards – Non-Residential Zoning Districts Standard BTP-H Proposed Note Lot Size Minimum Lot Area 10,000 sf 114,730 Meets Standard Minimum Lot Width 50 ft 300 ft @ West Meets Standard Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 2.0 2.0 With Community Benefits (C) Maximum Lot Coverage 60% 58% Meets Standard Building Height Maximum Main Building N/A (C) 146 Ft. High EL. +246’-0” (C) Maximum Heigh per FAA Regulations & SFO ALUCP Meets Standards Below FAA Critical Surface Setbacks Street Frontage 20 20 Meets Standard Interior Side 0 7’@W, 27’@E Meets Standard Rear 0 20 Meets Standard Minimum from Shoreline 40 feet from high water mark (E) More than 40 ft Meets Standard Additional Standards Minimum Landscaping (% of Site) 15% 17.4% Meets Standard 132 Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Avenue Project Description & Data 11 JANUARY 2024 Page 3 of 4 Chapter 20.330 ON-SITE PARKING AND LOADING Table 20.330.004 – Required On-Site Parking Spaces Land Use Classification Required Parking Spaces Employment Use Classifications Research and Development 1.5 per 1,000 sq. ft. PARKING CALCULATIONS Research & Development Building Gross Area Required Parking 1.5 per 1,000 Sq. Ft. 298,470 Sq. Ft. 447.7 Spaces Max Round-Off 448 Spaces Max Parking Spaces per 1,000 Sq. Ft. 1.5 Parking Ratio 20.330.007 Bicycle Parking A. Short-Term Bicycle Parking. Short-term bicycle parking shall be provided, according to the provisions of this Section, in order to serve shoppers, customers, messengers, guests and other visitors to a site who generally stay for a short time. 1. Parking Spaces Required. Short-term bicycle parking spaces shall be provided for the following uses at a rate of 5 percent of the number of required automobile parking spaces, with a minimum of four parking spaces provided per establishment. a. Multiple-Unit Residential b. All uses within the Public and Semi-Public Land Use Classification c. All uses within the Commercial Land Use Classification Note: 573 Forbes is being developed for Research & Development which is an Employment Use Classification, which does not require Short-Term Bike Parking. However, Short-Term Bicycle Parking will be provided to meet 2022 CALGreen @ 5% Short-Term Bicycle Parking Building Gross Area Proposed Parking Proposed Parking* 298,470 Sq. Ft. 447.7 Spaces Short-Term Bicycle Parking Short-Term Ratio 5% Spaces *Based on Required Parking with no Reductions Spaces Required 23 Spaces Project will provide 23 Spaces B. Long-Term Bicycle Parking. Short-term bicycle parking spaces shall be provided for the following uses at a rate of 5 percent of the number of required automobile parking spaces, with a minimum of four parking spaces provided per establishment. 1. b. Other Uses. Any establishment with 10 or more employees shall provide long-term bicycle parking in an amount equivalent to five percent of required vehicular spaces. Long-Term Bicycle Parking Building Gross Area Proposed Parking Proposed Parking* 298,470 Sq. Ft. 447.7 Spaces Long-Term Bicycle Parking Long-Term Ratio 5% Spaces *Based on Required Parking with no Reductions Spaces Required 23 Spaces Project will provide 23 Spaces 133 Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Avenue Project Description & Data 11 JANUARY 2024 Page 4 of 4 20.330.008 Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Electric vehicle (EV) charging stations and EV-capable parking spaces shall be provided for all new buildings erected as required by this section. All such spaces shall be included in the calculation of parking demands of Section 20.330.004 (“Required Parking Spaces”). Required EV Charging Stations. The total number of required EV charging stations spaces are specified in Table 20.330.008 or in accordance with the most current California Green Building Standards Code, whichever standard is greater. Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Building Gross Area Required Parking Proposed Parking* 298.470 Sq. Ft. 447.7 Spaces Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Minimum Required 6% Spaces *Based on Required Parking with no Reductions Based on SSF Short-Term 27 Spaces Project will provide 27 Spaces A. Loading Spaces Required. Every new building, and every building enlarged by more than 5,000 square feet that is to be occupied by a manufacturing establishment, storage facility, warehouse facility, parcel hub, live-work development, retail store, eating and drinking, wholesale store, market, hotel, hospital, mortuary, laundry, drycleaning establishment, or other use similarly requiring the receipt or distribution by vehicles or trucks of material or merchandise shall provide off- street loading and unloading areas as indicated in Table 20.330.009. Such on-site loading space shall be maintained during the existence of the building or use that it is required to serve. Table 20.330.009 – Required Loading Spaces Gross Floor Area Required Loading Required Over 230,000 Sq. Ft. 5 Spaces Proposed Reduction 298,470 Sq. Ft. 4 Spaces Reduction in Number of Loading Spaces Required. The loading space requirement may be waived upon a finding by the Chief Planner and City Engineer that the applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that due to the nature of the proposed use, such loading space will not be needed. Note: Pending American Trash Management’s Analysis & Recommendations Approvals being sought for Proposed Project:  Approval of proposed Building Design, Floor Area, and Parking Ratio  Emergency Vehicle Access Easement  Reduction in number of required Loading Spaces 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 Vigilant Holdings – 439 Eccles Avenue SSF Design Review Board Comments and Recommendations 01 FEBRUARY 2024 # Comment Response Page 1 of 5 Design Review Board Recommendations 1 The Board liked the overall design concept. The design is well thought out and accommodates the site configuration. Noted and appreciated 2 The façade design and articulation create a nice project with interest and cohesion around the buildings and provide for a nice open central Plaza Noted and appreciated 3 The outdoor spaces are well thought and provide ADA accessibility Noted and appreciated 4 the narrow and wide panel/fin element on the facades helps with the overall massing of the main building Noted and appreciated 5 Consider increasing the height of the hand rails along the balconies for increased safety as well as incorporating security features for the balconies The balcony railings shall be set at at least the code minimum of 42” above the balcony walking surface. Another comment was raised in regards to the usability of the balconies with their limited depth as they were shown. We modified the balconies to extend only to the South and increased the depth of the balconies by 5’ or 6’in order to make them more usable and enjoyable for the building tenants and their visitors. 6 The placement of the parking structure was well thought out as the GOP buildings adjacent to will act as a wind barrier for the campus Noted and appreciated 7 The board felt that the West façade of the parking garage did not necessarily fit in with the overall design of the buildings. Consider adding a material finish or landscaping to help break up the big white wall Within the discussion had amongst the DRB, the members expressed their general comfort with the West façade of the parking garage. Ultimately, the feedback we received was that the color was too stark white and should be perhaps something a bit more neutral in tone, which we plan to do and is reflected in the most recent version of the renderings. Also, we plan to incorporate more vertical trees along this façade to help soften the face of the elevation. 8 Consider adding an art element sculpture within the central Plaza as an art feature would be a nice element along the rails to trails and serve as a focal point for the project We absolutely agree with this recommendation and are excited to implement by way of commissioning via the public art requirement. 9 The board is concerned with potential sun glare reflection from the proposed vin element on the building façade towards the open Plaza Understanding the potential for glare into the building spaces and to the persons enjoying the plaza, we decided to remove the fins from the West Elevation and slightly modify the façade to give it more of a horizontal identity, differentiating it from the West façade. 10 The proposed planters along the parking garage need more thought into how they will be integrated into the structure and how they will be maintained consider using planting species that will grow vertical instead of overhanging the garage wall such as Sansevieria trifasciata (Mothers in law’s tongue) or one of the upright agaves or Aspidistra elatior (Cast-Iron Plant) The planters are intended to be integral to the structure. The plants themselves shall require minimal maintenance and may change to a more vertical style of plant as suggested. 11 Consider extending the trellis element on the parking garage roof to overhang and serve as a sort of eyebrow element for the structure The fire marshal commented that the trellis cannot extend beyond 12” beyond the face of the parking structure, which is what our current design is showing. The trellis is set back from the face of the parking garage on the South side. 12 Consider using aluminum material for the light poles, as steel poles tend to rust overtime and may fail during a big windstorm, causing safety issues Noted 148 Vigilant Holdings – 439 Eccles Avenue SSF Design Review Board Comments and Recommendations 01 FEBRUARY 2024 # Comment Response Page 2 of 5 13 Review the proposed landscaping plan and utilize more low water species. The proposed plans include too many plant species that are high in water use Noted 14 Consider replacing the proposed arbutus Marina trees along the accessible pathway by the parking garage as this species drops seeds and fruit which is hazardous and slippery and will stain the walkway Noted 15 Consider adding columnar shrubs along the service drive entrance off Eccles Ave. as well as the rear of the service Dr. accessible from the rails to trails approximately 30 to 40 feet into the drive on each side Need to confirm the area allocated for planting in this area of the site. Will try to allocate some more columnar shrubs into the design, area permitting. 16 Consider adding more St. frontage trees along Eccles Ave. and or using a tree species other than western Cottonwood that grow tall to enhance the area and create a pattern of larger trees in scale with the buildings Noted 17 The applicant will return to the design review board for future tenant signage for the buildings Noted Department Comment Architectural A1 For the proposed office/lab building the site plan shows the plan West fire separation distance is 27’-5” from the exterior wall to the property line. CBC table 705.5 requires 2 hour rated exterior walls where the fire separation distance is less than 30 feet for an L occupancy building. Please address Table 705.8 Allows for unlimited exterior wall openings for Unprotected, Sprinklered, Buildings with 25-30’ fire separation distance. A2 sheet AE-21 shows a projection that is located in the fire separation distance check the maximum projection distance per CBC 705.2 Our projections area all greater than 5’, and our projections shall be typically less than 40”. We are allowed for unlimited exterior openings based on previous comment. A3 At the upper floors of the office building, please confirm and note on the plan the exterior stair will not be a required exterior exit stair as CBC 1027.2 does not allow the use of exterior stairs in a high rise or a building over six stories high The third stair is intended to be a required exit stair. As a result, we have moved the stair to the interior of the building, resulting in a revision to the façade that best addresses the massing without the presence of the exterior stair. Also, we had to make some slight adjustments to the massing in order to capture some additional square footage as the stair shaft being interior to the building meant it was excluded from area allowed by the 2.0 FAR. A4 At the upper floors review and address the highlighted sections of CBC 1023.7 noted below Noted, exterior walls adjacent to the stair shall be rated in accordance with CBC 1023.7 A5 Elevation Views: Material Legend Note #8 calls for high-density exterior panels a. Review the requirements of CBC 14054 combustible materials on the exterior side of exterior walls and CBC 14064 metal composite materials (MCM) b. Provide a written response clarifying whether combustible exterior elements are proposed for the project or not c. Provide a narrative describing how compliance with these code sections is met if applicable a. Noted b. We have identified the cladding system to be a composite panel system, which is not combustible. c. We may entertain the use of High-Pressure Decorativeexterior-Grade Compact Laminates (HPL) panels, and shall meet all fire rating requirements as stated in CBC 1408.8. Also, we will be meeting the exception as we will be using mineral wool insulation on the exterior of the building at these locations as needed, and not foam plastic insulation. Fire Comments 149 Vigilant Holdings – 439 Eccles Avenue SSF Design Review Board Comments and Recommendations 01 FEBRUARY 2024 # Comment Response Page 3 of 5 1-12 Projects shall be designed and construction in compliance with established regulations as adopted by the city of South San Francisco affecting or related to structures processes premises and safeguards in effect at time of building permit application Include ian email comments and responses confirming sent on whatever date Fire Comments From Ian Hardage dated 09/20/2023 1 Between building and aerial fire apparatus access maximum mature height of trees shall not exceed 15-feet DGA: Agreed. Ian Hardage: Thank you. 2 Proposed hanging planters at aerial fire apparatus access shall be located nearer the bottom of horizontal wall so that ladders can rest on the top of the wall at each level. DGA: We intend to have staggered planters on each garage floor, which means that there would be multiple openings with unencumbered fire apparatus access on each floor. Does that work for you? Ian Hardage: This will need more detail to properly evaluate our access and if it reduces the minimum opening of the open-garage design criteria. 3 Even though it was suggested the trellis cannot overhang the exterior wall as it would impact aerial fire apparatus access design and functionality. DGA: Understood. Would a 12-inch overhang be acceptable? Ian Hardage: We can evaluate this more once we have construction documents, this does not need to be determined at the planning stages, but I think there is some potential. 4 Bollards will not be removable; they can be hydraulic (fail-safe down) or collapsible in the direction of ingress. DGA: Agreed 5 I believe on a high-rise your egress stairs are required to b interior; I do not believe you can have exterior egress stairs. AS smoke control and vestibules are required. DGA: Agreed, please see the revised ground floor layout attached below with interior egress stairs. Ian Hardage: Thank you. 6 I would like to evaluate a little closer the proposal to have the highest portion of the garage structure not accessible to the aerial fire apparatus access. DGA: As I noted in my previous email, there will be aerial access at the front of the garage, which is the top level at that point; however, the back left portion of the garage does ramp up from there. See attached garage image below. Ian Hardage: There is aerial access required at the front and right side of the garage, see attached previously discussed fire apparatus access plan. I think we’re good with the proposed top-level layout I just wanted to be sure that there were not any occupied spaces that were not directly accessible to the aerial ladder. Looks like it will just be parked cars on a slopped surface from where we will have direct aerial access from. Can you provide a top level floor plan and elevation or section to be certain. 150 Vigilant Holdings – 439 Eccles Avenue SSF Design Review Board Comments and Recommendations 01 FEBRUARY 2024 # Comment Response Page 4 of 5 DGA: Provided Ian Hardage: Thanks Chris this is helpful to understand. I think we are in a good place as shown. Do not add any more planters in the aerial access areas. We’ll want to evaluate the fin system at the front to make sure aerial access is not impeded, more construction detail oriented than planning so we gat look closer once we get to construction phase. 7 Utilities will be required to be undergrounded between Forbes and the High-rise. DGA: I believe you meant to say along Eccles (please confirm). We are working with PG&E and do plan to underground any the power lines along the Eccles frontage that would conflict with any proposed aerial access points. Please let us know if that addresses your comment. Ian Hardage: Correct Eccles, thank you. Water Quality Control Plant Comments 1-25 The following items must be included in the plans or are requirements of the water quality control storm water and or pre treatment programs and must be completed prior to the issuance of a building permit Noted Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) I-2 Review the landscaping section of the zoning ordinance 20.300.008 for the requirements and regulations. Noted Development Impact Fee 1 Review development impact fee for applicable fees. Noted • Enclosure Material. Enclosure material shall be solid masonry or concrete tilt-up with decorated exterior-surface finish compatible to the main structure(s). Noted • Gate Material. Gate material shall be decorative, solid, heavy-gauge metal or a heavy-gauge metal frame with a covering of a view-obscuring material. Noted • Access to Enclosure from Residential Projects. Each solid waste and recycling enclosure serving a residential project shall be designed to allow walk-in access without having to open the main enclosure gate. Noted • Enclosure Pad. Pads shall be a minimum of four-inch-thick concrete. Noted • Bumpers. Bumpers shall be two inches by six inches thick and made of concrete, steel, or other suitable material and shall be anchored to the concrete pad. Noted • Protection for Enclosures. Concrete curbs or equivalent shall protect enclosures from adjacent vehicle parking and travel ways. Noted • Landscaping. The perimeter of the recycling and trash enclosure shall be planted, if feasible, with drought resistant landscaping, including a combination of shrubs and/or climbing evergreen vines. Noted 151 Vigilant Holdings – 439 Eccles Avenue SSF Design Review Board Comments and Recommendations 01 FEBRUARY 2024 # Comment Response Page 5 of 5 END OF COMMENTS 152 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:24-22 Agenda Date:2/15/2024 Version:1 Item #:6a. Resolution making findings and a determination that the proposed office /R&D project at 439 Eccles Avenue (“Project”)is fully within the scope of environmental analysis in the previously certified 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report,and the Environmental Checklist prepared for the Project demonstrates that the proposed Project qualifies for streamlined environmental review as there are no project-specific effects which are peculiar to the Project pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15183. WHEREAS,the applicant has proposed the construction of a seven-story,298,470 square foot (gross square footage)office /R&D building approximately 122 feet in height (with rooftop elements reaching 1146 feet),a 6 -level parking structure containing 448 parking stalls,open spaces,landscaping,and circulation improvements (“Project”)on the property located at 439 Eccles Avenue (APN 015-071-260)of approximately 2.63 acres (referred to as “Project Site”) in the City; and WHEREAS,the applicant seeks approval of a Design Review Permit (DR23-0018)and Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM23-0006)for the Project,to be considered by the Planning Commission by separate resolution; and WHEREAS,approval of the applicant’s proposal is considered a “project”for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code §21000, et seq. (“CEQA”); and WHEREAS,the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”)on October 12,2022 (State Clearinghouse number 2021020064)in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the development of the 2040 General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments and Climate Action Plan (“2040 General Plan EIR”); and WHEREAS, the City Council also adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (“SOC”) on October 12, 2022 in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, which carefully considered each significant and unavoidable impact identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR and found that the significant environmental impacts are acceptable in light of the project’s social, economic and environmental benefits; and WHEREAS, Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines generally states that no subsequent EIR need be prepared for a project where an EIR has previously been prepared unless the lead agency identifies subsequent changes in circumstances that were identified and not previously analyzed or would create new significant environmental effects; and WHEREAS, CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 more specifically provides that projects consistent with the City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/6/2024Page 1 of 4 powered by Legistar™153 File #:24-22 Agenda Date:2/15/2024 Version:1 Item #:6a. development density established by existing zoning policies or community plan for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects that are peculiar to the project or its site; and WHEREAS, CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 specifies that a public agency shall limits its examination of environmental effects to those that the agency determines in an environmental checklist are peculiar to a project or a parcel on which the project would be located; were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or community plan with which the project is consistent; are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the prior EIR; or are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR; and WHEREAS,pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183,City staff and the applicant conducted environmental analysis in the form of an environmental checklist for the proposed Project; and WHEREAS,the 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist and analysis concludes that in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183,the proposed Project is consistent with the development density established by existing general plan land use designation and zoning for which the 2040 General Plan EIR was certified;demonstrates that the proposed Project qualifies for streamlined environmental review,as there are no project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the Project or the Project Site;and determines that no additional environmental review is required based on the requirements under said section; and WHEREAS,on February 15,2024,the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the proposed entitlements and environmental effects of the Project and take public testimony; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission reviewed and carefully considered the information in the 2040 General Plan EIR and 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist,attached hereto as Exhibit A and Exhibit B respectively,at a duly noticed public hearing on February 15,2024,as objective and accurate documents that reflect the independent judgement of the City in the identification,discussion,and mitigation of the Project’s environmental impacts,and considered all testimony and evidence presented at the hearing and in the record before it. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it,which includes without limitation,the California Environmental Quality Act,Public Resources Code §21000,et seq. (“CEQA”)and the CEQA Guidelines,14 California Code of Regulations §15000,et seq.;the South San Francisco 2040 General Plan;the South San Francisco Municipal Code;the 2040 General Plan EIR and Statement of Overriding Considerations;the Project applications;the 439 Eccles Avenue Project Plans,as prepared by DGA planning |architecture |interiors dated January 5,2024;the Proposed Transportation Demand Management Plan,as prepared by Fehr &Peers,dated January 2024;the 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist,including all appendices thereto,prepared by Lamphier-Gregory,Inc.dated January 2024;all site plans;all reports,minutes,and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/6/2024Page 2 of 4 powered by Legistar™154 File #:24-22 Agenda Date:2/15/2024 Version:1 Item #:6a. 2024;all site plans;all reports,minutes,and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed February 15,2024 public hearing;and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e)and §21082.2),the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: SECTION 1 FINDINGS General Findings 1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2.The Exhibits attached to this Resolution, including the 2040 General Plan EIR (Exhibit A) and the 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist and its Appendices (Exhibit B) are each incorporated by reference and made a part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein. 3.The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco,315 Maple Avenue,South San Francisco,CA 94080, and in the custody of the Chief Planner. CEQA Findings 1.The Planning Commission,pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15162 and §15183,has considered the 439 Eccles Avenue Environmental Checklist prepared for the Project,including the related environmental analysis, along with the previously certified 2040 General Plan EIR. 2.Upon consideration of the 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist and the entirety of the record before it,the Planning Commission,exercising its independent judgement,finds that the proposed Project is consistent with the development density established by existing general plan and zoning for which the 2040 General Plan EIR was certified,and therefore,the Project does not require additional environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15183,except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the Project or the Project Site. 3.The Planning Commission,exercising its independent judgement,finds that,based on substantial evidence in the record including as demonstrated by the 439 Eccles Avenue Environmental Checklist, the Project will not create any new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts as compared to those already identified and analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR;that there is no new information of substantial importance that demonstrates new or substantially more severe significant effects,as compared to those identified by the 2040 General Plan EIR;and that implementation of mitigation measures and/or development policies and standards contained within the 2040 General Plan EIR would reduce Project impacts to less than significant levels. City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/6/2024Page 3 of 4 powered by Legistar™155 File #:24-22 Agenda Date:2/15/2024 Version:1 Item #:6a. 4.Accordingly,the Planning Commission finds that per CEQA Guidelines §15162 and §15183,the Project does not require any further environmental review,and that the 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist,prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15183,is the appropriate environmental document for approval of the Project. SECTION 2 DETERMINATION NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution and a determination that per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15183,the 439 Eccles Avenue Project does not require further environmental analysis based on substantial evidence in the record,including evidence contained in the Project’s Environmental Checklist.The Planning Commission determines that the Project qualifies for streamlined environmental review and that there are no project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the Project or the Project Site. Thus, no other environmental review would be required. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. * * * * * * * City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/6/2024Page 4 of 4 powered by Legistar™156 Exhibit A 2040 General Plan Update EIR and Appendices Links: - Draft EIR - Final EIR - Appendix A – NOP and Scoping Comments - Appendix B – Air Quality, Energy and GHG Supporting Information - Appendix C – Biological Resources Supporting Information - Appendix D – Cultural Resources – Tribal Cultural Resources Supporting Information - Appendix E – Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Supporting Information - Appendix F – Hazards and Hazardous Materials Supporting Information - Appendix G – Noise Supporting Information - Appendix H – Transportation Supporting Information 157 439 ECCLES AVENUE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PROJECT IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR (SCH#2021020064) Lead Agency: City of South San Francisco Economic & Community Development Department 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083-0711 Prepared By: Lamphier–Gregory, Inc. 4100 Redwood Road Ste 20A - #601 Oakland, CA 94619 January 2024 158 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page i Table of Contents Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... i I. Project Characteristics ...................................................................................................... 1 II. Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 2 III. Background, Purpose, and Organization ........................................................................... 3 IV. Project Description .......................................................................................................... 7 V. Summary of CEQA Findings ............................................................................................ 17 VI. Environmental Checklist ................................................................................................. 19 A. Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................ 20 B. Agriculture and Forestry Resources ..................................................................................... 23 C. Air Quality ............................................................................................................................ 25 D. Biological Resources ............................................................................................................ 31 E. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................. 37 F. Energy ................................................................................................................................... 41 G. Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................ 44 H. Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................................. 49 I. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................ 52 J. Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................... 58 K. Land Use ............................................................................................................................... 63 L. Mineral Resources ................................................................................................................ 65 M. Noise and Vibration ............................................................................................................ 66 N. Population and Housing ...................................................................................................... 69 O. Public Services and Recreation ............................................................................................ 71 P. Transportation and Circulation ............................................................................................ 73 Q. Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................... 78 R. Wildfire ................................................................................................................................ 81 S. Mandatory Findings of Significance ..................................................................................... 82 159 Page ii 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist TABLES Table 1: Daily Regional Air Pollutant Emissions for Construction ............................................ 27 Table 2: Regional Air Pollutant Emissions for Operations ....................................................... 29 Table 3: Construction and Operational Energy Usage ............................................................. 42 Table 4: Home-Based Work VMT per Employee Thresholds ................................................... 74 FIGURES Figure 1: Project Location ........................................................................................................ 10 Figure 2: Existing Conditions .................................................................................................... 11 Figure 3: Site Plan Including Site Access .................................................................................. 12 Figure 4: Visual Model ............................................................................................................. 13 Figure 5: Building Elevation, West ........................................................................................... 14 Figure 6: Building Elevation, South .......................................................................................... 15 Figure 7: Parking Garage Elevation, South and West .............................................................. 16 ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Standard Conditions and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Attachment 2: Air Quality Calculations Attachment 3: Cultural Records Search, Native American Heritage Commission Response Attachment 4: Energy Calculations Attachment 5: Transportation Analysis 160 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page 1 I. Project Characteristics 1. Project Title: 439 Eccles Avenue Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of South San Francisco Economic & Community Development Department 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083-0711 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Stephanie Skangos, Senior Planner City of South San Francisco, Economic & Community Development Department 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083-0711 Phone: 650-877-8535 4. Project Location: 439 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, CA Assessor’s Parcel Number: 015-071-260 5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: 439 Eccles Ave, LLC Contact 1: David Fowler 200 Vesey St., 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Contact 2: Mike Sanford Sanfo Group LLC 3351 Greenview Drive El Dorado Hills, CA 96762 6. Existing General Plan Designations: Business Technology Park High 7. Existing Zoning: Business Technology Park-High (BTP-H) 8. Description of Project: 298,470 square feet of office/R&D with structured parking. See Section IV. Project Description. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: East of 101 tech uses. See Section IV. Project Description. 10. Other Public Agencies whose Approval is Required: No other public agency approvals are required for the proposed project. 11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code §21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? No consultation has been requested. See Section V.E: Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources. 161 Page 2 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist II. Executive Summary The project site is within the area planned for development as a part of the South San Francisco 2040 General Plan Update (SSF GPU) and associated 2022 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse Number 2021020064) and consistent with allowable development for this site. The project is located in the East of 101 area. The project proposes to demolish the existing warehouse and construct a new 7-story, 122-foot tall (with rooftop elements reaching 146 feet), 298,470 square foot building (including a basement level), and an associated 6-story, 66-foot-tall parking garage with 448 parking stalls. The specific tenant(s) have not been identified, but the applicant is targeting research & development, office, or technology tenants. Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 provides a limited statutory exemption from CEQA for projects consistent with the general plan of a local agency and the associated certified environmental impact report. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines outline the process for determining the applicability of this statutory exemption in Sections 15168/15162 and 15183. CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 provides that when a Programmatic EIR has been prepared and certified, later activities (such as the proposed project) determined by the lead agency as being within the scope of the EIR do not require subsequent environmental review, unless the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 triggering subsequent environmental review are met. CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 allows for streamlining the environmental review process for projects that are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified. This document serves as substantial evidence that the proposed project is within the scope of the SSF GPU EIR and that subsequent environmental review is not required since the project would not have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, and no substantial changes or new information has arisen that would result in new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15168/15162 and 15183, this document therefore serves as substantial evidence that the proposed project qualifies for streamlining as a project consistent with the SSF GPU and SSF GPU EIR and no further environmental review is warranted. 162 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page 3 III. Background, Purpose, and Organization Background The project site is within the 2040 General Plan Update (SSF GPU) planning area. The SSF GPU was adopted in October 2022, including amendments to the South San Francisco Zoning Code and Climate Action Plan, and the associated SSF GPU EIR was certified. The SSF GPU land use designation is Business Technology Park – High, which is intended for high-density corporate headquarters, offices, and research and development (R&D) uses. The SSF GPU, being a general plan, was analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR (State Clearinghouse Number 2021020064) on a programmatic level. The SSF GPU EIR for South San Francisco is hereby incorporated by reference and can be obtained from the City of South San Francisco Economic & Community Development Department at 315 Maple Avenue in South San Francisco, and on the City of South San Francisco website at: http://weblink.ssf.net under Planning Division/Environmental Reports/2022 General Plan. Purpose This document has been prepared in accordance with the relevant provisions of CEQA (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines as implemented by the City of South San Francisco. Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 provides a limited statutory exemption from CEQA pursuant to which projects may proceed without additional CEQA analysis. Section 21083.3(b) reads as follows: “If a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an environmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan, the application of this division to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 and the referenced Section 15162 (excerpted in full below) explain the relationship of a programmatic EIR such as the SSF GPU EIR to subsequent analysis of projects within the program area. As outlined in these sections, the proposed project would require further environmental review if the project would result in new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects than what was analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 further clarifies how CEQA assessment proceeds for projects consistent with a community plan or zoning, such as the SSF GPU and associated zoning. This Environmental Checklist examines whether the project qualifies for a statutory exemption under Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 as a project consistent with the SSF GPU EIR, according to the criteria and process outlined in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15168/15162 and 15183. 163 Page 4 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist CEQA Guidelines Code References CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c) provides that later activities in the program must be examined in the light of the program EIR – in this case, the SSF GPU EIR – to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared and specifies how a program EIR is used with those later activities. 15168. Program EIR (c) Use With Later Activities. Later activities in the program must be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. (1) If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, a new initial study would need to be prepared leading to either an EIR or a negative declaration. That later analysis may tier from the program EIR as provided in Section 15152. (2) If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no subsequent EIR would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required. Whether a later activity is within the scope of a program EIR is a factual question that the lead agency determines based on substantial evidence in the record. Factors that an agency may consider in making that determination include, but are not limited to, consistency of the later activity with the type of allowable land use, overall planned density and building intensity, geographic area analyzed for environmental impacts, and covered infrastructure, as described in the program EIR. (3) An agency shall incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the program EIR into later activities in the program. (4) Where the later activities involve site specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were within the scope of the program EIR. (5) A program EIR will be most helpful in dealing with later activities if it provides a description of planned activities that would implement the program and deals with the effects of the program as specifically and comprehensively as possible. With a good and detailed project description and analysis of the program, many later activities could be found to be within the scope of the project described in the program EIR, and no further environmental documents would be required. CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 above indicates that the criteria in Section 15162 should be utilized for determining when additional environmental review is required for subsequent projects within a programmatic EIR (subsections a and b including applicable criteria are excerpted below): 15162. Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations (a) When an EIR has been certified or a Negative Declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 164 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page 5 (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. (b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subdivision (a). Otherwise, the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation. CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 outlines how to analyze a project consistent with a community plan or zoning, such as the SSF GPU EIR and associated zoning (subsections a through c including applicable criteria are excerpted below): 15183. Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning (a) CEQA mandates that projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. This streamlines the review of such projects and reduces the need to prepare repetitive environmental studies. (b) In approving a project meeting the requirements of this section, a public agency shall limit its examination of environmental effects to those which the agency determines, in an initial study or other analysis: (1) Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located, (2) Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan or community plan with which the project is consistent, (3) Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action, or 165 Page 6 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist (4)Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR. (c)If an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards, as contemplated by subdivision (e) below, then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact. Organization Section I, Project Characteristics presents a quick reference of the project details. Section II, Executive Summary includes a summary of conclusions of this document. Section III, Purpose and Organization (this section). Section IV, Project Description details the proposed project. Section V, Summary of CEQA Findings explains the findings of this document. Section VI, Environmental Checklist details the potential environmental impacts of the project, including the impact findings of the SSF GPU EIR and relevant Mitigation Measures (MMs) and explains whether the project would result in new or more significant environmental impacts than those identified in the 2022 SSF GPU EIR. Attachment 1 includes full text of the standard conditions and MMs applicable to the project in the proposed Standard Conditions and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 166 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page 7 IV. Project Description Project Site and Vicinity East of 101 Area and Technology Businesses The South San Francisco General Plan Update (SSF GPU) planning area includes all properties located within the incorporated boundary of the City and the lands within the City’s Sphere of Influence, approximately 4,456-acres. The project site is located in the City of South San Francisco’s “East of 101” planning area, the traditional and continued core of South San Francisco’s industrial and technological businesses. The East of 101 area consists of roughly 1,700 acres of land bound by San Francisco Bay on the east side, U.S. 101 and railway lines on the west, the City of Brisbane and San Francisco Bay on the north, and San Francisco International Airport and San Bruno on the south. The area has a mix of land uses, including industry, warehousing, retail, offices, hotels, marinas, and bioscience R&D facilities. The area is also currently separated from most of South San Francisco’s residential uses by U.S. 101. During the recent 2040 General Plan Update and related implementation actions, the General Plan designation and zoning of 493 acres of the East of 101 area north of the east-west rail spur, including the project site, were changed from a designation and zoning for industrial or office/R&D/biotech development to a new Business Technology Park High designation and zoning. This new land use designation is intended for higher density corporate headquarters, R&D facilities, and offices with a base maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.5, and an allowable FAR of up to 2.0 with provision of additional community benefits. The SSF GPU EIR projected jobs in the Business Technology Park High area to grow from 24,458 jobs to 40,656 jobs at full buildout anticipated by the SSF GPU and the square footage to grow from the existing 10,026,728 square feet to 17,814,915 square feet. Project Site and Adjacent Development The 2.63-acre project site (Assessor’s Parcel Number 015-071-260) is located on the north side of Eccles Avenue approximately 700 feet north of the intersection with Forbes Boulevard. The project site has an existing 40,224 square foot, single-story tilt-up warehouse, and associated surface parking, which was unoccupied at the time of this analysis. The site is mostly flat, with elevations ranging from approximately 94 to 105 feet above mean sea level. The project site is flanked by a biotechnology company to the southwest, an event management company to the northeast, and a research and development center to the northwest. A freight forwarding center is across Eccles Avenue to the southeast, separated from the road by a Southern Pacific Railroad track. A Rails–to-Trails Path runs behind the northwest property line, separated from the project site by an approximately 20-foot-tall retaining wall. The location of the project is shown in Figure 1. Proposed Project Figures follow the descriptive text, showing the existing conditions (Figure 2), project site plan with site access (Figure 3), visual model (Figure 4), and building elevations (Figures 5 through 7). The project proposes to demolish the existing warehouse and construct a new 7-story, 298,470 square foot building, including basement level, and an associated 6-story parking garage with 448 parking stalls. 167 Page 8 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist The specific tenant(s) have not been identified, but the applicant is targeting R&D, office, or technology tenants (abbreviated as “office/R&D” in this document). The proposed office/R&D building has an approximately 32,500 square foot footprint, reaching a building height of 122 feet above grade, with rooftop elements reaching 146 feet. Starting on the third floor, each floor is designed to have a private outdoor balcony terrace, with sizes varying. The parking garage is proposed to reach a height of 66 feet, with a footprint of 27,631 square feet. FAR for the project is calculated at 2.0. Access and Circulation Vehicular Access: The project proposes two vehicular driveways to access the main entrance and the parking garage and a third connection that would act as a fire and service lane, all on Eccles Avenue. Bicycle & Pedestrian Circulation: Pedestrians could enter the building by accessing the main entrance via an internal sidewalk that connects to the sidewalk on Eccles Avenue, or by exiting the parking garage and crossing the central plaza. Two access points would connect the Rails-to-Trails path to the project site, providing bicycle access from the rear of the site. Transit Facilities & Network Configuration: The project site is located within walking distance of shuttle and bus service, while regional rail and ferry service may be accessed via first/last mile shuttles. The South San Francisco Caltrain Station is approximately 0.5 miles from the project site. The nearest shuttle stop for the Glen Park BART Station is approximately 0.25 miles from the project site, but due to the lack of a direct route, pedestrians from the project would need to walk 2,300 to 2,500 feet to reach this nearest bus/shuttle stop. Due to asymmetry in the northbound/southbound stops for shuttles, the nearest northbound shuttle stop is presently located 2,200 feet to the north in front of 1000 Gateway Boulevard. Parking: 448 vehicle parking spaces would be provided in the parking garage. Parking for 46 bikes is proposed, including 23 long term and 23 short term spaces. Utilities The project site is a developed lot already served with utilities. Localized lines may need to be extended or relocated within the project site. There is an existing 8-inch water main and an existing City owned 8- inch sanitary sewer pipe, both in Eccles Avenue. There are existing City owned 12-inch and 15-inch storm drainpipes in Eccles Avenue that drain directly to the San Francisco Bay. The site is not located within San Mateo County’s Hydromodification Management Control Area. The project proposes to include natural gas connections and use as allowable under South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC) Section 15.26.020 (“Amendments to the Energy Code/Building Energy Efficiency Standards”) if granted an exception for scientific laboratories equipment and space conditioning systems. A canopy of photovoltaic panels is proposed on the top level of the parking garage to provide electricity to the project. It is anticipated that the project will include two 2-megawatt emergency generators (Tier 4 emissions equipment) located on the northwest side of the project site. 168 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page 9 Construction Project construction activities are anticipated to span approximately 26 months with an assumed start for purposes of this analysis in late-2024 or later. Demolition and site preparation, including excavation for the basement, is planned to take approximately four months. Construction of the office/R&D building is expected to take approximately 24 months, and the parking garage is expected to be built over approximately 14 months, with a projected start date 10 months after the start of the office/R&D building construction. Exterior construction is expected to be finished at the end of 2026 or later.1 The project is estimated to involve earthmoving in the amount of 40,000 cubic yards of cut and a fill of 500 cubic yards. Excavation for the basement would extend to depths of up to about 25 feet below ground surface. Project Entitlements Development of the project would require the following approvals from the City of South San Francisco: Design Review, and approval of Transportation Demand Management Plan. 1 While this analysis was performed with an assumption of a construction start in late-2024, if construction is initiated later, impacts would be the same or lessened (due to increasing emissions controls) from those analyzed here. 169 Page 10 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Figure 1: Project Location Source: Fehr & Peers 170 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page 11 Figure 2: Existing Conditions Source: Google Earth, modified to show project site Project Site N 171 Page 12 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Figure 3: Site Plan Including Site Access Source: DGA Architects, Project Plan Set, dated 1/5/24 172 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page 13 Figure 4: Visual Model Source: DGA Architects, Project Plan Set, dated 1/5/24 173 Page 14 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Figure 5: Building Elevation, West Source: DGA Architects, Project Plan Set, dated 1/5/24 Note: This figure includes the site elevation of 100 feet above mean sea level at ground level. Heights with respect to ground level can be calculated by subtracting 100 feet. 174 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page 15 Figure 6: Building Elevation, South Source: DGA Architects, Project Plan Set, dated 1/5/24 Note: This figure includes the site elevation of 100 feet above mean sea level at ground level. Heights with respect to ground level can be calculated by subtracting 100 feet. 175 Page 16 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Figure 7: Parking Garage Elevation, South and West Source: DGA Architects, Project Plan Set, dated 1/5/24 Note: This figure includes the site elevation of 98 feet above mean sea level at ground level. Heights with respect to ground level can be calculated by subtracting 98 feet. 176 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page 17 V. Summary of CEQA Findings This Environmental Checklist demonstrates that none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 or 15168 have occurred because, as proposed, the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects than what was analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR; therefore, no further environmental review is required. This Environmental Checklist also demonstrates that the proposed project qualifies for streamlining under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 as there are no project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. • Program EIR: The analysis conducted in this document indicates that the project is consistent with the analysis and conclusions in the Program EIR (SSF GPU EIR) and would not require subsequent analysis per CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, as confirmed by the following statements: (1) The project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) There are no changes in circumstances that would result in the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) There is no new information resulting in a new significant effect or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, or a change in the feasibility (or acceptance) of mitigation measures. The project is within the scope of the SSF GPU Program EIR, and no new environmental document is required (per CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)) as confirmed by the following statements: (1) The project is a subsequent project within the scope of the Project Description as analyzed in the Program EIR for the SSF GPU. (2) The project will have no significant environmental effects not previously addressed in the SSF GPU Program EIR, and will not have any significant effects that are more severe than those previously addressed in the SSF GPU Program EIR (3) No substantial changes to the SSF GPU are proposed as part of this project. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the SSF GPU Program EIR was certified, and no new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time that the SSF GPU Program EIR was certified as complete, has become available. (4) No new or additional mitigation measures or alternatives are required. (5) All applicable regulations and mitigation measures identified in the SSF GPU Program EIR will be applied to the project or otherwise made conditions of approval of the project. • Community Plan Exemption: Based on the analysis conducted in this document, and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, this project as a separate and independent basis qualifies for the exemption for projects consistent with a community plan, general plan, or zoning. This CEQA document considers the analysis in the SSF GPU EIR as applicable to this project. The project is 177 Page 18 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist permitted in the zoning district where the project site is located and is consistent with the bulk, density, and land use standards envisioned in the SSF GPU. The CEQA Analysis provided herein concludes that the project would not result in significant impacts that (1) would be peculiar to the project or project site; (2) were not identified as significant project-level, cumulative, or off-site effects in the program EIR; or (3) were previously identified as significant but later determined as having a more severe adverse impact than that discussed in the program EIR. Examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the Program EIR, as summarized in the CEQA analysis below, indicates that the prior CEQA document adequately analyzed and covered the potential environmental impacts associated with this project. The project would not result in a new, peculiar, significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a significant environmental impact than determined in previous Program EIRs. Therefore, no further review or analysis, under CEQA, is required. 178 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page 19 VI.ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Environmental Factors Potentially Affected Environmental factors that may be affected by the project are listed alphabetically below. Factors marked with an “X” () were determined to be potentially affected by the project, involving at least one impact that is a potentially significant impact as indicated by the Checklist on the following pages. Unmarked factors () were determined to not be significantly affected by the project, based on discussion provided in the Checklist, including the application of mitigation measures.  Aesthetics  Agricultural/Forest Resources  Air Quality  Biological Resources  Cultural Resources  Energy  Geology/Soils  Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Hazards/Hazardous Material  Hydrology/Water Quality  Land Use/Planning  Mineral Resources  Noise  Population/Housing  Public Services  Recreation  Transportation  Tribal Cultural Resources  Utilities/Service Systems  Wildfire  Mandatory Findings of Significance Impacts related to Air Quality and Transportation would remain significant and unavoidable with mitigation. These impacts are consistent with the findings of the SSF GPU EIR. There are no impacts that were found to be unique or peculiar to the project that would indicate a new significant impact, or a substantial increase in a previously identified significant environmental impact. Applicable conditions and mitigation measures are listed in the relevant sections and in Attachment 1. Evaluation of Environmental Effects This Environmental Checklist compares potential environmental impacts of the project to the findings of the SSF GPU EIR, notes whether the project would result in new significant impacts or impacts substantially greater or more severe than those previously identified in the SSF GPU EIR and includes an explanation substantiating the findings for each topic. It uses the abbreviation SU for significant and unavoidable, LTS for less-than-significant, LTS w/ MMs for impacts that are reduced to LTS with implementation of identified mitigation measures (MMs), and NI for when No Impact was identified. The checklist also lists applicable mitigation measures from the SSF GPU EIR. A full list of the MMs applicable to the project can be found in Attachment 1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). More detail regarding the significance criteria used in this document and the environmental impacts of implementation of the SSF GPU is available in the SSF GPU Draft and Final EIR available from the City of South San Francisco Economic & Community Development Department at 315 Maple Avenue in South San Francisco, and on the City of South San Francisco website at: http://weblink.ssf.net under Planning Division/Environmental Reports/General Plan/2022 General Plan. When a dash (--) appears in the checklist below, it means that the SSF GPU EIR did not identify any MMs related to that environmental impact. N/A appears when an MM was identified but it does not apply to the project (e.g., the project characteristics do not meet the criteria specified in the MM). 179 Page 20 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist A. Aesthetics Would the Project: SSF GPU EIR Findings Relationship to SSF GPU EIR Findings: Project Conclusions: Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable MMs Resulting Level of Significance a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista LTS  ☐ - LTS b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway LTS  ☐ - LTS c) As the project is located in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality LTS  ☐ - LTS d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area LTS  ☐ - LTS Discussion a) Scenic Vistas Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with the SSF GPU EIR Impact AES-1 and the less-than-significant conclusion related to scenic vistas, as the project does not have the potential to interfere with designated scenic viewing locations and would be required to comply with all applicable design and zoning policies. The SSF GPU EIR concluded under Impact AES-1 that while new development might alter views of San Bruno Mountain, the South San Francisco Hillside Sign at Sign Hill, and the San Francisco Bay, among other existing views, with mandatory compliance with design review regulations and policies in the SSFMC and General Plan Updates, which would require consistency with setback, scale, landscape, and character requirements to minimize the potential to impact views, the impact would be less than significant. There are no designated public viewing locations in the vicinity of the project. Views from public roadways across the site toward the Bay, Sign Hill, and San Bruno Mountain are already substantially blocked at road level by existing area development, topography, and landscaping, and the development proposed under the project would not significantly change that condition. The taller project height would briefly block views towards the Bay from US 101, but the existing view is already blocked by other buildings and topography. As indicated in the SSF GPU EIR, development projects, including the proposed project, would be required to comply with the site’s zoning district requirements and all applicable municipal codes and would undergo design review by the City, which would minimize the 180 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page 21 potential to impact views. Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20.480 (“Design Review”) establishes the procedure for Design Review, to ensure that projects comply with development standards, including building heights, building setbacks, and landscaping requirements, which assist in protecting scenic vistas and views throughout the City. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to scenic vistas than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. b) Scenic Resources Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR Impact AES-2 and the less-than-significant conclusion related to scenic resources, as the project is not near a designated or eligible scenic highway. The SSF GPU EIR concluded under Impact AES-2 that the impact in regard to scenic highways would be less than significant, as there are no designated State Scenic Highways within the SSF GPU planning area. A portion of State Route 35 is eligible for designation as a State Scenic Highway; however, existing trees block most of the views of the City and San Bruno Mountain and therefore development under the SSF GPU was determined not to have the potential to significantly impact State Route 35. State Route 35 is over three miles away from the project site. The project site is within the SSF GPU, and therefore not within an area with the potential for development to significantly impact a designated or eligible state scenic highway. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to scenic resources than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. c) Visual Character Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR Impact AES-3 and the less-than-significant conclusion related to visual character, as the project would be required to comply with all applicable design and zoning policies and regulations. The SSF GPU EIR concluded under Impact AES-3 that the impact in regard to visual character would be less than significant, as all new development is required to comply with the policies and actions in the SSF GPU and rules and regulations in the SSFMC intending to ensure cohesiveness and visually appealing development. The visual character of the East of 101 area consists of a mixture of older and newer office, industrial, and hotel buildings, with differing amounts of associated landscaping. Development of the project would involve new construction of a modern building including landscaping. While the height would substantially increase over the existing conditions, the proposed conditions are within those allowed under zoning and consistent with other development in the East of 101 area. The project would be required to comply with all applicable municipal codes, including those related to tree removal and landscaping, and would undergo design review by the City. Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20.480 (“Design Review”) establishes the procedure for Design Review, to ensure that projects comply with development standards, including building heights, building setbacks, and landscaping requirements, which assist in protecting the character of the City’s different neighborhoods and the quality of life of City residents. 181 Page 22 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist With compliance with development standards confirmed through Design Review, the project would not have a significant impact on visual character. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to visual character than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. d) Light and Glare Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR Impact AES-4 and the less-than-significant conclusion related to light and glare, as the project would be required to comply with all applicable policies and regulations aimed at minimizing new sources of light and glare. The SSF GPU EIR concluded under Impact AES-4 that the impact in regard to light and glare would be less than significant, as all new development is required to undergo design review and comply with the policies and actions in the SSF GPU and rules and regulations in the SSFMC, intending to minimize visual impacts of additional light and glare created by new development. The project site is located in an urban area of the City, on a currently developed lot that generates light and glare. The project would result in development and lighting treatments typical of the existing commercial and industrial urban setting. Potential sources of light and glare from the project are interior and exterior lights, and headlights and glare from additional project vehicles. As with all new development, the project would be required to comply with design review regulations and applicable policies in the SSFMC. The project applicant will be required to submit photometric data from lighting manufacturers to demonstrate that the lighting plan meets requirements. The SSF Zoning Ordinance contains architectural guidelines, design review criteria and other regulations to reduce the possibility of light and glare impacts, including general standards for outdoor lighting, including maximum heights for lighting fixtures, locations and shielding for lighting fixtures, and prohibits the use of certain types of outdoor lighting, including lighting that results in glare to motor vehicles on public right-of-way, such as outdoor floodlighting, search lights, flood lights, laser lights, or similar high intensity light. With compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, the potential for light and glare impacts of the project would not be significant. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to light and glare than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. 182 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page 23 B. Agriculture and Forestry Resources Would the Project: SSF GPU EIR Findings Relationship to SSF GPU EIR Findings: Project Conclusions: Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable MMs Resulting Level of Significance a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use NI  ☐ - NI b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract NI  ☐ - NI c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)) NI  ☐ - NI d) Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forestland to non-forest use NI  ☐ - NI e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forestland to non-forest use NI  ☐ - NI Discussion a-e) Agriculture and Forestry Resources Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains NI): The project would be consistent with the SSF GPU EIR conclusions of no-impact for all agriculture and forestry resource impact questions, as the project site is in an urban area with no existing agricultural or forestry resources or uses. The SSF GPU EIR determined that the project is located within an urban environment and no existing agriculture or forestry land use activities occur. No portion of the GP planning area is designated as relevant for agriculture or forestry resources by the City of South San Francisco or by the State of 183 Page 24 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist California. As such, construction and operation pursuant to the General Plan would not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance to nonagricultural uses, nor would it conflict with any zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract, or any zoning for forestland or timberland and would not result in loss or conversion of forestland to non-forest uses. Therefore, no impacts related to agriculture and forestry resources would occur. Based on a current search of the California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, the project site does not contain Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland, and does not meet the state definition of “forest land”.2 The project site does not contain active farmlands or grazing lands, is not encumbered by Williamson Act contracts, and is not included within any agricultural or forest resources zoning district. The project would not convert Important Farmland to non-agricultural use and would not result in loss of an active forest resource. Consistent with the conclusions of the SSF GPU EIR, there would be no impact from the project on agriculture and forestry resources. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to agriculture and forestry resources than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. 2 California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program accessed December 2023 at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ 184 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page 25 C. Air Quality Would the Project: SSF GPU EIR Findings Relationship to SSF GPU EIR Findings: Project Conclusions: Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable MMs Resulting Level of Significance a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan SU w/ MM  ☐ SSF GPU MM AIR-1a: Basic Construction Mitigation Measures SU w/ MM b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard SU w/ MM  ☐ SSF GPU MM AIR-1a: Basic Construction Mitigation Measures SU w/ MM c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations LTS w/ MM  ☐ N/A LTS d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people LTS  ☐ - LTS Discussion a) Conflict with Air Quality Plan Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains SU w/ MM): Impact AIR-1 and the SU w/ MM conclusions would apply to the project, as development and trip characteristics under the project would be consistent with estimated projections in the SSF GPU EIR. SSF GPU MM AIR-1a would apply to the project to control dust during construction activities. SSF GPU MM AIR-2b would not apply to the project as there are no nearby sensitive receptors. The project would be required to implement a project-specific Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, which would serve to reduce operational emissions, as required under SSF Zoning Ordinance Section 20.400.005 (adopted to satisfy SSF GPU MM TRANS-1, which applied to the City and not individual projects). The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact AIR-1 that with the full buildout planned in the SSF GPU, there would be a significant and unavoidable impact in regard to conflict with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) Clean Air Plan (2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan), even though the SSF GPU would support its primary goals and applicable control measures, because the plan’s projected vehicle miles traveled (VMT) would increase more than its projected population growth. The SSF GPU EIR determined that with SSF GPU MM AIR-1a, buildout under the SSF GPU would not have a significant impact on construction fugitive dust thresholds and that with SSF GPU MM AIR-1b, buildout would not have a significant impact on sensitive receptors, and would support the primary goals of the 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. The SSF GPU EIR determined that with implementation of SSF GPU policies and 185 Page 26 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist actions and the SSFMC, the SSF GPU buildout would include applicable control measures from the 2017 BAAQMD Clean Air Plan and would not disrupt or hinder any applicable control measures. However, the SSF GPU would not reduce VMT per capita. Population growth facilitated by the SSF GPU buildout was estimated at 61% growth, but VMT growth was estimated at 94%. The project would be consistent with all applicable rules and regulations related to emissions and health risk and would not result in a new substantial source of emissions or toxic air contaminants or otherwise conflict with the primary goals of the 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. The project is consistent with all rules and regulations related to construction activities and would be required to implement SSF GPU MM AIR-1a to control fugitive dust during construction activities (see next section). The proposed development would meet current standards of energy and water efficiency as well as recycling and green waste requirements. SSF GPU MM AIR-1b pertains to requirements that a project must meet when there are sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the project site. There are no sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the project site and therefore SSF GPU MM AIR-1b would not apply to the project (see Sensitive Receptors, below). While the project would implement a TDM program consistent with SSF Zoning Ordinance Section 20.400.005 (adopted in satisfaction of SSF GPU MM TRANS-1, which would reduce the project’s VMT below City-wide projections), the increased VMT for the project would remain above significance thresholds for VMT (see Section P: Transportation). Therefore, the project would contribute to the significant and unavoidable impact in regard to conflict with the 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan’s VMT policy found in the SSF GPU EIR but would not exacerbate the previously identified impact. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to conflict with an air quality plan than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. b) Criteria Air Pollutants Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains SU w/ MM): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR Impact AIR-2 and the significant and unavoidable conclusion related to criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors. SSF GPU MM AIR-1a would apply to the project to control fugitive dust during construction activities. The project would be required to implement a project-specific TDM program, which would serve to reduce operational emissions, as required under of the SSF Zoning Ordinance Section 20.400.005 (adopted to satisfy SSF GPU MM TRANS-1, which applied to the City and not individual projects). The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact AIR-2 that with the full buildout planned in the SSF GPU, criteria air pollutants would be above significance thresholds. During construction activities, projects would be required to implement SSF GPU MM AIR-1a, resulting in a less than significant impact with mitigation during construction. However, during operations, with the increase in VMT as discussed above, the buildout would exceed the plan-level significance threshold for criteria air pollutants, resulting in a significant impact. Even with the City’s TDM ordinance adopted to satisfy SSF GPU MM TRANS-1, the VMT would have a greater increase than the population growth, which would be considered a significant and unavoidable plan-level impact. Project-related air quality impacts fall into two categories: short-term impacts that would occur during construction of the project and long-term impacts due to project operation. BAAQMD’s adopted 186 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page 27 thresholds are average daily emissions during construction or operation of 54 pounds per day or operational emissions of 10 tons per year of nitrogen oxides (NOx), reactive organic gasses (ROG) or suspended particulate matter (PM2.5) and 82 pounds per day or 15 tons per year of PM10. Construction and operational emissions for the project were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”) Version 2020.4.0. Project details were entered into the model including the proposed land uses and generators, TDM plan trip reductions, Peninsula Clean Energy carbon intensity factors, demolition/earthwork volumes, and construction schedule. Model defaults were otherwise used. The CalEEMod inputs and outputs are included in Attachment 2. Construction Emissions Construction of the project would involve excavation, site preparation, building erection, paving, and finishing and landscaping. Although these construction activities would be temporary, they would have the potential to cause both nuisance and health-related air quality impacts. The results from emissions modeling for construction are summarized in Table 1 (and included in full in Attachment 2). Table 1: Daily Regional Air Pollutant Emissions for Construction (Pounds per Day) Description ROG NOx PM10* PM2.5 * Average Daily Emissions 1.07 10.49 <1 <1 BAAQMD Daily Thresholds 54 54 82 54 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No * Applies to exhaust emissions only Source: CalEEMod, see Attachment 2, converted from tons per year to pounds per day across the active construction days (approximately 585 days). Construction-period emissions levels are below BAAQMD thresholds presented in Table 1. However, BAAQMD considers dust generated by grading and construction activities to be a significant impact associated with project development if uncontrolled and recommends implementation of construction mitigation measures to reduce construction-related emissions and dust for all projects, regardless of comparison to their construction-period thresholds. These basic measures are included in SSF GPU MM AIR-1a, which would implement BAAQMD-recommended best management practices to further reduce construction-period criteria pollutant impacts. SSF GPU MM AIR-1a: Basic Construction Management Practices. [The project applicant / owner / sponsor] shall incorporate the following Basic Construction Mitigation Measures recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD): •All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. •All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. •All visible mud or dirt trackout onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. 187 Page 28 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist •All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. •All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. •Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California Airborne Toxics Control Measure [ATCM] Title 13, Section 2485 of the California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. •All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. •Prior to the commencement of construction activities, individual project proponents shall post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Note that the brackets in the above mitigation measure show where text has been revised from the original measure to make clear that the measures would be implemented by this project. With implementation of SSF GPU MM AIR-1a, the impact related to construction-period criteria pollutant impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to construction-period criteria air pollutants than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. Operational Emissions Emissions from operation of the project could cumulatively contribute to air pollutant levels in the region. Emissions of air pollutants associated with the project were predicted using CalEEMod as discussed above. Results of operational emissions modeling are included in full in Attachment 2 and summarized in Table 2, below. 188 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page 29 Table 2: Regional Air Pollutant Emissions for Operations Description ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 2025 Project Emissions, Annual (tons/yr) 2.08 1.60 1.41 0.42 Project Generator Emissions (tons/yr) 0.16 0.73 0.02 0.02 Total Operational Emissions (tons/yr) 2.25 2.33 1.43 0.44 BAAQMD Annual Significance Thresholds (tons/yr) 10 10 15 10 Exceeds Annual Threshold? No No No No Project Emissions, Daily (lbs/day) 12.30 12.79 7.85 2.43 BAAQMD Daily Significance Thresholds (lbs/day) 54 54 82 54 Exceeds Daily Threshold? No No No No Source: CalEEMod, see Attachment 2. Average daily emissions were calculated by converting from tons per year (tons/yr) to pounds/days (lbs/day). As summarized in Table 2, the project’s operational emissions would not exceed applicable thresholds, and the project would not result in individually significant impacts from operational criteria pollutant emissions. However, the project would contribute to the increase in VMT that creates a significant and unavoidable impact found in the SSF GPU EIR, but as discussed above, would not exacerbate the previously identified impact. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to operational criteria air pollutants than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. c) Sensitive Receptors Less Significant Conclusion (Conclusion changes from LTS w/ MM to LTS): The project would not exacerbate SSF GPU EIR Impact AIR-3, and SSF GPU MM AIR-1b would not be necessary to reach a less- than-significant conclusion related to sensitive receptor pollutant exposure as there are no sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the project. The SSF GPU EIR concluded under Impact AIR-3 that new development in the planning area could have a potentially significant impact on sensitive receptors, as new developments could result in construction activities near sensitive receptors, or new residences could place sensitive receptors near sources of pollutants. The SSF GPU EIR further concluded that SSF GPU MM AIR-1b, requiring a project specific health risk assessment for projects that bring sensitive receptors and potential sources of pollution within 1,000 feet of each other, would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. The project would not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, nor would it introduce new sensitive receptors to the project site. SSF GPU MM AIR-1b is only applicable to projects within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, and therefore would not apply to this project. With no sensitive receptors within the 1,000-foot range, the impact of the construction and operation of the project on sensitive receptors would not be significant. 189 Page 30 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to sensitive receptors than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. d) Odors Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR Impact AIR-4 and the less-than-significant conclusion related to odors, as the project is not a land use that has the potential to generate substantial odor complaints. As discussed in the SSF GPU EIR under Impact AIR-4, the SSF Zoning Ordinance restricts uses, activities and processes that produce objectionable odors, concluding that impacts in regard to odors would be less than significant. As discussed above, the project would not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive odor receptors. The project would be required to comply with any applicable regulations in the SSF Zoning Ordinance. The intended uses of office, technology, and/or R&D are not the types of uses that generate frequent or substantial odors, and the impact related to odors would not be significant. Odors from construction activities would be transient and temporary in nature and, per Chapter 20.300.010 (“Performance Standards”) of the Zoning Ordinance, are exempt from odor standards. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to odors than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. 190 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page 31 D. Biological Resources Would the Project: SSF GPU EIR Findings Relationship to SSF GPU EIR Findings: Project Conclusions: Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable MMs Resulting Level of Significance a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service LTS w/ MM  ☐ SSF GPU MM BIO-1: Special-status Species, Migratory Birds, and Nesting Birds LTS w/ MM b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service LTS  ☐ - LTS c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means LTS w/ MM  ☐ N/A NI d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites LTS w/ MM  ☐ N/A LTS e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance LTS  ☐ - LTS f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan LTS  ☐ - NI 191 Page 32 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Discussion a) Special-Status Species Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS w/ MM): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR Impact BIO-1, the requirement for SSF GPU MM BIO-1, and the less-than-significant with mitigation conclusion related to nesting birds, as there are trees on the site with the potential for nesting birds to be present. The SSF GPU EIR concluded under Impact BIO-1 that new development in the planning area could be potentially significant, as there are 48 special-status plant species and 51 special-status animals recorded as being within five miles or less of the planning area. Particularly sensitive areas include riparian habitat, near the shoreline, or in the hillsides or San Bruno Mountain. To reduce the impact on special-status species to less than significant, SSF GPU MM BIO-1 was established. SSF GPU MM BIO-1: Special-status Species, Migratory Birds, and Nesting Birds. Special-status species are those listed as Endangered, Threatened or Rare, or as Candidates for listing by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), or as Rare Plant Rank 1B or 2B species by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). This designation also includes CDFW Species of Special Concern and Fully Protected Species. Applicants or sponsors of projects on sites where potential special-status species, migratory birds, or nesting birds are present shall retain a qualified Biologist to conduct a focused survey per applicable regulatory agency protocols to determine whether such species occur on a given project site. The project applicant or sponsor shall ensure that, if development of occupied habitat must occur, species impacts shall be avoided or minimized, and if required by a regulatory agency or the CEQA process, loss of wildlife habitat or individual plants shall be fully compensated on the site. If off-site mitigation is necessary, it shall occur within the South San Francisco planning area whenever possible, with a priority given to existing habitat mitigation banks. Habitat mitigation shall be accompanied by a long-term management plan and monitoring program prepared by a qualified Biologist, and include provisions for protection of mitigation lands in perpetuity through the establishment of easements and adequate funding for maintenance and monitoring. Consistent with conclusions in the SSF GPU EIR, some special-status bird species could potentially nest in trees on the project site. The loss of any active nests due to construction noise and activity or removal of the trees would be in violation of federal and state laws and therefore new development would require pre-construction nesting surveys. The project site does not contain suitable habitat as designated in the SSF GPU EIR as a potential home for most endangered animal species. The project site contains manmade structures, which may be used as nesting habitat for a few endangered birds. The project site also contains trees, which may provide nesting habitat for birds. For these reasons SSF GPU MM BIO-1 would apply to this project, which requires a focused survey by a qualified biologist, and that special-status species impacts are avoided or minimized, if such species would be affected by the project. Consistent with the intent of the above mitigation measure, the project would require a pre-construction nesting bird survey to ensure that development of the project does not have a significant impact to special-status species. The following Condition of Approval shall be applied to the project in satisfaction of SSF GPU MM BIO-1: 192 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page 33 Prior to issuance of any construction or grading permits, if initiation of construction activities would occur during the avian nesting season (February 1 through August 31), the project applicant / owner / sponsor shall have pre-construction nesting bird surveys conducted by a qualified biologist within 14 days before initial ground disturbance or vegetation removal to avoid disturbance to active nests, eggs, and/or young of nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish & Game Code. Surveys shall encompass the entire construction phase area and the surrounding 100 feet. An exclusion zone where no construction would be allowed shall be established around any active nests of any protected avian species found in the project site until a qualified biologist has determined that all young have fledged and are independent of the nest. Suggested exclusion zone distances differ depending on species, location, and placement of nest, and shall be at the discretion of the biologist (typically 300 feet for raptors and 100 feet for other species). These surveys would remain valid as long as construction activity is consistently occurring in a given area and shall be completed again if there is a lapse in construction activities of more than 14 consecutive days during the nesting bird season. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to special-status species than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. b) Riparian/Sensitive Habitat Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR Impact BIO-2 and the less-than-significant conclusion as the project site and adjacent land do not contain riparian habitat or other sensitive communities. The SSF GPU EIR concluded under Impact BIO-2 that the impact in regards to riparian and sensitive habitats would be less than significant, as all new development is required to comply with all applicable adopted State, federal and local regulations, as well as comply with the policies and actions in the SSF GPU, and rules and regulations in the SSF Zoning Ordinance, which seek to minimize impacts in areas with ecologically sensitive habitats and to enhance riparian habitat near Colma Creek. The project site does not contain riparian habitat, nor is it listed in the SSF GPU EIR as being located in the Special ES Overlay District that has been identified as ecologically sensitive habitat. The project site is a fully developed site surrounded by similar development. The closest ecologically sensitive habitat to the project site is tidal marshes more than ½ -mile to the northeast. Colma Creek is approximately 0.7 miles away from the project site at its closest point. Development of the project would not have a significant impact on riparian or other sensitive habitat. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to riparian or sensitive habitat than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. c) Wetlands or Aquatic Habitats Less Significant Conclusion (Conclusion changes from LTS w/ MM to NI): SSF GPU EIR Impact BIO-3 and SSF GPU MM BIO-3 would not apply to this project as there are no wetlands or waterway features on or within impact range of the project site. 193 Page 34 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist The SSF GPU EIR concluded under Impact BIO-3 that new development in the planning area could be potentially significant, as there are sensitive wetlands and aquatic habitats in the planning area, including along the coastline of the Bay and parts of Colma Creek and San Bruno Creek. SSF GPU MM BIO-3 requires projects to assess potential wetlands impacts and comply with permitting processes of any jurisdictional waters if the project site contains those features or is within 150 feet of the Bay or 80 feet of those Creeks. With implementation of SSF GPU MM BIO-3, requiring assessment of potential wetland impacts, the impact of new development as described in the SSF GPU would be less than significant with mitigation. The closest body of water to the project site is the San Francisco Bay, approximately 2,100 feet to the north at its closest point. Colma Creek is approximately 3,700 feet to the southwest. As mapped in the SSF GPU EIR, there are no wetlands or aquatic habitats within the vicinity of the project site. SSF GPU MM BIO-3, which requires a professional assessment of potentially jurisdictional wetlands or other waters, would not apply to this project. This project would have no impact on wetlands or jurisdictional waters. Given the above analysis, the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to wetlands or aquatic habitats than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. d) Wildlife Corridors/Nursery Sites Less Significant Conclusion (Conclusion changes from LTS w/ MM to LTS): SSF GPU EIR Impact BIO-4, and SSF GPU MM BIO-1 would not fully apply to this project because the project would supplement identified tree-covered areas for wildlife connections and does not otherwise contain wildlife corridors or the necessary habitat for nursery sites. The less-than-significant with mitigation measures conclusion from the SSF GPU EIR would instead change to a less-than-significant conclusion with no mitigation measures necessary. The SSF GPU EIR concluded under Impact BIO-4 that new development in the planning area could be potentially significant, as there are wetlands, parks/open space, and creeks and drainages that provide wildlife corridors and/or nursery sites that could be impacted by development. According to SSF GPU EIR Exhibit 3.3-3: Potential Connectivity for Wildlife Species, trees along the project site street frontage and the Rails-to-Trails pathway immediately northwest of the project site are identified as “tree-covered areas” that may provide wildlife connections between other open areas in the City. No other wildlife corridors were identified in the SSF GPU EIR for this urbanized project site and vicinity. Per SSF GPU EIR Exhibit 3.3-3, the project site does not contain wetlands, creeks, or parks, and does not contain the necessary habitat to be identified as a wildlife nursery site. On the existing project site, there are currently four trees near Eccles Avenue and no trees along the Rails-to-Trails path. The project would add 17 trees along the Rails-to-Trails path and would replace the existing four trees near Eccles Avenue with eight street trees and more in adjacent landscaping (for a total of 37 proposed trees). The project would contribute to more robust tree-covered areas along Eccles Avenue and the Rails-to-Trails path and would therefore not have a negative impact related to their use for wildlife connections. SSF GPU MM BIO-1, as discussed under Special Status Species above with respect to nesting birds, would not be applicable under this topic because the project would supplement identified tree-covered areas for wildlife connections and does not otherwise contain wildlife corridors or the necessary habitat for 194 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page 35 nursery sites, as shown on SSF GPU EIR Exhibits 3.3-1: Existing Habitat Types and Protected Areas and 3.3-3: Potential Connectivity for Wildlife Species. As discussed under Wetlands or Aquatic Habitats above, the project site does not contain wetlands or creeks and SSF GPU MM BIO-3 would not be applicable to the project. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to wildlife corridors or nursery sites than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. e) Conflict with Local Policies Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR Impact BIO-5, and the less-than-significant conclusion as the project would be required to comply with the City’s Tree Ordinance. The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact BIO-5 that development as analyzed in the EIR would have a less than significant impact on conflict with local policies, as all new development must comply with the City’s Tree Ordinance. A Tree Inventory and Assessment Report was completed on August 16, 2023, for the applicant by Monarch Consulting Arborists and is available as part of the project application materials. There are four trees at the project site, none of which qualify as protected under City ordinance based on species and trunk size. All four trees are of the same species, London plane (Platanus x hispanica), and would all be removed for development of the project. The applicant is required to comply with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Title 13, Chapter 13.30 of the SSFMC) as applicable, which requires demonstrating adequate replacement and obtaining a permit for removal of “protected” trees.3 A total of 37 trees are proposed with the project, which would meet or exceed replacement requirements. With compliance with the City’s mandatory Tree Ordinance, the project would not have a significant impact. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to conflict with local policies than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. f) Conflict with Conservation Plans Less Significant Conclusion (Conclusion changes from LTS to NI): SSF GPU EIR Impact BIO-6 would not apply to the project, as it is not in the areas covered by local conservation plans, and the project would result in no impact. The SSF GPU EIR concluded under Impact BIO-6 that new development in the planning area would have a less than significant impact with respect to conflict with conservation plans. There are two areas in the City that contain sensitive habitat that is covered by a conservation plan, Sign Hill Park and San Bruno Mountain State Park; and any area near the Bay that is subject to tidal action is under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). Development near these 3 SSFMC 13.30.080 lists the replacement of protected trees as three fifteen-gallon-size or two twenty-four-inch minimum size landscape trees for each tree removed. 195 Page 36 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist areas would require site specific biological assessments to ensure that all appropriate regulations are followed, reducing any impacts to less than significant. The project site is not within or adjacent to any of the areas covered by a conservation plan. There are no other local, regional, or State conservation plans that are applicable to the planning area included in the SSF GPU EIR, including the project site. The project would have no impact on conflict with conservation plans. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to conflict with conservation plans than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. 196 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page 37 E. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Would the Project: SSF GPU EIR Findings Relationship to GPU EIR Findings: Project Conclusions: Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable MMs Resulting Level of Significance a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 LTS  ☐ - LTS b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 LTS  ☐ - LTS c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries LTS  ☐ - LTS d) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. LTS  ☐ - LTS 197 Page 38 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Discussion a) Historical Resources Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR Impact CUL-1 and the less-than-significant conclusion as the structure on the site is not historically significant. The SSF GPU EIR concluded under Impact CUL-1 that any development planned in the City under the General Plan buildout would have a less than significant impact on historical resources, as each new development proposed that would alter a historic aged building (defined as 45 years old or older) would need to be individually reviewed to ensure that the development would be in compliance with applicable federal and local regulations. The project site is not in a historic district but does contain a historic-age structure. The existing warehouse building on the project site is of historic age, as the warehouse was built in 1964. A Historic Resource Evaluation was completed for this analysis by Preservation Architecture and is included in Attachment 3. The Historic Resource Evaluation concluded that the existing building is without any historical design or construction distinction. Furthermore, there are no associated events of any potential historical importance because no individual developments, discoveries, innovations or inventions of importance are identifiably associated with the existing warehouse building, nor is there any direct association with any person or persons of potential historical importance. Therefore, per the California Register evaluation criteria, the property and building at the project site do not have any potential for a finding of historical significance. There would not be a significant impact on any historical resources. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to historical resources than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. b) Archeological Resources Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR Impact CUL-2 and the less-than-significant conclusion as the project would be required to comply with regulations intended to minimize impacts to archaeological resources. The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact CUL-2 that new development in the planning area would have a less than significant impact on archeological resources as all new development is required to comply with the policies and actions in the SSF GPU, designed to protect archeological resources upon discovery. While there are no known archaeological resources at the project site, any ground disturbance, including that proposed as a part of project construction activities, would have the potential to discover and disturb unknown archaeological resources. SSF GPU Policy ES-10.3 requires development proposals be referred to the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), Native American Heritage Committee (NAHC), and local tribes for review and recommendation. These last two items are discussed under the Tribal Cultural Resources topic below. A records search was requested from NWIC. In their letter dated August 8, 2023, (see Attachment 3) the NWIC concluded that there was a moderate potential for archeological resources to be discovered on the site. SSF GPU Policy ES-10.1 requires the City to maintain formal procedures for minimizing and 198 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page 39 mitigating impacts to archaeological resources, such as worker training and halting work upon discovery and contacting appropriate experts/authorities. The project would be required to comply with applicable procedures, formalized as conditions of project approval. If significant historic or prehistoric archeological resources are discovered during construction or grading activities, SSF GPU Policy ES-10.5 requires work to stop within 100 feet until properly examined. With mandatory adherence to applicable regulations, impacts related to accidental discovery of archeological resources would be less than significant. The following Conditions of Approval shall be applied to the project in satisfaction of identified SSF GPU Policies: In satisfaction of SSF General Plan Policy ES-10.1, prior to issuance of any construction or grading permits, the Applicant shall retain or ensure that a qualified archaeologist is retained to conduct a Worker Environmental Awareness Program training for all construction personnel on the project site prior to construction and ground-disturbing activities. The training shall include basic information about the types of artifacts that might be encountered during construction activities, and procedures to follow in the event of a discovery. This training shall be provided for any personnel with the potential to be involved in activities that could disturb native soils. If archaeological resources are encountered during excavation or construction, construction personnel shall immediately suspend all activity within 100 feet of the suspected resources and the City and a licensed archaeologist shall be contacted to evaluate the situation, including determining the significance of the find. In satisfaction of SSF General Plan Policy ES-10.5, if construction or grading activities result in the discovery of historic or prehistoric archaeological artifacts that are determined to be significant, then all work within 100 feet of the discovery shall remain suspended, the Chief Planner shall be notified; the resources shall be examined by a qualified archaeologist for appropriate protection and preservation measures; and work may only resume when appropriate protections are in place and have been approved by the Chief Planner. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to archaeological resources than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. c) Human Remains Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR Impact CUL-3 and the less-than-significant conclusion as the project would be required to comply with applicable regulations and policies regarding accidental discovery of human remains. The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact CUL-3 that new development in the planning area would have a less than significant impact as all new development is required to comply with actions and policies in the SSF GPU, the SSFMC and other applicable State regulations, such as Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code/Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code that deal with discovery of human remains. While there are no known human remains at the project site, any ground disturbance, including that proposed as a part of project construction activities, would have the potential to discover and disturb unknown human remains. With mandatory adherence to applicable regulations of the Public Resources 199 Page 40 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Code that list required procedures to follow if human remains are discovered, impacts related to accidental discovery of human remains would be less than significant for this project. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to human remains than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. d) Tribal Cultural Resources Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR Impacts CUL-4 and CUL-5 and the less-than-significant conclusions as the project would be required to comply with all applicable policies and actions of the SSF GPU intended to minimize impacts to tribal cultural resources. The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impacts CUL-4 and CUL-5 that new development in the planning area would have a less than significant impact on tribal cultural resources as all new development is required to comply with the policies and actions in the SSF GPU designed to protect tribal cultural resources upon discovery, including SSF GPU Policies ES-10.1, ES-10.3, and ES-10.5 as discussed above. SSF GPU Policy ES-10.3 requires development proposals be referred to the NWIC, NAHC, and local tribes for review and recommendation. A record search of the NAHC Sacred Lands File was completed for the project and indicated there are no known sacred lands present in the vicinity of the site (see Attachment 3). While no tribes have requested consultation for projects in this area, notice was sent to listed tribes on August 8, 2023, per recommendation of the NAHC. No comments on the project or requests for consultation were received in return. A records search was requested from NWIC. In their letter dated August 8, 2023, (see Attachment 3) the NWIC concluded that there is a moderate potential for unrecorded Native American resources to be located in the vicinity. While not expected, standard procedures related to unexpected accidental discovery as required by SSF GPU Policy ES-10.1 and ES-10.5 (discussed in more detail under the Archaeological Resources topic above) would be followed per conditions of project approval. The project would be required to comply with Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code in the event of discovery of Native American human remains. With adherence to applicable procedures and regulations as detailed above, impacts related to accidental discovery of tribal cultural resources would be less than significant. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to tribal cultural resources than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. 200 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page 41 F. Energy Would the Project: SSF GPU EIR Findings Relationship to SSF GPU EIR Findings: Project Conclusions: Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable MMs Resulting Level of Significance a) Result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation LTS  ☐ - LTS b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency LTS  ☐ - LTS Discussion a) Energy Resources Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR Impact ENER-1 and the less-than-significant conclusion as the project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations and building codes that minimize energy use in new buildings. The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact ENER-1 that new development in the planning area would have a less than significant impact on energy resources during both construction and operation, as all new development is required to comply with Climate Action Plan (CAP) Actions, and rules and regulations in the SSFMC designed to reduce energy use. SSF GPU Policy LU-8.4 requires street trees at new developments. SSF GPU Policy SA-28.5 requires the incorporation of sustainable and environmentally sensitive design and equipment, energy conservation features, water conservation measures and drought-tolerant or equivalent landscaping, and sustainable stormwater management features. Section 15.26.010 of the SSFMC adopts the California Green Building Code by reference with certain local “Reach Code” amendments, which has updated to the 2022 Edition since the SSF GPU EIR was written. The project would include short-term demolition and construction activities that would consume energy, primarily in the form of diesel fuel (e.g., mobile construction equipment), gasoline (e.g., vehicle trips by construction workers), and electricity (e.g., power tools). Energy would also be used for conveyance of water used in dust control, transportation and disposal of construction waste, and energy used in production and transport of construction materials. During operation, energy demand from the project would include fuel consumed by employees’ and delivery vehicles, and electricity consumed by the proposed structures, including lighting, research equipment, water conveyance, heating and air conditioning. 201 Page 42 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Table 3 shows the project’s estimated total construction energy consumption and annual energy consumption. As summarized in Table 3, project construction would require what equates to 19,966 MMBtu of energy use. The project would implement construction management practices per SSF GPU MM AIR-1a (see Section C: Air Quality). While focused on emissions and dust reduction, the construction management practices would also reduce energy consumption through anti-idling measures and proper maintenance of equipment. The project would comply with the requirements of the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) to divert a minimum of 65 percent of construction and demolition debris. By reusing or recycling construction and demolition debris, energy that would be used in the extraction, processing and transportation of new resources is reduced. Therefore, the project would not involve the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary use of energy during construction, and the project’s construction energy consumption. As also summarized in Table 3, project annual energy consumption would equate to 34,366 MMBtu of energy use. The project’s required TDM program (see Section P: Transportation) will also include various measures designed to reduce total vehicle trips, which would reduce the consumption of fuel for vehicles; the calculations in Table 3 include a 21% reduction in VMT to account for the TDM program. The roof of the parking garage would hold solar panels to reduce the project’s reliance on nonrenewable energy sources. Table 3: Construction and Operational Energy Usage Source Energy Consumption Amount and Units Converted to MMBtu Construction Energy Use (Total) Construction Worker Vehicle Trips (Gasoline) 37,131 gallons 4,076 MMBtu Construction Equipment and Vendor/Hauling Trips (Diesel) 115,662 gallons 15,890 MMBtu Total Construction Energy Use 19,966 MMBtu Operational Vehicle Fuel Use (Annual) Gasoline 131,069 gallons 14,390 MMBtu Diesel 14,233 gallons 1,955 MMBtu Operational Built Environment (Annual) Electricity 3.16 GWh 10,778 MMBtu Natural Gas 7,242,870 kBtu 7,243 MMBtu Total Annual Operational Energy Use 34,366 MMBtu Note: The energy use reported in this table is gross operational energy use for the proposed project with no reduction to account for energy use of existing development (which is currently unoccupied). Source: Energy Calculations included as Attachment 4. 202 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page 43 While representing a change from the former uses at the site, the project is consistent with the type of development in the area and allowed under the land use designation and zoning and would be replacing a less efficient older building. Therefore, although the project would incrementally increase energy consumption, proposed development is consistent with area planning and applicable energy regulations and would not result in a significant impact related to energy consumption in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary manner. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to energy use than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. b) Conflict with State or Local Plans Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR Impact ENER-2 and the less-than-significant conclusion as the project is within the SSF GPU planning area and would be required to comply with all applicable regulations, which do not conflict with State or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact ENER-2 that new development in the planning area would have a less than significant impact, as the new development would not conflict with or obstruct State or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency, as all new development is required to comply with the policies and actions in the SSF GPU, CAP Actions, and rules and regulations in the SSFMC designed to reduce energy use. These local regulations do not conflict with any applicable State plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency and therefore development under the SSF GPU was determined not to have the potential to have a significant impact on conflict with State or local energy conservation plans. The project site is within the SSF GPU planning area and would be required to comply with all applicable regulations in the CAP and adhere to development standards in the SSFMC, and therefore impacts related to conflicts with State and local energy plans would not be significant. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to conflict with State or local plans than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. 203 Page 44 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist G. Geology and Soils Would the Project: SSF GPU EIR Findings Relationship to SSF GPU EIR Findings: Project Conclusions: Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable MMs Resulting Level of Significance a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death, involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault ii. Strong seismic ground shaking iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction iv. Landslides LTS  ☐ - LTS b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? LTS  ☐ - LTS c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? LTS  ☐ - LTS d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? LTS  ☐ - LTS e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? LTS  ☐ - NI f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? LTS w/MM  ☐ N/A NI 204 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page 45 Discussion This section utilizes information from the Preliminary Geotechnical Site Assessment prepared for the applicants by Langan, dated June 22, 2022, which is available as part of the project application materials. a) Seismic Hazards Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR Impact GEO-1, and the less-than-significant conclusion as the project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations regarding construction and geotechnical engineering. The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact GEO-1 that the proposed buildout of the SSF GPU would not have a significant impact on seismic hazards, as all new development projects would be required to comply with the current California Building Code (CBC), as well as any other SSF GPU policies and actions and the SSFMC, which all contain measures to minimize danger from seismic hazards. Chapter 15.08 (“California Building Code”) of the SSFMC, which implements the CBC and includes certain local amendments to address special conditions within the City including geological and topographical features, requires that foundations and other structural support features would be designed to resist or absorb damaging forces from strong ground shaking, liquefaction, and subsidence. Consistent with conclusions in the SSF GPU EIR, while there are no known active faults at the project site, the region is known to be seismically active and the project would need to comply with the CBC and building permit requirements as required by the SSFMC, and by policies and actions in the SSF GPU, specifically Action CR-4.4.1, which requires projects to prepare site-specific soils and geologic reports for review and approval by the City Engineer, and to incorporate the recommended actions during construction. The site is anticipated to experience strong to violent ground shaking from seismic events within the project’s lifetime. The effects of this on the project would be reduced by following the recommendations of the design-level Geotechnical Report and by adhering to the latest edition of the CBC. Despite the presence of the inactive Hillside fault in the northwest portion of the site, the chance of fault rupture was determined to be low. The project site is not in a designated liquefaction hazard zone. The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation determined that due to shallow bedrock, liquefaction, lateral spreading, and seismic densification would be low. The project site is underlain by undocumented fill over shallow bedrock. These soil conditions, combined with the weight of the project buildings, could lead to serious total and differential settlements. The preliminary recommendation is for the undocumented fill to be replaced with engineered fill, with shallow foundations bearing on either the engineered fill or directly on bedrock to support the buildings. The potential seismic hazards would be minimized by following project-specific geotechnical recommendations, as required under SSF GPU Action CR-4.4.1. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to seismic hazards than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. 205 Page 46 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist b) Soil Erosion Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR Impact GEO-2 and the less-than-significant conclusion as the project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations intended to minimize erosion during construction and operation of new development. The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact GEO-2 that the proposed buildout of the SSF GPU would not have a significant impact on soil erosion, as all new development projects would be required to comply with SSF GPU policies and actions and the SSFMC, which all contain measures to reduce soil erosion and loss of topsoil. SSF GPU Policy ES-7.3 requires new projects to meet federal, State, regional, and local stormwater requirements, including site design, stormwater treatment, stormwater infiltration, peak flow reduction, and trash capture. Construction activities, particularly grading and site preparation, can result in erosion and loss of topsoil. The project also proposes additional excavation for a basement under the office/R&D building. While intentional removal of soil from the site would not be considered erosion, the disturbance of the site could result in the potential for unintended erosion. The project would be required to obtain coverage under the statewide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity, Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ (Construction General Permit), administered by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Coverage under the NPDES Permit would require implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and various site- specific best management practices (BMPs) to reduce erosion and loss of topsoil during site demolition and construction. Compliance with the NPDES permit and BMPs during demolition and construction such as straw wattles, silt fencing, concrete washouts, and inlet protection during construction, would reduce impacts resulting from loss of topsoil. The project would be required to comply with SSFMC Section 15.56.030 (“Methods of reducing flood losses”), which would require the development of the project site to control filling, grading, and dredging which may increase flood damage. Soil erosion after construction would be controlled by implementation of approved landscape and irrigation plans. With the implementation of a SWPPP and Erosion Control Plan to prevent erosion, sedimentation, and loss of topsoil during and following construction – which are required under existing regulations – the soil erosion impacts of the project would not be significant. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to soil erosion than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. c) Unstable Soils Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR Impacts GEO-3 and the less-than-significant conclusion as the project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations regarding construction and geotechnical engineering. The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact GEO-3 that the proposed buildout of the SSF GPU would not have a significant impact due to unstable soils, as all new development projects would be required to comply with the CBC and building permit requirements as required by policies and actions in the SSF GPU, the SSFMC, which all address development on areas containing unstable geologic units or in areas 206 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page 47 where soil is unstable. SSF GPU Action CR-4.4.1 requires projects to prepare site-specific soils and geologic reports for review and approval by the City Engineer, and to incorporate the recommended actions during construction. The project site is covered by approximately one to eight feet of undocumented fill over shallow bedrock. The undocumented fill could result in settlement under the parking garage following building construction due to the weight of the building. The basement of the office/R&D building would need to be excavated through the shallow bedrock. Replacement of the undocumented fill with engineered fill and appropriate foundation design based on ground conditions would incorporate project-specific geotechnical recommendations as approved by the City Engineer. The project would be required to comply with the CBC and building permit requirements as required by policies and actions in the SSF GPU and the SSFMC, which would keep unstable soils from having a significant impact on the project. An existing soil-nail retaining wall with a height of approximately 20-feet is located near the northwest property line. If the proposed building footprint is located near the retaining wall, load transfer elements, such as deep foundations or ground improvement, should be designed to prevent the load from bearing on the wall, and be located to avoid damaging the existing soil nails. Shoring to laterally restrain the sides would be necessary during excavation below shallow groundwater levels to limit the movement of adjacent improvements. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to unstable soils than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. d) Expansive Soils Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR Impact GEO-4 and the less-than-significant conclusion related to expansive soils as the project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations. The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact GEO-4 that the proposed buildout of the SSF GPU would not have a significant impact due to expansive soils, as all new development projects would be required to comply with the CBC and building permit requirements as required by policies and actions in the SSF GPU and the SSFMC, which all address development on areas containing expansive soils. SSF GPU Action CR-4.4.1 requires projects to prepare site-specific soils and geologic reports for review and approval by the City Engineer, and to incorporate the recommended actions during construction. The potential for expansive soil would be low with the replacement of the undocumented fill with engineered fill and would be further examined in the design-level geotechnical investigation. The project would be required to comply with the CBC and building permit requirements as required by policies and actions in the SSF GPU and the SSFMC, including any project-specific geotechnical recommendations to address ground improvement and proper design and construction techniques to minimize impacts of expansive soils on the project. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to expansive soils than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. 207 Page 48 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist e) Septic Tanks Less Significant Conclusion (Conclusion changes from LTS to NI): SSF GPU EIR Impact GEO-5 would not apply to the project, as the project would not use septic tanks, and there would be no impact. The project would connect to the City sewer system and would not use any septic tanks; therefore, the project would have no impact related to septic tanks. f) Geologic Features Less Significant Conclusion (Conclusion changes from LTS w/ MM to LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR Impact GEO-6, but SSF GPU MM GEO-6 would not apply to this project, as it is not located in the Colma Foundation or Merced Formation. The impact would be reduced to less than significant as the project would be required to comply with Section 5097 of the Public Resources Code. The SSF GPU EIR concluded under Impact GEO-6 that the new development included in the SSF GPU could have a potentially significant impact on geologic features or paleontological resources, as there are potentially fossiliferous areas in two areas of the planning area, the Colma Foundation and the Merced Formation. SSF GPU MM GEO-6 requires paleontological monitoring during ground disturbing activities in these areas, reducing the potential impact to less than significant with mitigation. The project site is not located on either the Colma Foundation or Merced Formation. The project site is located in an area with low paleontological potential and is covered with variable amounts of undocumented fill over shallow bedrock, but grading and removal of existing improvements could disturb native soils. If unknown paleontological resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, the project would be required to comply with Public Resources Code 5097, minimizing potential impacts on unknown paleontological resources. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to geologic features than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. 208 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page 49 H. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Would the Project: SSF GPU EIR Findings Relationship to GPU EIR Findings: Project Conclusions: Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable MMs Resulting Level of Significance a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment LTS  ☐ - LTS b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases LTS  ☐ - LTS Discussion a) GHG Emissions Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR Impact GHG-1 and the less-than-significant conclusion as the project would comply with the City’s Climate Action Plan. The SSF GPU EIR concluded under Impact GHG -1 that the buildout planned for in the SSF GPU would have a less than significant impact on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during construction as all new projects would be required to comply with SSF GPU MM AIR-1a, SSFMC and SSF GPU actions and policies that reduce GHG emissions during construction. The project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations during construction, including anti-idling of diesel equipment, salvaging and redirecting materials from demolition, and the provisions of SSF GPU MM AIR-1a. With regulatory compliance, the project would not have a significant impact on GHG emissions during construction. The SSF GPU EIR concluded that the SSF GPU would have a less than significant impact on GHG emissions. The SSF GPU EIR projected the GHG emissions would be 3.55 metric tons (MT) CO2e per service population in 2040, which is less than the 4.0 MT threshold that was used at the time of analysis. Since the SSF GPU EIR, BAAQMD issued new Guidelines (April 2022). For purposes of assessment of a General Plan with a CAP component, the new threshold requires the CAP to meet the statewide GHG reduction targets of 40 percent by 2030 and to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. The City’s CAP was updated as a part of the SSF GPU. The updated 2022 CAP aligns the City with Statewide emission reduction targets and a reduction strategy to reduce GHG emissions by 40 percent below its 2005 baseline by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. As an adopted GHG reduction plan that quantifies existing and projected GHG emissions, including from specific identified actions with 209 Page 50 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist performance standards and monitoring mechanisms, the CAP meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b) as a qualified GHG reduction plan against which a project can be compared for CEQA streamlining purposes. While the updated BAAQMD guidelines would not constitute new information for purposes of CEQA, it can be noted that the SSF GPU would have been determined to have a less than significant impact under the new plan-level thresholds as well. Similarly, under either the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines in place at the time of the SSF GPU EIR or the current 2022 Guidelines, a project within an area with a qualified CAP would be determined to have a less-than-significant impact if the project is consistent with the CAP. There is not currently a checklist for development projects, but the following strategies and actions are indirectly applicable to this proposed project through action and enforcement by the City: BNC 1.1 Improve the energy efficiency of new construction. Provide a combination of financial and development process incentives (e.g., Expedited permitting, FAR increase, etc.) to encourage new development to exceed Title 24 energy efficiency standard. Supports – The project would be required to meet or exceed applicable Title 24 requirements. BNC 2.1 All-Electric Reach Code for Nonresidential New Construction. Implement residential all- electric reach code and adopt all-electric reach code for nonresidential new construction. Supports – The project will submit an exception per the published methodology to determine the cost effectiveness for scientific laboratories to allow gas for space conditioning systems. BE 1.3 Energy Efficiency Programs. Update zoning and building codes to require alterations or additions at least 50% the size of the original building to comply with minimum CALGreen requirements. Supports – The project would meet minimum applicable CALGreen requirements. TL 2.2 TDM Program. Implement, monitor, and enforce compliance with the City ’s TDM Ordinance. Supports – The project would incorporate a TDM program that follows the City’s TDM Ordinance. TL 2.6 Complete Streets Policy. Ensure that all roadway and development projects are designed and evaluated to meet the needs of all street users, and that development projects contribute to multimodal improvements in proportion to their potential impacts on vehicle miles traveled. Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian improvements identified in the Active South City Plan. Supports – The project would enhance the streetscape of Eccles Avenue consistent with General Plan Goals MOB-1: South San Francisco prioritizes safety in all aspects of transportation planning and engineering, MOB-2: South San Francisco provides a multimodal network with convenient choices for everyone, and MOB-5: South San Francisco residents have easy access to play, fitness, and active transportation networks, and the Active South City Plan. A pedestrian and bicycle connection would be provided to the multi-use trail along the project’s border. 210 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page 51 WW 2.1 Indoor Water Efficiency Standards. Require high-efficiency fixtures in all new construction and major renovations, comparable to CALGreen Tier 1 or 2 standards. Supports – The project would be required to meet the CALGreen and the Title 24 Building Code, which requires high-efficiency water fixtures and water-efficient irrigation systems. Using the current GHG thresholds, the project would be compliant with the City’s CAP, meeting Criteria B of BAAQMD’s thresholds. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to GHG emissions than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. b) Consistency with GHG Reduction Plans Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change Impact GHG-2 or the less-than-significant conclusion related to consistency with GHG reduction plans as the project is consistent with the SSF CAP, which in turn is consistent with State and local GHG reduction plans. The SSF GPU EIR concluded under Impact GHG-2 that the buildout planned for in the SSF GPU would have a less than significant impact on consistency with applicable plans to reduce GHG emissions, as all new projects would be required to comply with the City’s updated 2022 CAP, the SSFMC, and applicable SSF GPU actions and policies, which are all consistent with State and regional GHG reduction plans. Therefore, development under the SSF GPU was determined not to have the potential to significantly impact consistency with GHG reduction plans. The project site is within the SSF GPU, and therefore must comply with all State, regional, and local GHG reduction plans, and would not significantly impact consistency with GHG reduction plans. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to consistency with GHG reduction plans than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. 211 Page 52 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist I. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Relationship to GPU EIR Findings: Project Conclusions: Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable MMs Resulting Level of Significance a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials LTS  ☐ - LTS b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment LTS  ☐ - LTS c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school LTS  ☐ - NI d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment LTS  ☐ - LTS e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area LTS  ☐ - NI f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan LTS  ☐ - LTS g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires LTS  ☐ - NI 212 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page 53 Discussion a) Routine Hazardous Materials Use Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR Impact HAZ-1 and the less-than-significant conclusion related to the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials as the project would be required to comply with applicable regulations related to hazardous materials handling. The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact HAZ-1 that the proposed buildout would not have a significant impact on routine hazardous materials use, as all new development projects would be required to comply with applicable federal and State regulations, as well as SSF GPU policies and actions and the SSFMC, which all contain measures to reduce the risk to the public or the environment from the routine handling of hazardous materials. Federal, State, and regional agencies that regulate hazardous materials include the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), California Highway Patrol (CHP), local Certified Unified Program Agency (local CUPA), and BAAQMD. It is likely that equipment used at the site during construction activities could utilize substances considered by regulatory bodies as hazardous, such as diesel fuel and gasoline. However, all construction activities would be required to conform with Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, US Department of Transportation, State of California, and local laws, ordinances, and procedures. R&D uses that could occupy the proposed project, such as biotech and pharmaceutical research laboratories, typically use limited quantities of materials considered to be biological hazards and/or chemical hazards. The San Mateo County Environmental Health Division enforces regulations pertaining to safe handling and proper storage of hazardous materials to prevent or reduce the potential for injury to human health and the environment. Occupational safety standards exist in federal and state laws to minimize worker safety risks from both physical and chemical hazards in the workplace. The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) is responsible for developing and enforcing workplace safety standards and ensuring worker safety in the handling and use of hazardous materials. Depending on the amounts and types of hazardous materials being used, further agencies may have applicable regulations. Given the strict regulations that would minimize any safety or environmental concerns related to the routine handling of hazardous materials, the project would not have a significant impact. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to routine hazardous materials use than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. b) Risk of Upset Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR Impact HAZ-2 and the less-than-significant conclusion related to hazardous materials upset risk as the project site does not contain contaminated soil and would follow all applicable regulations for the presence of asbestos. The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact HAZ-2 that the proposed buildout analyzed for the SSF GPU would not have a significant impact, as all new development projects would be required to comply with 213 Page 54 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist applicable federal and State regulations, as well as SSF GPU policies and actions and the Zoning Ordinance, which all contain measures to reduce the risk to the public or the environment from the accidental upset of hazardous materials. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the project site was conducted by EBI Consulting for the applicant on June 28, 2022, which is available as part of the project application materials. The report concluded that there was no evidence of current or historical environmental conditions that would require regulatory oversight or additional safety measures to protect workers or the public during project construction due to contaminated soil or water at the site, nor is the project site on the Cortese list as a location of hazardous materials release. The project would be required to comply with the California Code of Regulations. Title 8 contains requirements for public and worker protection, including equipment requirements and accident prevention. If excavated soil is found to contain previously unknown contaminants, the soil would be regulated under Title 22. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment reported asbestos containing materials in the existing building. Any suspected such materials must be abated by a licensed abatement contractor and disposed of according to all state and local regulations during demolition. The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation conducted by Langan determined that there was a possibility of naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) in the shallow bedrock. If further investigation determines that enough NOA is present on the project site, the project would be subject to the Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations under the California Air Resource Board, which requires construction and grading projects to implement best available dust mitigation measures where naturally occurring asbestos rock is likely to be encountered. In accordance with Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 93105, the project must prepare and submit an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan to BAAQMD for review and approval, indicating how construction and grading operations will minimize emissions and ensure that no equipment or operation will emit visible dust across the property line. Upon completion of construction activities, disturbed surfaces must be stabilized (e.g., with vegetative cover or pavement) to prevent visible emissions of asbestos-containing dust caused by wind speeds of 10 miles per hour or more. In addition, a Certified Industrial Hygienist would provide health and safety recommendations for potential worker exposure to NOA per Cal/OSHA requirements. During construction, the project would need a SWPPP (see Section G: Geology and Soils and Section I: Hydrology and Water Quality), which must include measures for erosion and sediment controls, runoff water quality monitoring, means of waste disposal, implementation of approved local plans, maintenance responsibilities, and non-stormwater management controls. The BMPs in the SWPPP include measures to prevent spills and require on-site materials for cleanup. With implementation of an approved SWPPP and compliance with regulations, the project would not have a significant impact with regard to risk of upset of hazardous materials. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to risk of upset than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. 214 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page 55 c) Hazardous Materials Near Schools Less Significant Conclusion (Conclusion changes from LTS to NI): SSF GPU EIR Impact HAZ-3 would not apply to the project, as the project site is not within a ¼ mile of a school. The project site is not located within one-quarter mile of a school site. The project would have no impact in regard to hazardous materials near schools. d) Hazardous Materials Site Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR Impact HAZ-4 and the less-than-significant conclusion related to a known hazardous materials site as the project is not a known hazardous materials site. The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact HAZ-4 that the proposed SSF GPU buildout would not have a significant impact, as all new development projects would be required to comply with applicable federal and State regulations, as well as SSF GPU policies and actions and the Zoning Ordinance, which all contain measures to reduce the risk to the public or the environment from contaminated sites during construction activities. The project site is not on the Cortese list, and the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment completed at the site did not find any indications of past or present contamination. If unexpectedly contaminated soils were discovered during construction activities, the handling, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials would be required to comply with the requirements and regulations set forth by the City, EPA, OSHA, USDOT, DTSC, Caltrans, CHP, local CUPA, and BAAQMD. With compliance with all applicable regulations, any potential impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to hazardous materials sites than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. e) Airport Hazards Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR Impact HAZ-5 and the less-than-significant conclusion, as the proposed heights under the project remain within height levels considered safe in relation to the airport. The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact HAZ-5 that the proposed buildout would not have a significant impact in regard to airport hazards, as all new development projects would be required to comply with applicable SSF GPU policies and actions and the Zoning Ordinance. The SSF GPU includes policies and actions that minimize the exposure of people working in the East of 101 area to a safety hazard or excessive noise from the San Francisco International Airport (SFO), including SSF GPU Policy SA-21.3 to allow building heights in the East of 101 area up to but not exceeding the maximum limits permitted under the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations. The project is located in an area with a maximum allowable height of 860 feet above mean sea level. Factoring in the height of the site of approximately 100 feet above mean sea level, the proposed buildings would reach heights up to 222 feet above mean sea level plus an additional approximately 24 feet of rooftop elements for a maximum height of 246 feet, all of which would be well below the FAA height limit at the site of 860 feet. The project is consistent with airport-related building safety policies 215 Page 56 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist identified in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), including avoidance of potential flight hazards such as laser displays, searchlights, radar, etc., and therefore would not have a significant impact. 4 Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to airport hazards than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. f) Emergency Access Routes Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR Impact HAZ-6 and the less-than-significant conclusion, as the project is within the planned buildout of the SSF GPU. The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact HAZ-6 that the proposed buildout would not have a significant impact, as current evacuation routes have sufficient capacity for the planned buildout, and the San Mateo County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) is updated regularly. As new development occurs, the EOP would be updated to ensure it accommodates the subsequent growth, and therefore development under the SSF GPU was determined not to have the potential to significantly impact emergency access routes. The project would not include any changes to existing public roadways that provide emergency access to the site or surrounding area. The proposed project would be designed to comply with the California Fire Code and the City Fire Marshal’s code requirements that require on site access for emergency vehicles, a standard condition for any new project approval. No substantial obstruction in public rights-of-way has been proposed with the project’s construction activities. However, any construction activities can result in temporary intermittent roadway obstructions, but these would be handled through standard procedures with the City as part of the building permit process to ensure adequate clearance is maintained. The project is part of the anticipated growth in the East of 101 area analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR and therefore is part of the less than significant impact to emergency access routes. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to emergency access routes than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. g) Significant Risk Involving Wildland Fires Less Significant Conclusion (Conclusion changes from LTS to NI): SSF GPU EIR Impact WILD-1 would not apply to the project as it is not located in or near fire-prone wildland areas and would therefore not result in significant risk involving wildland fires. 4 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, November 2012, Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, including Exhibit IV-14, and pages IV-59 to IV-60. Available at: http://ccag.ca.gov/wp- content/uploads/2014/10/Consolidated_CCAG_ALUCP_November-20121.pdf 216 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page 57 The SSF GPU EIR determined that development in or near fire-prone wildland areas, identified as Sign Hill Park and the San Bruno Mountain State Park, would require a landscape design plan that addresses fire safety and prevention. The project site is not located near the SSF GPU EIR-identified fire-prone areas (Sign Hill Park and the San Bruno Mountain State Park), which are both located on the other side of US 101. The project would have no impact related to risk involving wildland fires. 217 Page 58 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist J. Hydrology and Water Quality Would the Project: SSF GPU EIR Findings Relationship to SSF GPU Findings: Project Conclusions: Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable MMs Resulting Level of Significance a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality LTS  ☐ - LTS b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin LTS  ☐ - LTS c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site, create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or impede or redirect flood flows LTS  ☐ - LTS d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation LTS  ☐ - LTS e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? LTS  ☐ - LTS 218 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page 59 Discussion a) Water Quality Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR Impact HYD-1 and the less-than-significant conclusion, as the project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations listed in the SSF GPU EIR. The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact HYD-1 that the proposed buildout would not have a significant impact on water quality during anticipated construction activities, dewatering or operations. All new development projects would be required to comply with all applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations, as well as SSF GPU policies and actions, CAP Actions, and the SSFMC, which all contain measures to protect water quality during construction. All new development projects that require dewatering during excavation or trenching would be required to comply with mandatory NPDES permit requirements and the SSFMC during dewatering activities. All new development would be required to comply with federal, State, regional and local stormwater requirements, and SSF GPU policies and actions, the SSFMC, and CAP Actions related to stormwater. Construction activities have the potential to impact water quality through erosion and through debris and oil/grease carried in runoff which could result in pollutants and siltation entering stormwater runoff and downstream receiving waters if not properly managed. The project would be required to obtain coverage under the General Construction Permit issued by the SWRCB. Coverage under this permit requires preparation of a SWPPP for review and approval by the City. At a minimum, the SWPPP would include a description of construction materials, practices, and equipment storage and maintenance; a list of pollutants likely to contact stormwater; a list of provisions to eliminate or reduce discharge of materials to stormwater; BMPs; and an inspection and monitoring program. Furthermore, the County of San Mateo’s Water Pollution Prevention Program would require the project site to implement BMPs during project construction to reduce pollution carried by stormwater such as keeping sediment on site using perimeter barriers and storm drain inlet protection and proper management of construction materials, chemicals, and wastes on site. Additional BMPs required by SSFMC Section 14.04.180 (“Reduction of pollutants in stormwater”) would also be implemented during project construction. Per standard City procedures, compliance with SWPPP requirements and BMPs would be verified during the construction permitting process. The project site is approximately 84 percent impervious surface area in its existing state. The project would add 438 square feet of pervious area, resulting in 83.5 percent impervious surface area across the site. The project would meet federal, State, regional and local stormwater requirements pertaining to site design, stormwater treatment, and stormwater infiltration, and would not have a significant impact on water quality. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to water quality than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. b) Groundwater Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR Impact HYD-2 and the less-than-significant conclusion, as the project would be required to comply with all applicable stormwater regulations. 219 Page 60 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact HYD-2 that the proposed buildout would not have a significant impact on groundwater, as all new development projects would be required to comply with applicable SSF GPU policies and actions, and the SSFMC, which all contain measures to maximize stormwater infiltration and rainwater retention and minimize impacts to groundwater recharge. SSF GPU Policy ES-7.3 requires new development and redevelopment projects to meet federal, State, regional, and local stormwater requirements, including site design, stormwater treatment, and stormwater infiltration. SSFMC Section 14.04.134 (“Low Impact Development (LID) requirements”) requires that all regulated projects implement LID requirements as specified in NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 to reduce runoff and mimic a site’s predevelopment hydrology. The proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations, policies and actions of the SSF GPU and SSFMC. The project site is not in a flood overlay zone, which has stricter regulations to minimize impacts on groundwater recharge. The project would comply with stormwater drainage requirements, including bio-retention areas to address both quality and volumes of runoff and is consistent with expected use of the site in basin planning. The project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge and would not have a significant impact related to groundwater. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to groundwater than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. c) Alter Drainage Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR Impact HYD-3 and the less-than-significant conclusion, as the project would be required to comply with the applicable regulations related to stormwater drainage. The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact HYD-3 that the proposed buildout would not have a significant impact from altered drainage patterns leading to erosion and siltation, as all new development projects would be required to comply with applicable State Water Board permits, SSF GPU policies and actions, and the SSFMC, which all contain measures to manage sites during construction and manage stormwater in order to minimize erosion and siltation. As discussed under the Water Quality section, projects that disturb more than one acre of ground require development of a SWPPP, which must describe the site, the facility, erosion and sediment controls, runoff water quality monitoring, means of waste disposal, implementation of approved local plans, control of construction sediment and erosion control measures, maintenance responsibilities, and non-stormwater management controls. Inspection of construction sites before and after storms is also required to identify stormwater discharge from the construction activity and to identify and implement erosion controls, where necessary. The SSF GPU EIR determined that the proposed buildout would not have a significant impact from increased stormwater runoff or storm drain capacity, as all new development projects would be required to comply with applicable SSF GPU policies and actions, and the SSFMC, which all contain measures to maximize stormwater infiltration and rainwater retention, which would reduce runoff. SSF GPU Policy ES-7.3 requires new development and redevelopment projects to meet federal, State, regional, and local stormwater requirements, including site design, stormwater treatment, and stormwater infiltration. SSFMC Chapter 14.04 (“Stormwater Management and Discharge Control”) 220 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page 61 contains regulations that seek to minimize impacts from stormwater runoff and follow LID requirements. The SSF GPU EIR determined that the proposed buildout would not have a significant impact from flood flows, as all new development projects in flood hazard zones would be required to comply with applicable SSF GPU policies and actions, and the SSFMC, which contain measures to reduce the risk of flooding. The project site is currently developed and consists of approximately 84% impervious surfaces. The project would result in approximately 83.5% impervious surfaces. As discussed under the Inundation topic below, the project is not located in a flood hazard zone and would therefore not redirect flood waters. The project is proposing to remove any existing storm drainpipes and replace them with new drainpipes that run from in front of the parking garage, between the two buildings on the site, and behind the office/R&D building. In compliance with City requirements, the project would implement LID stormwater management best practices to minimize runoff and encourage stormwater infiltration, including using bioretention areas to manage stormwater on the project site. The project would be required to limit flows into the public storm drain system to pre-project conditions (or less), in accordance with City requirements. A Storm Drainage analysis was completed by BKF Engineers for the applicant on September 21, 2023 (available as part of the project application materials). The project would decrease the existing impervious area and install treatment measures for stormwater runoff. After project development, the peak stormwater runoff during a 10-year event was estimated to be 3.93 cubic feet per second (cfs), which is less than the existing site condition of 4.27 cfs. Therefore, the project would reduce peak runoff that discharges to the City’s public storm drain system. Through compliance with applicable regulations, runoff from site would be the same or reduced from that existing and would not cause erosion, siltation, pollution, or flooding and as discussed above, changes to on-site conditions would meet applicable requirements and would not exceed capacity of the stormwater drainage system or result in on- or off-site flooding. The project would not cause a significant impact due to altered drainage. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to altered drainage than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. d) Inundation Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR Impact HYD-4 and the less-than-significant conclusions related to inundation as the project will not place new structures within the 100-year flood hazard zone or a location with potential for flooding due to levee or dam failure or sea level rise. The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact HYD-4 that the proposed buildout would not have a significant impact on inundation, as all new development in flood hazard zones would be required to comply with applicable regulations in the SSF GPU and SSFMC, which all contain construction standards to minimize flood hazards. 221 Page 62 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Based on SSF GPU EIR Exhibits 3.9-2 and 3.9-3, the project is not located within a 100-year flood hazard zone, nor is the project site in an area for the potential for flooding from a dam or levee failure or sea level rise by 2100. The project would not have a significant impact on inundation. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to inundation than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. e) Water Plans Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR Impact HYD-5 and the less-than-significant conclusion, as the project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations. The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact HYD-5 that the proposed buildout would not have a significant impact from conflict with water quality control plans or groundwater management plans, as all new development projects would be required to comply with applicable State Water Board permits, SSF GPU policies and actions, and the SSFMC, and therefore development under the SSF GPU was determined not to have the potential to significantly impact conflict with water plans. The project would be required to comply with all applicable State Water Board permits, SSF GPU policies and actions, and the SSFMC. The project site is within the GPU, and therefore does not have the potential for development to significantly impact conflicts with water quality or groundwater management plans. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to water quality or groundwater management plans than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. 222 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page 63 K. Land Use Would the Project: SSF GPU EIR Findings Relationship to SSF GPU EIR Findings: Project Conclusions: Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable MMs Resulting Level of Significance a) Physically divide an established community LTS  ☐ - NI b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect LTS  ☐ - LTS Discussion a) Division of an Existing Community Less Significant Conclusion (Conclusion changes from LTS to NI): SSF GPU EIR Impact LAND-1 would not apply to the project, as the project site is not near an established community. The project site is a currently developed commercial site, surrounded by like development in the East of 101 area of the City. There are no established communities in the vicinity of the project site, therefore the project would have no impact. b) Conflict with Land Uses / Land Use Plans Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR Impact LUP-2 and the less-than-significant conclusion, as the project is compatible with land use as specified in the SSF GPU. The SSF GPU EIR found under Impact LUP-2 the Zoning Code Amendments and the land use as updated in the SSF GPU to be a less than significant impact. Future development under the SSF GPU would be required by the City to demonstrate consistency with applicable federal, State, and local policies including those mitigating or avoiding environmental impacts through the mechanisms of project permitting and approvals. The SSF GPU planned new development to be consistent with Plan Bay Area 2050 and the ALUCP of the San Francisco International Airport. The project is consistent with the development type and density established by the SSF GPU and the Zoning Code Amendments. The proposed FAR of 2.0 is allowable under the zoning standards applicable to the project site with payment of a community benefits fee. The project would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State and local environmental policies. The project’s proposed height is compatible with the ALUCP with all project elements at or below 246 feet above mean sea level compared to FAA height limits of 860 feet (see Airport Hazards topic under Section I: Hazardous Materials for additional discussion). The project is consistent with development anticipated under Plan Bay Area 2050 and the SSF GPU and therefore would not have a significant impact. 223 Page 64 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to land use than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. 224 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page 65 L. Mineral Resources Would the Project: SSF GPU EIR Findings Relationship to SSF GPU EIR Findings: Project Conclusions: Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable MMs Resulting Level of Significance a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state NI  ☐ - NI b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan NI  ☐ - NI Discussion a-b) Mineral Resources Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains NI): The project would be consistent with the SSF GPU EIR conclusions of no-impact for all mineral resource impact questions, as there are no known mineral deposits or active mineral extraction operations at the project site. The SSF GPU EIR determined that there are no mineral resource recovery sites within the City. Therefore, no impacts related to mineral resources would occur. There are no known important mineral deposits or active mineral extraction operations identified by the California Department of Conservation at the project site.29 Consistent with the findings of the SSF GPU EIR, the project would have no impact on important mineral resources. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to mineral resources than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. 29 U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Resources Data System: U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. Accessed December 2023, at: https://mrdata.usgs.gov/mrds/. 225 Page 66 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist M. Noise and Vibration Would the Project result in: SSF GPU EIR Findings Relationship to SSF GPU EIR Findings: Project Conclusions: Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable MMs Resulting Level of Significance a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? LTS (construction) LTS w/MM (operation)  ☐ - N/A LTS LTS b) Generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels LTS  ☐ - LTS c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels LTS w/MM  ☐ N/A NI Discussion a) Noise (Construction) Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS for Construction): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR Impact NOI-1 during construction and the less-than-significant conclusion as the project would be required to comply with Noise Ordinances for construction activities. The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact NOI-1 that noise during construction of the new development anticipated under the SSF GPU would have a less than significant impact, as construction activities would be restricted to certain days and times as detailed in the SSFMC and policies and actions in the SSF GPU. The project would be required to comply with all restrictions and regulations related to construction activities, including hours and days when construction activities are authorized and not to exceed 90 decibels (dBA) at a distance of 25 feet. With compliance with regulations, the project’s impact in regard to construction noise would not be significant. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to construction noise than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. 226 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page 67 Noise (Operations) Less Significant Conclusion (Conclusion changes from LTS w/ MM to LTS for Operation): The project would not exacerbate Impact NOI-1 and SSF GPU MM NOI-1 would not apply to the project for the operational period as there are no residential receptors within 300 feet of the project site. The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact NOI-1 that noise caused by the new development anticipated under the SSF GPU would have a less than significant impact, as zoning restrictions and acoustical design requirements for noise impacted areas would limit increased ambient noise, as detailed in the SSFMC, Zoning Ordinance and policies and actions in the SSF GPU. The SSF GPU EIR also established SSF GPU MM NOI-1 to reduce noise from commercial or industrial land uses within 300 feet of residential uses and exterior mechanical systems within 50 feet of residences. No residential uses are located within these distances from the project site and therefore, SSF GPU MM NOI-1 is not applicable to the proposed project. The SSF GPU EIR also discussed traffic noise increases under this impact. A characteristic of noise is that audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3 decibels (dBA) or more, as this level has been found to be barely perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments. A change of 5 dBA is considered the minimum readily perceptible change to the human ear in outdoor environments. The SSF GPU EIR modeled traffic noise increases resulting from build-out under the plan and determined that roadways would experience cumulative increases up to 1.7 dBA, which would be below the level that would be perceptible (5 dBA outdoors) and would therefore not result in a significant traffic-related noise impact. This project would be consistent with the conclusions in the SSF GPU EIR and would have a less than significant impact with respect to increases in traffic noise. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to operational noise than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. b) Vibration Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR Impact NOI-2 and the less-than-significant conclusion as the project would be required to comply with all regulations listed in the SSF GPU EIR during construction activities. The SSF GPU EIR determined that vibration during construction of the new development anticipated under the SSF GPU would have a less than significant impact, as construction activities would be required to take steps to reduce vibrations that have the potential to produce high groundborne vibration levels as detailed in the SSFMC and policies and actions in the SSF GPU. SSF GPU Policy NOI-2.1 requires a vibration impact analysis for any construction activities, located within 100-feet of residential or sensitive receptors that require the use of pile driving or other construction methods that have the potential to produce high groundborne vibration levels. SSF GPU Policy NOI-3.1 requires vibration impact analysis for historic structure protection for construction activities within 150 feet of historic structures. The project is not within 100-feet of residences or other sensitive receptors, nor within 150 feet of historic structures that might be damaged by construction generated vibrations, so neither of these policies would apply to the project. The proposed uses of the project are not the type that will generate substantial groundborne vibration during operations as they are proposed to be office/R&D uses. The project would not have a significant impact on groundborne vibration. 227 Page 68 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to vibration than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. c) Airport Noise Less Significant Conclusion (Conclusion changes from LTS w/ MM to LTS): The project would not exacerbate SSF GPU EIR Impact Noise-3 and SSF GPU MM NOI-3 would not apply to the project as the project site is outside the 65-decibel (dBA) contour line of the San Francisco International Airport. The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact NOI-3 that noise from the San Francisco International Airport would have a potentially significant impact, as portions of the planning area of the SSF GPU is within the area substantially affected by airplane flyover noise and requires SSF GPU MM NOI-3 to reduce noise impacts on affected projects. The ALUCP notes that under state noise law (California Code of Regulations, Title 21, Division 2.5, Chapter 6, Section 5006), the area in which an airport causes noise levels of 65 dBA or more that is occupied by incompatible uses is called the “noise impact area.” As shown in Exhibit 3.11-2 of the SSF GPU EIR, while the project site is within the boundary of the ALUCP, it is not within an area exposed to 65 dBA or higher from the airport. Nor would it be considered an incompatible use (such as a residence or hospital). SSF GPU MM NOI-3 would not be necessary to reach a less than significant conclusion. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to airport noise than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. 228 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page 69 N. Population and Housing Would the Project: SSF GPU EIR Findings Relationship to SSF GPU EIR Findings: Project Conclusions: Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable MMs Resulting Level of Significance a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) LTS  ☐ - LTS b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere LTS  ☐ - NI Discussion a) Population Growth Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR Impact POP-1 and the less-than-significant conclusion as the potential for indirect population growth due to increased employment is planned growth under the SSF GPU. Under Impact POP-1, the SSF GPU EIR determined that residential and on-residential population growth under buildout of the SSF GPU would be a less-than-significant impact because the SSF GPU would be considered a long-range planning document, and therefore the population growth would be planned. The SSF GPU EIR analyzed an increase in population of 40,068 by 2040, with related employment growth of 42,267 jobs. The proposed project would provide approximately 995 jobs (calculated using the highest intensity proposed use of an office, which would have approximately 300 square feet per employee) and contribute to indirect population growth. This would be consistent with local and area planning and would therefore not be considered unplanned growth. The project is consistent with the employment growth analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR, and therefore would not have a significant impact. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to population growth than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. b) Displacement of Housing or People Less Significant Conclusion (Conclusion changes from LTS to NI): SSF GPU EIR Impact POP-2 would not apply to the project as there are no existing residences on the site. 229 Page 70 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist The project site is currently developed with industrial buildings, and there are no residences that would be displaced by the proposed project. The project would have no impact on displacement of housing or people. 230 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page 71 O. Public Services and Recreation Would the Project: SSF GPU EIR Findings Relationship to SSF GPU EIR Findings: Project Conclusions: Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable MMs Resulting Level of Significance a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: • Fire protection • Police protection • Schools • Parks • Other public facilities LTS  ☐ - LTS b) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated LTS  ☐ - LTS c) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment LTS  ☐ - LTS Discussion a-c) Public Services and Recreation Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR Impacts PUB-1 through PUB-5, and Impacts REC-1 and REC-2, and the less-than-significant conclusion as the potential to increase demand for services and recreation would not change from the analysis in the SSF GPU EIR. The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impacts PUB-1 through PUB-5 that the increased need for public services and possible construction of new facilities for those services that the planned population and 231 Page 72 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist employment growth may require would be a less than significant impact, as all public services would be required to keep pace with increased population, and all new facilities would be under the planned “Public” land use, and would be required to comply with all applicable regulations. As part of the anticipated growth planned for in the SSF GPU (see Section N: Population & Housing), the project would not increase the need for public services or new facilities for those services beyond the level that was analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. Therefore, the project would not have a significant impact on public services. The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impacts REC-1 and REC-2 that the increased need for parks and recreational facilities and possible construction of new parks or facilities that the planned population and employment growth may require would be a less than significant impact, as increased parks are planned for in the SSF GPU, and new development would pay a Parks and Recreation Impact Fee. As part of the anticipated growth planned for in the SSF GPU, the project would not increase the need for parks or new recreational facilities beyond the level that was analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. Plaza and landscaped areas would be publicly accessible and the project would contribute in-lieu fees toward the cost of public parks. The project would not have a significant impact on recreation. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to public services and recreation than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. 232 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page 73 P.Transportation and Circulation Would the Project: SSF GPU EIR Findings Relationship to SSF GPU EIR Findings: Project Conclusions: Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable MMs Resulting Level of Significance a) Conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subsection (b) re: VMT SU w/MM ☐SSF GPU MM TRANS-1: Transportation Demand Management [for Development Projects] SU w/MM b) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities LTS ☐ -LTS c) Substantially increase hazards due to ageometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) LTS w/MM ☐N/A LTS d) Result in inadequate emergencyaccess LTS  ☐ -LTS Discussion This section utilizes information from the transportation assessment prepared by Fehr & Peers, included in full as Attachment 5. a) Conflict with Transportation Impact Reduction Goals Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains SU w/MM): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR Impact Trans-1, the requirements in SSF GPU MM TRANS-1, and the significant and unavoidable with mitigation conclusion related to transportation impact reduction goals. The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact TRANS-1 that with the full buildout planned in the SSF GPU, VMT would be above significance thresholds. SSF GPU MM TRANS-1 requires the City to implement a mandatory TDM ordinance, and East of 101 Trip Cap and parking reductions; however, the SSF GPU EIR determined that the Total VMT per Service Population and Work-Based VMT per Employee would remain significant and unavoidable even with mitigation. SSFMC Chapter 8.73 (“Transportation Impact Fee”) requires that new developments pay a Transportation Impact Fee towards transportation system improvements. Section 20.400.005 (“Submittal Requirements and Approvals”) of the SSF Zoning Ordinance, commonly known as the TDM Ordinance, requires project specific TDM documentation. SSF 233 Page 74 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist GPU policies and actions contain multiple requirements intended to increase use of alternative modes of transportation. To reduce the impact related to VMT and transportation impact reduction goals, the project would implement applicable provisions of SSF GPU MM TRANS-1. SSF GPU MM TRANS-1: Transportation Demand Management [for Development Projects]. [The project applicant / owner / sponsor] shall implement a combination of TDM programs (pursuant to Sections 20.400.003 and 20.400.004 of the Zoning Ordinance), services, and infrastructure improvements, including but not limited to: establishing trip reduction programs; subsidizing transit and active transportation use; coordinating carpooling and vanpooling; encouraging telecommuting and flexible work schedules; designing site plans to prioritize pedestrian, bicycle, and transit travel; funding first/last mile shuttle services; establishing site-specific trip caps; managing parking supply; and constructing transit and active transportation capital improvements. [The project applicant / owner / sponsor] shall be subject to annual reporting and monitoring. Note that the measure above includes only those provisions applicable directly to a development project, as opposed to City actions, and the brackets in the above mitigation measure show where text has been revised from the original measure to make clear that it would be implemented by this project. The project would implement a TDM program pursuant to the City’s TDM Ordinance and would be compliant with the City’s maximum parking allowance. The project’s TDM program must achieve a maximum of 60% of commuting employees by single occupancy vehicles per City requirements. This would reduce daily trips by 21% (see Attachment 5 for more details). Traffic engineers Fehr & Peers prepared a VMT analysis for the project and compared it to the City-level VMTs calculated for the SSF GPU EIR, as summarized in Table 4. The VMT results in Table 4 represent VMT for the project after trip reductions for the TDM program and reduced parking. Table 4: Home-Based Work VMT per Employee Thresholds Scenario Topic Estimated Home-Based Work VMT per Employee Existing Bay Area Regional Average 14.9 Threshold of Significance (15% Below Regional Average) 12.7 City 16.6 Project1 16.5 Cumulative (2040) Bay Area Regional Average 14.7 Threshold of Significance (15% Below Regional Average) 12.5 City General Plan Buildout 13.4 Project1 12.2 1 Based off the project’s transportation analysis zone in the C/CAG VTA Model Source: Fehr & Peers, 2023, Table 3.2. See Attachment 5. 234 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page 75 As summarized in Table 4, the VMT for the project is above the significance threshold under both existing and cumulative conditions, though lower than the City VMT determined in the SSF GPU EIR. This conclusion factors in implementation of a TDM program meeting City requirements (adopted to satisfy GPU EIR MM TRANS-1). The project would contribute to the significant and unavoidable impact in regard to VMT found in the SSF GPU EIR but would not exacerbate the previously identified impact. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to VMT than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. b) Conflicts with Circulation Plans or Policies Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR Impact TRANS-2 regarding bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and Impact TRANS-3, regarding transit facilities, and the less-than-significant conclusions as the project would be required to comply with City plans and policies. The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impacts TRANS-2 and TRANS-3 that the proposed buildout would not have a significant impact, as all new development projects would be required to comply with the City’s TDM ordinance and parking maximum. SSF GPU Policy MOB-2.1 requires all development projects to incorporate complete street improvements. SSF GPU policies and actions are consistent with the Active South City Plan and contain measures to reduce the impact on bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Transit-related SSF GPU actions and policies are not on an individual project level. The project is consistent with City transportation plans and policies. The project would enhance the streetscape of Eccles Avenue consistent with SSF GPU Goals to provide safe, active, and multimodal networks, and the Active South City Plan. Additional bike lanes on Eccles Avenue are planned as part of the Active South City Plan; the project would not obstruct those nor any other Active South City Plan improvements in the vicinity. A pedestrian and bicycle connection would be provided from the project site to the adjacent multi-use trail as well. The project’s TDM program would meet the requirements of the City’s TDM Ordinance and support the SSF GPU Goals of managing traffic and parking demands and reducing VMT. The project would not exceed the City’s parking maximums consistent with SSF GPU Action MOB-3.3.1. The project would not preclude the City from implementing proposed transportation or transit projects identified in the SSF GPU or Active South City Plan. With compliance with the City’s TDM ordinance, SSF GPU goals and actions, and the Active South City Plan, the project would not have a significant impact on circulation plans and policies. The South San Francisco Caltrain station is located approximately 0.5 miles from the project site. Although the project site is located only 700 to 900 feet from bus/shuttle stops at 700/701 Gateway Boulevard, no direct pedestrian connection is present (a retaining wall blocks access via the Gateway of the Pacific site). Pedestrians may divert to the north via the Gateway of the Pacific site, but this adds approximately 1,600 feet (about six minutes) of walking distance to reach the stop. Due to asymmetry in the northbound/southbound stops, the nearest northbound shuttle stop is presently located 2,200 feet to the north in front of 1000 Gateway Boulevard. The South San Francisco Ferry Terminal is 1.0 miles to the northeast. Oyster Point Mobility operates a shuttle service between the Glen Park BART Station to the Genentech Campus via Gateway Boulevard. 235 Page 76 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist The nearest stop is located approximately ¼ -mile from the project site. The project would increase the use of nearby transit services, providing benefits to the environment, and would not have a significant impact on transit facilities. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to conflicts with circulation plans or policies than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. While the transportation assessment (Attachment 5) determined that the project would result in a less than significant impact with no mitigation required with respect to consistency with plans and policies, it did indicate that the added travel time and meandering diversion for pedestrians to reach the nearest bus/shuttle stop may discourage transit use and affect the project’s ability to meet its TDM targets. The following Condition of Approval shall be applied to the project in partial satisfaction of SSF GPU MM TRANS-1, along with Standard Condition Transportation Demand Management (TDM): The project applicant / owner / sponsor shall implement the following measures to ensure adequate access to transit services can be provided: •Provide a letter of support from the owners of Gateway of the Pacific into the final TDM Plan stating that the two developments will make a good faith effort to ensure pedestrian access from 439 Eccles to bus and shuttle stops on Gateway Boulevard via the Gateway of the Pacific site. •Incorporate space for an on-street shuttle stop along the project’s frontage on southbound Eccles Avenue to provide the ability for shuttles to serve the site (including red curb, an eight foot by five foot accessible landing pad and a pole that operators may attach signage to). c)Hazards Less Significant Conclusion (Conclusion changes from LTS w/ MM to LTS): The project would not exacerbate identified Impact TRANS-4 regarding roadway hazards and SSF GPU MM TRANS-4 would not apply as Impact TRANS-4 and SSF GPU MM TRANS-4 are not on an individual project level. The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact TRANS-4 that with the full buildout planned in the SSF GPU, increased vehicle trips along U.S. 101 would have a potential impact in regard to hazardous conditions, as increased vehicle trips on freeway ramps could exacerbate vehicle queues along ramps in excess of their storage capacity and present a potentially hazardous condition under cumulative conditions. SSF GPU MM TRANS-4 relates to freeway off-ramp queueing and would not be applicable to the project. The project would replace two existing driveways with three new driveways. Most vehicles would use the driveway at the western edge of the project site, which would serve the parking garage. The driveway at the center would primarily serve passenger loading activity associated with visitors, as well as facilitate emergency vehicle access. The eastern driveway would function as the service driveway for deliveries and refuse collection while also serving emergency vehicles. All three driveways would provide adequate sight distances of at least 250 feet with compliance with landscaping requirements. Pedestrian and bicycle access would be provided via a walkway that connects to the sidewalk on the north side of Eccles Avenue. Two connections would also be provided to the under-construction trail on the northern frontage of the project site: a stairwell at the center of the site and a ramp at the eastern edge of the site. From the trail, pedestrians and bicyclists may access bus/shuttle stops on Gateway 236 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page 77 Boulevard via the Gateway of the Pacific site or continue north to the ferry terminal or south to the Caltrain Station. A pedestrian plaza would be located at the center of the site adjacent to the main building, parking garage, trail, and passenger loading area. Long-term bicycle parking would be provided in a bike room in the parking garage, while short-term parking would be located adjacent to the main building entrance. All driveways, pedestrian connections, bicycle connections, and loading zones can be accessed without exacerbating conflicts between roadway users. The project’s site plan is therefore consistent with applicable design standards and does not present any potential design hazards. The project would not include any uses that are incompatible with the surrounding land use or the existing roadway system. The project would increase vehicle trips along U.S.-101 freeway off-ramps at Oyster Point Boulevard and East Grand Avenue. The project would generate a daily total of 2,311 net new trips, with 212 net new trips in the AM peak hour and 201 net new trips in the PM peak hour. As the project is part of the analyzed buildout of the SSF GPU, this additional traffic would contribute to the Impact TRANS-4 analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR but would not exacerbate the previously identified impact. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to hazards than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. d) Emergency Access Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR Impact TRANS-5 regarding emergency access and the less-than-significant conclusion as the project would be required to comply with California Fire Code requirements and design standards. The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact TRANS-5 that the proposed buildout would not have a significant impact, as all new development projects would be required to comply with the California Fire Code and applicable design standards regarding emergency vehicle access to the project site. The project would provide adequate emergency vehicle access consistent with applicable design standards. Each driveway would accommodate all types of emergency vehicles and meet the requirements of the California Fire Code. Emergency vehicles would access the site via Eccles Avenue and may circulate through the passenger loading area, parking garage, plaza, and service driveway. The project would not introduce roadway features that would alter emergency vehicle access routes or roadway facilities. With compliant emergency vehicle access to the project site, the project would not have a significant impact on emergency access. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to emergency access than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. 237 Page 78 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Q. Utilities and Service Systems Would the Project: SSF GPU EIR Findings Relationship to SSF GPU EIR Findings: Project Conclusions: Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable MMs Resulting Level of Significance a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects LTS  ☐ - LTS b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years LTS  ☐ - LTS c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments LTS  ☐ - LTS d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals LTS  ☐ - LTS e) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste LTS  ☐ - LTS Discussion a) Discussion New or Expanded Facilities Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR Impact UTIL-1 and the less-than-significant conclusion related to new or expanded facilities as the project can be served by current utilities as described in the SSF GPU EIR. The SSF GPU EIR concluded under Impact UTIL-1 that existing or planned facilities would be adequate to service the anticipated buildout of the SSF GPU. No new water treatment facilities would be needed. Any new development would be subject to the latest adopted edition of the California Plumbing Code and CALGreen Code, per City requirements, including the provisions for water-efficient fixtures and 238 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page 79 toilets, which would reduce the amount of effluent entering the wastewater system. New development projects would also be required to install on-site storm drainage infrastructure that would detain stormwater and release runoff at a rate no greater than the pre-development condition of the project site. As the project site is currently developed it is already serviced by utilities. The project is within the buildout that was analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR, and therefore would not increase demand such that unplanned new or expanded facilities would be needed. The project would not have a significant impact on utility facilities. A Storm Drainage Analysis was completed by BKF Engineers for the applicant on September 21, 2023 (available as part of the project application materials). The project would decrease the existing impervious area and install treatment measures for stormwater runoff. After project development, the peak stormwater runoff during a 10-year event was estimated to be 3.93 cfs, which is less than the existing site condition of 4.27 cfs. Therefore, the project would reduce peak runoff that discharges to the City’s public storm drain system. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to new or expanded facilities than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. b) Water Supply Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR Impact UTIL-2 and the less-than-significant conclusion as the project would not substantially change projected increases in water demand. The SSF GPU EIR concluded under Impact UTIL-2 that there would be sufficient water to supply the planned buildout under the SSF GPU through 2045, based on Cal Water’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and Water Shortage Contingency Plan, and therefore the SSF GPU would have a less than significant impact on water supply. The SSF GPU EIR also stated that each new development project would need to obtain either a will serve letter from their water supplier or a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) confirming that there would be enough water to service that development. As part of the planned SSF GPU buildout, development of the project site has been included in local and regional water supply planning. A separate WSA was prepared for the project per Senate Bill 610 through coordination between the City and Cal Water (available as part of the project materials on file with the City). The WSA prepared by EKI Environment & Water, Inc., in November 2023, estimates the project’s net annual water demand to be approximately 39 acre-feet per year. The project applicants received a WSA from Cal Water, which determined that with compliance with applicable water conservation measures, including low-flow faucets and toilets per CALGreen Code and low-water use landscaping and a high-efficiency irrigation system in accordance with the California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, proposed water usage would be within available supply. The project would not have a significant impact on water supply. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to water supply than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. 239 Page 80 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist c) Wastewater Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR Impact UTIL-3 and the less-than-significant conclusion as the project would not substantially change projected wastewater generation or planned capacity. The SSF GPU EIR concluded under Impact UTIL-3 that existing wastewater treatment facilities would be adequate to service the anticipated buildout of the SSF GPU. With the addition of water efficient fixtures required in new developments resulting in reduced wastewater compared to older development, the two wastewater treatment plants that currently serve the City can treat the increased wastewater expected from the full buildout of the SSF GPU. As the project is within the buildout that was analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR and is part of the planned increase in wastewater analyzed under Impact UTIL-3, the existing wastewater treatment plants would be adequate to treat wastewater from the project. The project would not have a significant impact on wastewater treatment facilities. A Sewer Capacity Analysis completed for the applicant on November 17, 2023, by BKF Engineers (available as part of the project application), determined that the existing sanitary sewer system in Eccles Avenue would have sufficient capacity for the additional sewage created by the project and surrounding development. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to wastewater than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. d-e) Solid Waste Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR Impact UTIL-4 and the less-than-significant conclusion as the site would be adequately served by existing facilities and comply with applicable solid waste regulations. The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact UTIL-4 that the solid waste generated by development anticipated under the full buildout of the SSF GPU would be within availability capacity of applicable landfills and would meet reduction standards and not otherwise conflict with applicable regulations or goals. While specific requirements for commercial solid waste service are regularly updated, the project would meet all current requirements for recycling and waste-diversion during both construction and operation, including federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, including the California Health and Safety Code, California Code of Regulations, California Public Resources Code, SSF GPU policies and actions, and the SSFMC. The project would not have a significant impact on solid waste and waste facilities. Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to solid waste than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. 240 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page 81 R. Wildfire If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones: Would the Project: SSF GPU EIR Findings Relationship to SSF GPU EIR Findings: Project Conclusions: Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable MMs Resulting Level of Significance a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan LTS  ☐ - NI b) Due to slope, prevailing winds and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrollable spread of a wildfire LTS  ☐ - NI c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risks or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment LTS  ☐ - NI d) Expose people or structures to significant risk, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides from runoff post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes LTS  ☐ - NI Discussion a-d) Wildland Fires Less Significant Conclusion (Conclusion changes from LTS to NI): SSF GPU EIR Impacts WILD-1 through WILD-5 would not apply to the project as it is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones or other fire-prone wildland areas. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, impacts related to wildfires only apply to projects located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity. The SSF GPU EIR determined that no portion of the City is located in a state responsibility areas or lands classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones but that development in or near fire-prone wildland areas, identified as Sign Hill Park and the San Bruno Mountain State Park (a State Responsibility Area and “moderate/high” fire hazard severity zone), would require a landscape design plan that addresses fire safety and prevention. The project site is not located near the SSF GPU EIR-identified fire-prone areas, which are both located on the other side of US 101. The project would have no impact on wildfire. 241 Page 82 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist S. Mandatory Findings of Significance SSF GPU EIR Findings Relationship to SSF GPU EIR Findings: Project Conclusions: Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable MMs Resulting Level of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? LTS  ☐ - LTS b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) LTS  ☐ - LTS c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly LTS  ☐ - LTS Discussion a) Degrade the Quality of the Environment As addressed in the Air Quality, Biology, Cultural Resources, GHG, Hazards, and Hydrology sections of this Environmental Checklist, with implementation of all applicable SSF GPU EIR mitigation measures and other regulatory requirements, the project would not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. The project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. • The project would be required to implement BAAQMD’s recommended Basic Construction Mitigation Measures for control of construction-related criteria pollutant emissions (per the SSF GPU EIR Mitigation Measure AIR-1a), and these measures would control construction-related emissions to levels of less than significant. 242 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page 83 • The project’s predicted average daily and annual operational-generated emissions of NOx, PM10 and PM2.5 criteria air pollutants are below the operational significance thresholds as recommended by BAAQMD and as relied on in the SSF GPU EIR. Therefore, operational air quality impacts related to cumulatively considerable net increases of criteria pollutants would be less than significant. The project is part of the development assumed in the SSF GPU EIR- identified plan-level significant and unavoidable impact related to greater increases in VMT than in population growth but is not peculiar and would not otherwise exacerbate the previously identified impact. • The project site is dominated by developed and landscaped habitat that includes paved roads, buildings, parking lots, paved and gravel trails, ornamental and landscaped areas. The habitat suitability for rare or native vegetation in these areas is very low to absent. Similarly, developed habitats as exist at the project site primarily support common, urban-adapted wildlife species, and overall wildlife abundance and diversity are low. The project would be required to implement existing regulatory requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and/or the California Fish and Game Code that provide for protection of active nests of migratory and other birds and bats, including their roosts, eggs and young. Implementation of these measures would avoid and/or reduce impacts to sensitive status species to levels of less than significant. • The project site does not contain riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community types. Development of the project site will have no adverse effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community types. • No potential jurisdictional wetlands or waters occur on the site, and the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands or waters of the U.S. or waters of the State. • The project site does not include any waterways, ridgelines or creek corridors, and the project site is not identified as a wildlife corridor or wildlife nursery site. The project would supplement identified tree-covered areas for wildlife connections. The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on wildlife corridors or wildlife nursery sites. • The project would be required to obtain a Tree Removal Permit for removal of any protected trees on the site. If the City approves that Tree Removal permit, the project will be required to provide replacement tree plantings and/or in lieu fees. These Tree Removal Permit requirements would achieve compliance with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and would minimize the impacts related to the loss of trees to a level of less than significant. • The project site is not located within or near Sign Hill Park, San Bruno Mountain State Park or adjacent to the San Francisco Bay, and would not conflict with any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan adopted for these areas. • The existing building has been assessed for historical importance and has been cleared for demolition through a full Historic Resource Evaluation. • There is at least a moderate potential for the inadvertent discovery of previously unrecorded historic-period archaeological resources at the site during ground-disturbing activity. In the unlikely event of discovery of cultural resources during construction, the project would be 243 Page 84 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist required to comply with SSF General Plan policies and State law that addresses such an unanticipated circumstance. These policies and regulations ensure that the project’s construction does not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource. • The project is, and/or will be required to demonstrate consistency with the SSF 2022 CAP. The project’s proposed development plans indicate that the project will be consistent with individual CAP Actions related to clean energy, building design, transportation and land use, solid waste, water and wastewater, and carbon sequestration. The project does not present any inherent inconsistencies with other SSF 2022 CAP Actions. As such, the project meets the CEQA threshold of less than a significant impact for GHG emissions. • Construction activities associated with the project will involve the use of heavy equipment using fuels and oils and will involve the use of other products such as concrete, paints and adhesives. Such hazardous materials will be stored, used, and transported in varying amounts during construction. The project would be required to comply with all Federal, State, and local regulations regulating the handling, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials. With implementation of these regulatory requirements, construction activities would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or through a reasonably foreseeable upset and accident condition involving the release of hazardous materials in the environment. • The project would be required to comply with all federal, State and local regulations regulating the handling, storage and transportation of hazardous materials during operations. With compliance, operational activities would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through a reasonably foreseeable upset and accident condition involving the release of hazardous materials in the environment. • The project would involve grading and removal of existing paved surfaces, buildings and vegetative cover that has the potential to result in runoff that contains sediment and other pollutants. These pollutants could degrade surface and groundwater quality if not properly controlled. The project’s effects related to water pollution from non-point sources during construction will be fully addressed through implementation of existing regulations (i.e., by filing a Notice of Intent with the State Water Board and preparing and implementing a project-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan), and this impact would be reduced to less than significant. • The project will add new impervious surface area and will replace all of the remaining impervious surface at the site. The new and replaced impervious surfaces could increase the volume of pollutants that are typically associated with urban runoff into the stormwater, as well as increased nutrients and other chemicals from landscaped areas. These constituents could result in water quality impacts to off-site drainages and waterways, potentially including the Bay. The project is subject to Provision C.3 of the Master Regional Permit, which is primarily implemented pursuant to the City’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The project must comply with these regulatory requirements, which are intended to prevent stormwater pollution during operations, and to provide for compliance with State and federal regulations. The project’s design includes provisions for stormwater treatment of the impervious surface areas of the site. This will include construction of stormwater treatment 244 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page 85 BMPs such as bio-filtration areas, flow-through planters, and pervious pavers and pavements, among other acceptable stormwater BMP types. These stormwater BMPs will generally be distributed throughout the site and near the individual sources of run-off to the maximum extent practicable. The project’s effects related to water pollution from non-point sources will be fully addressed through implementation of existing regulations, and this impact would be reduced to less than significant. • There is moderate potential that unknown tribal cultural resources are present below the surface at the project site. If undiscovered tribal cultural resources are discovered during this monitoring activity, regulatory requirements would apply. These regulations will ensure that the project’s construction does not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource. b) Cumulative Impacts CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 provides that future projects analyzed in relationship to a prior Program EIR may be excluded from further analysis of off-site or cumulative impacts, if those off-site or cumulative impacts were adequately discussed in the prior Program EIR. The SSF GPU EIR determined that, for the majority of environmental topics analyzed, cumulative development consistent with the General Plan Update would result in environmental impacts that would be reduced to levels of less than significant with implementation of existing regulatory requirements, implementation of policies contained within the SSF GPU EIR, and additional mitigation measures as identified in that EIR. However, the SSF GPU EIR determined that the following list of environmental impacts would be cumulatively significant and unavoidable. Cumulative Vehicle Miles Traveled The SSF GPU EIR concluded that cumulative growth and development throughout the City and throughout the nine-county Bay Area would result in a cumulative increase in VMT as measured in total VMT per service population and as home-based work VMT per employee. Although cumulative development within the City of SSF would be required to implement TDM measures, an East of 101 Area Trip Cap, and parking requirements to reduce cumulative VMT increases, the effectiveness of the VMT reduction strategies were not able to be quantified in the SSF GPU EIR analysis, which concluded that the City of South San Francisco may not be able to achieve a cumulative reduction in overall VMT to below threshold level, and this cumulative impact was found to be significant and unavoidable. Cumulative Roadway Safety The SSF GPU EIR concluded that cumulative growth and development throughout the City, as well as cumulative development throughout the nine-county Bay Area, would increase vehicle trips on the City’s freeway ramps. That traffic would cause vehicle queues to exceed off-ramp storage capacity or exacerbate off-ramps that already experience off-ramp queues exceeding storage capacity, resulting in a potentially significant cumulative impact. Although the City will continue to work with Caltrans to develop improvement measures for freeway off-ramps and adjacent intersections that help manage off- ramp queues to minimize queueing hazards, the SSF GPU EIR concluded that there is uncertainty around specific operational conditions and the ability to mitigate such conditions in a constrained right-of-way. This cumulative impact was found to remain significant and unavoidable. 245 Page 86 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Conflict with 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan The SSF GPU EIR concluded that new cumulative development facilitated by the General Plan would increase VMT by approximately 94 percent through 2040, whereas population would grow by only approximately 61 percent during the same period. Forecasted VMT growth would outpace population growth and the SSF GPU EIR concluded that this imbalance between cumulative VMT and cumulative population growth would be inconsistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan. Because the effectiveness of identified VMT reduction strategies could not be quantified, the SSF GPU EIR determined that City of South San Francisco may not achieve cumulative VMT reductions, and this impact was found to be cumulatively significant and unavoidable. Cumulative Criteria Air Pollutants The SSF GPU EIR similarly concluded cumulative VMT growth would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants. The EIR determined there is no reasonable mitigation that can be implemented to keep growth in VMT to a minimum, while also increasing population. The cumulative increase in VMT was found to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors. This cumulative impact was found to remain significant and unavoidable. Project Contributions This Environmental Checklist analyzes whether the project may contribute to cumulative environmental effects as identified in the SSF GPU EIR. It also considers whether mitigation measures, development standards, policies and/or regulations identified in the SSF GPU EIR would apply to the project. The analysis in this Environmental Checklist finds that the project would not have environmental impacts that are unique to the project, and that the project’s contribution to cumulative effects were fully evaluated and disclosed in the prior SSF GPU EIR, and that certain mitigation measures, development standards, policies and ordinances identified in that prior EIR would apply to the project. As specifically addressed in the Air Quality and Transportation sections of this Environmental Checklist: • Factoring in implementation of a TDM program meeting City requirements (adopted to satisfy GPU EIR MM TRANS-1) the VMT for the project is above the significance threshold under both existing and cumulative conditions, though lower than the City VMT determined in the SSF GPU EIR. The project would contribute to the significant and unavoidable impact in regard to VMT found in the SSF GPU EIR but would not exacerbate the previously identified impact. • Vehicle trips generated by the project represent a small percentage of overall daily and peak hour traffic, but the project would contribute to a cumulative increase in vehicle trips on City freeway ramps. As the project is part of the analyzed buildout of the SSF GPU, this additional traffic would contribute to the Impact TRANS-4 analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR but would not exacerbate the previously identified impact. • The project’s predicted average daily and annual operational-generated emissions of NOx, PM10 and PM2.5 criteria air pollutants are below the operational significance thresholds as recommended by BAAQMD, and as relied on in the SSF GPU EIR. Therefore, operational air quality impacts related to a cumulatively considerable net increase of these non-attainment criteria pollutants would be less than significant. 246 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page 87 c) Effects on Human Beings As addressed in the Air Quality, Geology, Hazards, Hydrology, Noise and Wildfire sections of this Environmental Checklist: • The project site is not located within 1,000 feet of the sensitive receptors and would not be within the area of effect in which a project of this type could result in a significant impacts on sensitive receptors as a result of construction- and operation-created air pollution. • There is a possibility of naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) in the shallow bedrock of the project site. If further investigation determines that enough NOA is present on the project site, the project would be required to implement BAAQMD’s Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measures, and these measures would control construction-related emissions of naturally occurring asbestos to levels of less than significant. • The existing building at the project site contains or may contain materials containing lead, asbestos or mold. Proper assessment and abatement shall be completed per State and Federal regulations prior to demolition to reduce the potential impact of these hazardous materials to less than significant levels. • The project is intended to accommodate future R&D uses. The specific R&D tenants are not known, the types of research and development facilities have not been identified, and the need for research and development equipment that may generate new sources of toxic air contaminants is unknown. However, future R&D tenants may rely on such equipment. Future tenants within the project will be required to obtain from BAAQMD an “Authority to Construct” or a “Permit to Operate” for any new sources of hazardous air pollutant emissions. The requirements of these authorizations or permits would control operational-related emissions of TACs to levels of less than significant. • The project site is located in a seismically active region. During a major earthquake the project site will experience very strong to violent ground shaking, similar to other areas of the seismically active region. Compliance with the CBC regulations and building standards, with site- specific recommendation as provided by a geotechnical engineer, will reduce the effects of strong ground shaking in the event of a likely earthquake scenario to levels considered acceptable by professional engineers, and a less than significant impact under CEQA. • The project site is covered by approximately one to eight feet of undocumented fill over shallow bedrock, which could result in settlement under the parking garage due to the weight of the building. Replacement of the undocumented fill with engineered fill and appropriate foundation design based on ground conditions would incorporate project-specific geotechnical recommendations as approved by the City Engineer. The project would be required to comply with the CBC and building permit requirements which would keep unstable soils from having a significant impact on the project. • The project’s new buildings are intended as build-to-suit facilities. The future tenants of these buildings have not yet been identified but are likely to be occupied by a combination of office space and R&D laboratories. The R&D laboratories may handle certain materials considered hazardous biological and/or chemical substances. The project would be required to comply with all applicable city, county, state and federal regulations related to the transport, use and 247 Page 88 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist disposal of hazardous materials. These regulations control the use of hazardous materials to minimize the risk of exposure of the public to substantial adverse effects and would reduce this impact to a level of less than significant. • No safety zones associated with SFO apply to the project site, and the project would be consistent with land use safety criteria. Additionally, the project site is not located within any of the ALUCP-identified noise impact areas. Thus, the ALUCP land use noise exposure criteria do not apply to the project and the project would not pose a safety hazard by being exposed to excessive noise due to its proximity to SFO. • The project would not interfere with any emergency evacuation route but would add a less than significant increment of additional traffic relying on this route in the potential event of an evacuation. • The project site is not located within a 100-Year Flood Hazard Zone (1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard), a 500-Year Flood Hazard Zone (2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard), or a Tsunami Susceptibility location. The project’s effects related to inundation hazards are considered less than significant. • The project site is not located within an area susceptible to SLR under any of the year 2100 mid- level scenarios (100-year flood, 100-year flood plus 2040 SLR, or 100-year flood plus 3 feet of SLR). No SLR adaptation strategies are needed to reduce risks of SLR inundation at the project site. • The proposed building reaches a height of approximately 246 feet above mean sea level (including rooftop elements). This does not exceed the project site’s Critical Aeronautical Surface of approximately 860 feet above mean sea level. The project is consistent with the critical aeronautical surface criteria of the ALUCP. • The project is located in the industrial and business section of East of 101, where no residential uses currently exist. The project would remove an existing warehouse but would not directly displace people or housing. • The project site is not located in or near fire-prone areas. Accordingly, the project would not expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrollable spread of a wildfire. The project would not expose people or structures to significant risk, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides due to post-fire slope instability or drainage changes. 248 STANDARD CONDITIONS AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ATTACHMENT 1 to the 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist 249 STANDARD CONDITIONS AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE 439 ECCLES AVENUE PROJECT In the first section of the table, standard conditions are listed from the state and local codes and the South San Francisco General Plan as indicated. In the second section, applicable mitigation measures (MM) from the South San Francisco General Plan Update (SSF GPU) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) are listed. Where necessary to make clear how they apply to a specific development project, wording [in brackets] has been substituted from the original language as appropriate. Standard Condition Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed Standard Condition: Exterior Lighting Plan. Pursuant to South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.300.009, a final exterior lighting plan with specifications in conformance with the approved plans is subject to review and approval by the Planning Division prior to Building Permit issuance. Prior to issuance of building permits Applicant Verify inclusion of requirements in planning documents SSF Planning Division Standard Condition: Protection of Trees. Pursuant to South San Francisco Municipal Code Sections 13.30.030, 13.30.060 and 13.30.080, the project proponent shall obtain a permit to remove any tree(s) protected under the City’s Protected Tree Ordinance, as determined by an arborist. Removed trees will be replaced in accordance with the ordinance at the discretion of the Director of the Parks and Recreation Department. Prior to issuance of building permits Applicant Verify inclusion of requirements in construction documents SSF Planning Division 250 Standard Condition Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed Standard Condition: Protection of Archeological Resources. Pursuant to South San Francisco General Plan Goal ES-10, the following policies shall be followed: Policy ES-10.1: Maintain archaeological procedures for new development. Maintain formal procedures for minimizing and mitigating impacts to archaeological resources; Policy ES-10.3: Require that development proposals be referred to appropriate archaeological resources. Require that development proposals be referred to the Northwest Information Center of the California Archaeological Inventory, Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and local Native American Tribes for review and recommendations regarding supplemental field investigation; and Policy ES-10.5: Discovery of significant historic or prehistoric archaeological artifacts. If construction or grading activities result in the discovery of significant historic or prehistoric archaeological artifacts, then all work within 100 feet of the discovery shall cease, the Economic and Community Development Department shall be notified, the resources shall be examined by a qualified archaeologist for appropriate protection and preservation measures; and work may only resume when appropriate protections are in place and have been approved by the Economic and Community Development Department. __ The following Conditions of Approval shall be applied to the project in satisfaction of identified SSF GPU Policies: Prior to and during construction activities involving ground disturbance Applicant Verify inclusion of requirements in construction documents SSF Building Division 251 Standard Condition Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed In satisfaction of SSF General Plan Policy ES-10.1, prior to issuance of any construction or grading permits, the Applicant shall retain or ensure that a qualified archaeologist is retained to conduct a Worker Environmental Awareness Program training for all construction personnel on the project site prior to construction and ground-disturbing activities. The training shall include basic information about the types of artifacts that might be encountered during construction activities, and procedures to follow in the event of a discovery. This training shall be provided for any personnel with the potential to be involved in activities that could disturb native soils. If archaeological resources are encountered during excavation or construction, construction personnel shall immediately suspend all activity within 100 feet of the suspected resources and the City and a licensed archaeologist shall be contacted to evaluate the situation, including determining the significance of the find. In satisfaction of SSF General Plan Policy ES-10.5, if construction or grading activities result in the discovery of historic or prehistoric archaeological artifacts that are determined to be significant, then all work within 100 feet of the discovery shall remain suspended, the Chief Planner shall be notified; the resources shall be examined by a qualified archaeologist for appropriate protection and preservation measures; and work may only resume when appropriate protections are in place and have been approved by the Chief Planner. 252 Standard Condition Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed Standard Condition: Protection of Human Remains. If human remains are unearthed during round-disturbing activities, Section 7050.5(b) and (c) of the California Health and Safety code will be implemented. Section 7050.5(b) and (c) states: (b) In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has determined, in accordance with Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 27460) of Part 3 of Division 2 of Title 3 of the Government Code, that the remains are not subject to the provisions of Section 27492 of the Government Code or any other related provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of death, and the recommendations concerning treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. The coroner shall make his or her determination within two working days from the time the person responsible for the excavation, or his or her authorized representative, notifies the coroner of the discovery or recognition of the human remains. (c) If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American, or has reason to believe that they are those Prior to and during construction activities involving ground disturbance Applicant Verify inclusion of requirements in construction documents SSF Building Division 253 Standard Condition Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission. [In which case, section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code would apply.] Standard Condition: Stormwater Control Plan. Pursuant to South San Francisco General Plan Policy ES-7.3, projects shall be required to follow stormwater management practices for new and redevelopment projects. Continue to require new development and redevelopment projects to meet federal, State, regional, and local stormwater requirements, including site design, stormwater treatment, stormwater infiltration, peak flow reduction, and trash capture. Prior to issuance of building permits Applicant Verify inclusion of requirements in planning documents SSF Planning Division Standard Condition: Compliance with Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation and Structural Design Plans. Consistent with South San Francisco General Plan Action CR-4.4.1, projects shall require site-specific soils and geologic reports for projects located in high hazard areas. On a parcel-by-parcel basis, require that permit applications for projects located within areas susceptible to geologic hazards, as shown in the SSF General Plan Update EIR Figure 43, prepare site- specific soils and geologic reports for review and approval by the City Engineer, and incorporation of the recommended actions during construction. Prior to issuance of building permits Applicant Verification that design requirements are met and reviewed by qualified professional SSF Building Division Standard Condition: Protection of Paleontological Resources. Pursuant to Public Resources Code 5097.5, if unknown paleontological resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities a person shall not knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, Prior to and during construction activities involving Applicant Verify inclusion of requirements in construction documents SSF Building Division 254 Standard Condition Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed destroy, injure, or deface, any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, rock art, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over the lands. ground disturbance Standard Condition: Construction Noise. Section 8.32.050 of South San Francisco Municipal Code states that construction, alteration, repair, or landscape maintenance activities which are authorized by a valid City permit shall be allowed on weekdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., on Saturdays between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., and on Sundays and holidays between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. or when authorized by a permit and not exceeding 90 dB at a distance of 25 feet or exceeds 90 dB at any point outside a proposed project’s property plane. Prior to issuance of demolition, building or grading permits Applicant Verify inclusion of requirements in construction documents SSF Building Division Standard Condition: Transportation Demand Management (TDM). Pursuant to Chapter 20.400 of the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code and San Mateo County Congestion Management Program Land Use Implementation Policy (C/CAG TDM Policy), all projects subject to these requirements, as indicated in Section 20.400.002 (“Applicability”), shall incorporate measures that have a demonstrable effect on reducing the number of vehicle trips generated. Measures shall be selected from the list described in Section 20.400.004 (“Trip Reduction Measures”) and shall Prior to issuance of building permits -and- Annually Applicant Verify inclusion of requirements in project documents SSF Planning Division 255 Standard Condition Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed achieve the total number of points required. Certain measures are required, but required measures vary by land use. Required points are intended to align with the approximate level of auto travel reductions to achieve consistency with City, regional, and State environmental goals based on applicable industry research. Office and research and development uses between 50,000 and 400,000 square feet of gross floor area require (1) a total of 50 points (2) Annual monitoring to achieve a maximum of 60 percent of employees commuting via driving alone. A complete table of the points associated with each measure, detailed descriptions of each measure, and applicability of measures are available from the Planning Department. 256 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed SSF GP MM AIR-1a: Basic Construction Management Practices. [The project applicant / owner / sponsor] shall incorporate the following Basic Construction Mitigation Measures recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD): • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off- site shall be covered. • All visible mud or dirt trackout onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. • Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California Airborne Toxics Control Measure [ATCM] Title 13, Section 2485 of the California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. • Prior to the commencement of construction activities, individual project proponents shall post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Prior to issuance of all grading and construction permits -and- During grading and construction Applicant Verify construction contractors provide acknowledgment of requirements -and- Verify requirements are met during grading and construction SSF Building Division 257 SSF GPU MM BIO-1: Special-status Species, Migratory Birds, and Nesting Birds. Special-status species are those listed as Endangered, Threatened or Rare, or as Candidates for listing by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), or as Rare Plant Rank 1B or 2B species by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). This designation also includes CDFW Species of Special Concern and Fully Protected Species. Applicants or sponsors of projects on sites where potential special-status species, migratory birds, or nesting birds are present shall retain a qualified Biologist to conduct a focused survey per applicable regulatory agency protocols to determine whether such species occur on a given project site. The project applicant or sponsor shall ensure that, if development of occupied habitat must occur, species impacts shall be avoided or minimized, and if required by a regulatory agency or the CEQA process, loss of wildlife habitat or individual plants shall be fully compensated on the site. If off-site mitigation is necessary, it shall occur within the South San Francisco Planning Area whenever possible, with a priority given to existing habitat mitigation banks. Habitat mitigation shall be accompanied by a long-term management plan and monitoring program prepared by a qualified Biologist, and include provisions for protection of mitigation lands in perpetuity through the establishment of easements and adequate funding for maintenance and monitoring. __ The following Condition of Approval shall be applied to the project in satisfaction of SSF GPU MM BIO-1: Prior to issuance of any construction or grading permits, if initiation of construction activities would occur during the avian nesting season (February 1 through August 31), the project applicant / owner / sponsor shall have pre-construction nesting bird surveys conducted by a qualified biologist within 14 days before initial ground disturbance or vegetation removal to avoid disturbance to active nests, eggs, and/or young of nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish & Game Code. Surveys shall encompass the entire construction phase area and the Prior to issuance of grading permit, if during nesting period -and- Prior to issuance of any subsequent grading or construction permit if during nesting period Applicant Verify completion of nesting survey and, if birds present, provision of buffer -and- Confirm no gap in activity over 14 days or verify updated nesting survey SSF Planning Division 258 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed surrounding 100 feet. An exclusion zone where no construction would be allowed shall be established around any active nests of any protected avian species found in the project site until a qualified biologist has determined that all young have fledged and are independent of the nest. Suggested exclusion zone distances differ depending on species, location, and placement of nest, and shall be at the discretion of the biologist (typically 300 feet for raptors and 100 feet for other species). These surveys would remain valid as long as construction activity is consistently occurring in a given area and shall be completed again if there is a lapse in construction activities of more than 14 consecutive days during the nesting bird season. SSF GPU MM TRANS-1: Transportation Demand Management [for Development Projects]. [The project applicant / owner / sponsor] shall implement a combination of TDM programs (pursuant to Sections 20.400.003 and 20.400.004 of the Zoning Ordinance), services, and infrastructure improvements, including but not limited to: establishing trip reduction programs; subsidizing transit and active transportation use; coordinating carpooling and vanpooling; encouraging telecommuting and flexible work schedules; designing site plans to prioritize pedestrian, bicycle, and transit travel; funding first/last mile shuttle services; establishing site-specific trip caps; managing parking supply; and constructing transit and active transportation capital improvements. [The project applicant / owner / sponsor] shall be subject to annual reporting and monitoring. __ The following Condition of Approval shall be applied to the project in partial satisfaction of SSF GPU MM TRANS-1, along with Standard Condition Transportation Demand Management (TDM): Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy -and- Ongoing annual reporting and monitoring Applicant Verify adoption of TDM program and any required services and infrastructure improvements -and- Annual review of reporting SSF Planning Division 259 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed The project applicant / owner / sponsor shall implement the following measures to ensure adequate access to transit services can be provided: • Provide a letter of support from the owners of Gateway of the Pacific into the final TDM Plan stating that the two developments will make a good faith effort to ensure pedestrian access from 439 Eccles to bus and shuttle stops on Gateway Boulevard via the Gateway of the Pacific site. • Incorporate space for an on-street shuttle stop along the Project’s frontage on southbound Eccles Avenue to provide the ability for shuttles to serve the site (including red curb, an eight foot by five foot accessible landing pad and a pole that operators may attach signage to). 260 AIR QUALITY CALCULATIONS ATTACHMENT 2 to the 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist 261 439 Eccles Ave SSF San Mateo County, Annual 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1 Date: 10/20/2023 5:54 PM 439 Eccles Ave SSF - San Mateo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s)2.2 0 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 470.00 Space 1.25 178,033.00 0 Research & Development 246.23 1000sqft 1.38 294,785.00 Construction Phase - Per preliminary construction schedule. Trips and VMT - Demolition - Grading - Site acreage consistent with plans and earth moving estimates. Vehicle Trips - Weekday trip rate consistant with transportation study and based on the ITE 11th Edition trip rate for use 760 R&D modified to reflect a 21% trip reduction from implementatio of a TDM Plan. N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data Project Characteristics - Land Use - Gross square footage from plans and lot acreage split between the office/R&D building and parking. Utility Company Peninsula Clean Energy CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0 CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0 Precipitation Freq (Days)70 Climate Zone 5 Operational Year 2026 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 10/10/2024 12/27/2024 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/14/2025 10/30/2026 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 6.00 62.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 220.00 480.00 Vehicle Emission Factors - Energy Use - Stationary Sources - Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps - Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 8/29/2025 11/12/2026 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 62.00 2.63 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 10/11/2024 12/28/2024 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 8/15/2025 10/30/2026 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/28/2025 11/12/2026 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 9/11/2025 11/25/2026 tblLandUse LotAcreage 5.65 1.38 tblLandUse LotAcreage 4.23 1.25 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 246,230.00 294,785.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 188,000.00 178,033.00 tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 40,000.00 tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 500.00 7.75 tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse NumberOfEquipment 0.00 2.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 5,063.00 5,062.00 tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse HorsePowerValue 0.00 2,000.00 tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse HoursPerYear 0.00 50.00 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.26 439 Eccles Avenue Project CalEEMod Results 1 262 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1 Date: 10/20/2023 5:54 PM 439 Eccles Ave SSF - San Mateo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 2.0 Emissions Summary Year tons/yr PM2.5 Total 2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 2025 0.2475 2.0573 2.3758 6.6000e-003 0.2392 0.0645 0.3038 0.0652 0.0617 0.1269 0.0261 0.14602.6500e- 003 0.2620 0.0281 0.2901 0.11992024 0.0656 1.0101 0.5841 PM2.5 Total 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 0.30017094 0.932991450.0316239 1.7135043 0.3165812 2.03042735 0.63282051Avg Daily 1.0704274 10.486838 10.119316 2.0000e-005 2.0000e-0050.0000 2.0000e-005 2.0000e-005Area 1.3208 6.0000e-005 6.5600e-003 Category tons/yr 1.3501 0.0826 1.4327 0.3606 0.0821 0.4427 6.8500e- 003 0.36750.0115 1.3501 7.3800e-003 1.3575 0.3606Mobile 0.5568 0.5116 5.4422 Energy 0.0391 0.3550 0.2982 2.1300e- 003 0.0270 0.0270 0.0270 0.0270 Waste Stationary 0.1641 0.7339 0.4184 7.9000e- 004 0.0241 0.0241 0.0241 0.0241 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type 12.300822 12.791781 36.075616 0.0832329 7.3978082 0.45260274 7.85041096 1.97589041 0.44986301 2.42575342 5 623 Grading Grading 10/3/2024 12/27/2024 5 20 2 Mobilization and Site Preparation Site Preparation 9/28/2024 10/2/2024 5 3 1 Demolition Demolition 9/2/2024 9/27/2024 2026 1.7837 1.7469 2.0318 1.7837 2.0573 2.3758 Total Annual with Generators 2.2449 2.3345 6.5838 0.01519 Avg Daily wotj Gemeratprs 0.0532 0.1079 Maximum Annual 5.5400e- 003 0.2008 0.0556 0.2565 0.0547 0.0617 0.1460 Generators Total Annual 0.1641 0.7339 0.4184 7.9000e- 004 0.0241 0.0241 0.0241 0.0241 6.6000e- 003 0.2620 0.0645 0.3038 0.1199 0.0580 0.41860.0144 1.3501 0.0585 1.4086 0.3606Total Annual 2.0808 1.6006 6.1654 Water 439 Eccles Avenue Project CalEEMod Results 2 263 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1 Date: 10/20/2023 5:54 PM 439 Eccles Ave SSF - San Mateo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 4 Building Construction Building Construction 12/28/2024 10/30/2026 5 480 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 4.5 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 2.63 Acres of Paving: 1.25 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 442,178; Non-Residential Outdoor: 147,393; Striped Parking Area: 10,682 (Architectural Coating – sqft) OffRoad Equipment 5 10 6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 11/12/2026 11/25/2026 5 10 5 Paving Paving 10/30/2026 11/12/2026 0.48 Mobilization and Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37 Mobilization and Site Preparation Scrapers 1 8.00 367 Load Factor Mobilization and Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power 0.37 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.73 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.45 Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56 Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.38 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36 Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 Hauling Vehicle Class Mobilization and Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 0.48 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 HHDT Grading 4 10.00 0.00 5,062.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_MixDemolition513.00 0.00 183.00 HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_MixBuilding Construction 8 169.00 77.00 0.00 HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Demolition - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_MixArchitectural Coating 1 34.00 0.00 0.00 Category tons/yr 439 Eccles Avenue Project CalEEMod Results 3 264 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1 Date: 10/20/2023 5:54 PM 439 Eccles Ave SSF - San Mateo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Off-Road 0.0144 0.1389 0.1349 2.4000e- 004 6.3100e-003 6.3100e-003 5.8900e- 003 5.8900e-003 Fugitive Dust 0.0198 0.0000 0.0198 3.0000e- 003 0.0000 3.0000e-003 Category tons/yr PM2.5 Total Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total 0.0144 0.1389 0.1349 2.4000e- 004 0.0198 6.3100e-003 0.0261 3.0000e- 003 5.8900e- 003 8.8900e-003 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 9.0000e- 005 5.1000e-0046.0000e- 005 1.5400e- 003 9.0000e-005 1.6300e-003 4.2000e- 004 Hauling 2.1000e- 004 0.0142 4.8300e- 003 Total 4.8000e- 004 0.0143 7.2000e- 003 7.0000e- 005 2.5600e- 003 9.0000e-005 2.6600e-003 6.9000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 7.9000e-004 0.0000 2.8000e-0041.0000e- 005 1.0200e- 003 0.0000 1.0300e-003 2.7000e- 004 Worker 2.7000e- 004 1.6000e- 004 2.3700e- 003 0.0000 3.0000e-0030.0198 0.0000 0.0198 3.0000e-003Fugitive Dust Category tons/yr PM2.5 Total Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 5.8900e- 003 8.8900e-0032.4000e- 004 0.0198 6.3100e-003 0.0261 3.0000e- 003 Total 0.0144 0.1389 0.1349 Off-Road 0.0144 0.1389 0.1349 2.4000e- 004 6.3100e-003 6.3100e-003 5.8900e- 003 5.8900e-003 9.0000e- 005 5.1000e-0046.0000e- 005 1.5400e- 003 9.0000e-005 1.6300e-003 4.2000e- 004 Hauling 2.1000e- 004 0.0142 4.8300e- 003 Category tons/yr Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 TotalSO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 ROG NOx CO 0.0000 2.8000e-0041.0000e- 005 1.0200e- 003 0.0000 1.0300e-003 2.7000e- 004 Worker 2.7000e- 004 1.6000e- 004 2.3700e- 003 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.3 Mobilization and Site Preparation - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site Total 4.8000e- 004 0.0143 7.2000e- 003 7.0000e- 005 2.5600e- 003 9.0000e-005 2.6600e-003 6.9000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 7.9000e-004 439 Eccles Avenue Project CalEEMod Results 4 265 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1 Date: 10/20/2023 5:54 PM 439 Eccles Ave SSF - San Mateo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Category tons/yr PM2.5 TotalROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Off-Road 1.8600e- 003 0.0197 0.0144 4.0000e- 005 7.5000e-004 7.5000e-004 6.9000e- 004 6.9000e-004 0.0000 2.6000e-0042.3900e-003 0.0000 2.3900e-003 2.6000e-004Fugitive Dust Category tons/yr Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 TotalSO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 ROG NOx CO Unmitigated Construction Off-Site 6.9000e- 004 9.5000e-0044.0000e- 005 2.3900e- 003 7.5000e-004 3.1400e-003 2.6000e- 004 Total 1.8600e- 003 0.0197 0.0144 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 9.0000e-005 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e-005 0.0000 3.0000e-0050.0000 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 9.0000e-005 3.0000e- 005 Worker 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.6000e-0042.3900e- 003 0.0000 2.3900e-003 2.6000e- 004 Fugitive Dust Category tons/yr PM2.5 Total Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 6.9000e- 004 9.5000e-0044.0000e- 005 2.3900e- 003 7.5000e-004 3.1400e-003 2.6000e- 004 Total 1.8600e- 003 0.0197 0.0144 Off-Road 1.8600e- 003 0.0197 0.0144 4.0000e- 005 7.5000e-004 7.5000e-004 6.9000e- 004 6.9000e-004 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Category tons/yr Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 TotalSO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO 0.0000 3.0000e-0050.0000 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 9.0000e-005 3.0000e- 005 Worker 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.2000e- 004 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 439 Eccles Avenue Project CalEEMod Results 5 266 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1 Date: 10/20/2023 5:54 PM 439 Eccles Ave SSF - San Mateo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Category tons/yr PM2.5 Total 3.4 Grading - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 9.0000e-005 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e-005 Off-Road 0.0404 0.4284 0.2697 6.4000e- 004 0.0177 0.0177 0.0163 0.0163 0.0000 0.10310.1904 0.0000 0.1904 0.1031Fugitive Dust Category tons/yr Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 TotalSO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 ROG NOx CO Unmitigated Construction Off-Site 0.0163 0.11946.4000e- 004 0.1904 0.0177 0.2081 0.1031Total 0.0404 0.4284 0.2697 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.5000e- 003 0.01421.5900e- 003 0.0425 2.6100e-003 0.0451 0.0117Hauling 5.8400e- 003 0.3919 0.1336 Total 6.4700e- 003 0.3923 0.1393 1.6100e- 003 0.0449 2.6200e-003 0.0476 0.0123 2.5100e- 003 0.0148 1.0000e- 005 6.6000e-0042.0000e- 005 2.4400e- 003 1.0000e-005 2.4500e-003 6.5000e- 004 Worker 6.3000e- 004 3.9000e- 004 5.6500e- 003 0.0000 0.10310.1904 0.0000 0.1904 0.1031Fugitive Dust Category tons/yr PM2.5 Total Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 0.0163 0.11946.4000e- 004 0.1904 0.0177 0.2081 0.1031Total 0.0404 0.4284 0.2697 Off-Road 0.0404 0.4284 0.2697 6.4000e- 004 0.0177 0.0177 0.0163 0.0163 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 TotalSO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 ROG NOx CO 439 Eccles Avenue Project CalEEMod Results 6 267 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1 Date: 10/20/2023 5:54 PM 439 Eccles Ave SSF - San Mateo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 2.5000e- 003 0.01421.5900e- 003 0.0425 2.6100e-003 0.0451 0.0117Hauling 5.8400e- 003 0.3919 0.1336 Category tons/yr 1.0000e- 005 6.6000e-0042.0000e- 005 2.4400e- 003 1.0000e-005 2.4500e-003 6.5000e- 004 Worker 6.3000e- 004 3.9000e- 004 5.6500e- 003 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Category tons/yr PM2.5 Total 3.5 Building Construction - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total 6.4700e- 003 0.3923 0.1393 1.6100e- 003 0.0449 2.6200e-003 0.0476 0.0123 2.5100e- 003 0.0148 Total 1.6000e-003 0.0128 0.0141 3.0000e-005 5.4000e-004 5.4000e-004 5.2000e-004 5.2000e-004 5.2000e- 004 5.2000e-0043.0000e- 005 5.4000e-004 5.4000e-004Off-Road 1.6000e- 003 0.0128 0.0141 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Category tons/yr PM2.5 Total Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 1.0000e-005 3.6000e-0041.0000e-005 1.3300e-003 1.0000e-005 1.3400e-003 3.5000e-004Worker 3.5000e-004 2.1000e-004 3.0800e-003 Vendor 8.0000e- 005 3.5900e- 003 1.3000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 004 2.0000e-005 5.2000e-004 1.5000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 1.6000e-004 Category tons/yr PM2.5 Total Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total 4.3000e- 004 3.8000e- 003 4.3800e- 003 3.0000e- 005 1.8300e- 003 3.0000e-005 1.8600e-003 5.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 5.2000e-004 Total 1.6000e- 003 0.0128 0.0141 3.0000e- 005 5.4000e-004 5.4000e-004 5.2000e- 004 5.2000e-004 5.2000e- 004 5.2000e-0043.0000e- 005 5.4000e-004 5.4000e-004Off-Road 1.6000e- 003 0.0128 0.0141 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 439 Eccles Avenue Project CalEEMod Results 7 268 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1 Date: 10/20/2023 5:54 PM 439 Eccles Ave SSF - San Mateo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Category tons/yr PM2.5 TotalROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 1.0000e- 005 3.6000e-0041.0000e- 005 1.3300e- 003 1.0000e-005 1.3400e-003 3.5000e- 004 Worker 3.5000e- 004 2.1000e- 004 3.0800e- 003 Vendor 8.0000e- 005 3.5900e- 003 1.3000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 004 2.0000e-005 5.2000e-004 1.5000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 1.6000e-004 Category tons/yr PM2.5 Total 3.5 Building Construction - 2025 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total 4.3000e- 004 3.8000e- 003 4.3800e- 003 3.0000e- 005 1.8300e- 003 3.0000e-005 1.8600e-003 5.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 5.2000e-004 Total 0.1944 1.5690 1.8279 3.2700e- 003 0.0613 0.0613 0.0587 0.0587 0.0587 0.05873.2700e- 003 0.0613 0.0613Off-Road 0.1944 1.5690 1.8279 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Category tons/yr PM2.5 Total Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 7.0000e- 004 0.04691.3200e- 003 0.1736 7.6000e-004 0.1744 0.0462Worker 0.0430 0.0252 0.3788 Vendor 0.0101 0.4630 0.1690 2.0200e- 003 0.0656 2.4400e-003 0.0681 0.0190 2.3400e- 003 0.0213 Category tons/yr PM2.5 Total Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total 0.0530 0.4882 0.5478 3.3400e-003 0.2392 3.2000e-003 0.2424 0.0652 3.0400e-003 0.0682 Total 0.1944 1.5690 1.8279 3.2700e- 003 0.0613 0.0613 0.0587 0.0587 0.0587 0.05873.2700e- 003 0.0613 0.0613Off-Road 0.1944 1.5690 1.8279 439 Eccles Avenue Project CalEEMod Results 8 269 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1 Date: 10/20/2023 5:54 PM 439 Eccles Ave SSF - San Mateo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Category tons/yr PM2.5 Total Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 7.0000e- 004 0.04691.3200e- 003 0.1736 7.6000e-004 0.1744 0.0462Worker 0.0430 0.0252 0.3788 Vendor 0.0101 0.4630 0.1690 2.0200e- 003 0.0656 2.4400e-003 0.0681 0.0190 2.3400e- 003 0.0213 Category tons/yr PM2.5 Total 3.5 Building Construction - 2026 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total 0.0530 0.4882 0.5478 3.3400e- 003 0.2392 3.2000e-003 0.2424 0.0652 3.0400e- 003 0.0682 Total 0.1616 1.3045 1.5198 2.7200e- 003 0.0510 0.0510 0.0488 0.0488 0.0488 0.04882.7200e-003 0.0510 0.0510Off-Road 0.1616 1.3045 1.5198 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Category tons/yr PM2.5 Total Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 5.5000e- 004 0.03901.0600e- 003 0.1444 6.0000e-004 0.1450 0.0384Worker 0.0344 0.0193 0.2996 Vendor 8.1600e- 003 0.3800 0.1410 1.6400e- 003 0.0546 2.0200e-003 0.0566 0.0158 1.9300e- 003 0.0177 Category tons/yr PM2.5 Total Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total 0.0425 0.3992 0.4406 2.7000e- 003 0.1989 2.6200e-003 0.2015 0.0542 2.4800e- 003 0.0567 Total 0.1616 1.3045 1.5198 2.7200e- 003 0.0510 0.0510 0.0488 0.0488 0.0488 0.04882.7200e- 003 0.0510 0.0510Off-Road 0.1616 1.3045 1.5198 439 Eccles Avenue Project CalEEMod Results 9 270 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1 Date: 10/20/2023 5:54 PM 439 Eccles Ave SSF - San Mateo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Category tons/yr PM2.5 Total Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 5.5000e- 004 0.03901.0600e- 003 0.1444 6.0000e-004 0.1450 0.0384Worker 0.0344 0.0193 0.2996 Vendor 8.1600e- 003 0.3800 0.1410 1.6400e- 003 0.0546 2.0200e-003 0.0566 0.0158 1.9300e- 003 0.0177 Category tons/yr PM2.5 Total 3.6 Paving - 2026 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total 0.0425 0.3992 0.4406 2.7000e-003 0.1989 2.6200e-003 0.2015 0.0542 2.4800e-003 0.0567 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.6200e- 003 1.6200e-0039.0000e- 005 1.7500e-003 1.7500e-003Off-Road 3.9300e- 003 0.0372 0.0584 Category tons/yr Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 TotalSO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 ROG NOx CO Unmitigated Construction Off-Site 1.6200e- 003 1.6200e-0039.0000e- 005 1.7500e-003 1.7500e-003Total 3.9300e- 003 0.0372 0.0584 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.4000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 1.2300e- 003 0.0000 5.9000e- 004 0.0000 5.9000e-004 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.6000e-004 0.0000 1.6000e-0040.0000 5.9000e- 004 0.0000 5.9000e-004 1.6000e- 004 Worker 1.4000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 1.2300e- 003 Category tons/yr PM2.5 Total Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 439 Eccles Avenue Project CalEEMod Results 10 271 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1 Date: 10/20/2023 5:54 PM 439 Eccles Ave SSF - San Mateo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1.6200e- 003 1.6200e-0039.0000e- 005 1.7500e-003 1.7500e-003Off-Road 3.9300e- 003 0.0372 0.0584 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 1.6200e- 003 1.6200e-0039.0000e- 005 1.7500e-003 1.7500e-003Total 3.9300e- 003 0.0372 0.0584 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Category tons/yr Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 TotalSO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 ROG NOx CO 0.0000 1.6000e-0040.0000 5.9000e- 004 0.0000 5.9000e-004 1.6000e- 004 Worker 1.4000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 1.2300e- 003 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Category tons/yr PM2.5 Total 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2026 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total 1.4000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 1.2300e- 003 0.0000 5.9000e- 004 0.0000 5.9000e-004 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.6000e-004 Off-Road 8.5000e- 004 5.7300e- 003 9.0500e- 003 1.0000e- 005 2.6000e-004 2.6000e-004 2.6000e- 004 2.6000e-004 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 1.5743 Category tons/yr Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 TotalSO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 ROG NOx CO Unmitigated Construction Off-Site 2.6000e- 004 2.6000e-0041.0000e- 005 2.6000e-004 2.6000e-004Total 1.5751 5.7300e- 003 9.0500e- 003 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 3.2000e- 004 1.8000e- 004 2.7800e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.3400e- 003 1.0000e-005 1.3400e-003 3.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.6000e-004 1.0000e- 005 3.6000e-0041.0000e- 005 1.3400e- 003 1.0000e-005 1.3400e-003 3.6000e- 004 Worker 3.2000e- 004 1.8000e- 004 2.7800e- 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site 439 Eccles Avenue Project CalEEMod Results 11 272 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1 Date: 10/20/2023 5:54 PM 439 Eccles Ave SSF - San Mateo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 1.5743 Category tons/yr PM2.5 TotalROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 2.6000e- 004 2.6000e-0041.0000e- 005 2.6000e-004 2.6000e-004Total 1.5751 5.7300e- 003 9.0500e- 003 Off-Road 8.5000e- 004 5.7300e- 003 9.0500e- 003 1.0000e- 005 2.6000e-004 2.6000e-004 2.6000e- 004 2.6000e-004 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Category tons/yr Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 TotalSO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 ROG NOx CO 1.3400e-003 3.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.6000e-004 1.0000e- 005 3.6000e-0041.0000e- 005 1.3400e- 003 1.0000e-005 1.3400e-003 3.6000e- 004 Worker 3.2000e- 004 1.8000e- 004 2.7800e- 003 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Total 3.2000e- 004 1.8000e- 004 2.7800e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.3400e- 003 1.0000e-005 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.5568 0.5116 5.4422 0.0115 1.3501 7.3800e- 003 1.3575 0.3606 6.8500e- 003 0.3675 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OExhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Unmitigated 0.5568 0.5116 5.4422 0.0115 1.3501 7.3800e- 003 1.3575 0.3606 6.8500e- 003 0.3675 Annual VMT Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00 Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % 3,681,522 Total 1,908.28 467.84 273.32 3,681,522 3,681,522 Research & Development 1,908.28 467.84 273.32 3,681,522 H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-byLand Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W 439 Eccles Avenue Project CalEEMod Results 12 273 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1 Date: 10/20/2023 5:54 PM 439 Eccles Ave SSF - San Mateo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 0.00 0.00 0 0 0Enclosed Parking with Elevator 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MHMDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 48.00 19.00 82 15 3Research & Development 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00 0.000429 0.002710 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy 0.000553 0.029236 0.000429 0.002710 Research & Development 0.457911 0.074699 0.239011 0.149017 0.025897 0.006576 0.010546 0.001994 0.001422 0.000553 0.029236 0.025897 0.006576 0.010546 0.001994 0.001422Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.457911 0.074699 0.239011 0.149017 0.0000 0.0000Electricity Mitigated CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 ROG NOx CO 0.0391 0.3550 0.2982 Electricity Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.0391 0.3550 0.2982 2.1300e- 003 0.0270 0.0270 0.0270 0.0270 0.0270 0.02702.1300e-003 0.0270 0.0270NaturalGas Mitigated CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGas Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Research & Development 7.24287e+ 006 0.0391 0.3550 0.2982 2.1300e- 003 0.0270 0.0270 0.0270 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0391 0.3550 0.2982 2.1300e- 003 0.0270 0.0270 0.0270 0.0270 0.0270 0.0000 0.0000 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 Mitigated NaturalGas Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Research & Development 7.24287e+ 006 0.0391 0.3550 0.2982 2.1300e- 003 0.0270 0.0270 0.0270 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0 Total 0.0391 0.3550 0.2982 2.1300e- 003 0.0270 0.0270 0.0270 0.0270 0.0270 439 Eccles Avenue Project CalEEMod Results 13 274 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1 Date: 10/20/2023 5:54 PM 439 Eccles Ave SSF - San Mateo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Total Research & Development 2.19025e+006 Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Enclosed Parking with Elevator 968500 Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Enclosed Parking with Elevator 968500 Mitigated Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Total Research & Development 2.19025e+ 006 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 1.3208 6.0000e- 005 6.5600e- 003 0.0000 2.0000e-005 2.0000e-005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e-005 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OExhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated Unmitigated 1.3208 6.0000e- 005 6.5600e- 003 0.0000 2.0000e-005 2.0000e-005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e-005 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 ROG NOx CO 439 Eccles Avenue Project CalEEMod Results 14 275 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1 Date: 10/20/2023 5:54 PM 439 Eccles Ave SSF - San Mateo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 0.0000 0.0000Architectural Coating 0.1574 6.0000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 6.5600e- 003 Consumer Products 1.1628 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.3208 6.0000e-005 6.5600e-003 0.0000 2.0000e-005 2.0000e-005 2.0000e-005 2.0000e-005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e-0050.0000 2.0000e-005 2.0000e-005Landscaping N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Consumer Products 1.1628 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Architectural Coating 0.1574 0.0000 2.0000e-005 2.0000e-005Landscaping 6.0000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 6.5600e- 003 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Total 1.3208 6.0000e- 005 6.5600e- 003 0.0000 2.0000e-005 2.0000e-005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e-005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e-005 7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Unmitigated Category MT/yr Mitigated Total Research & Development 121.07 / 0 Land Use Mgal MT/yr Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0 / 0 439 Eccles Avenue Project CalEEMod Results 15 276 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1 Date: 10/20/2023 5:54 PM 439 Eccles Ave SSF - San Mateo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Land Use Mgal MT/yr Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0 / 0 Mitigated Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Category/Year Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Total Research & Development 121.07 / 0 8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Unmitigated t o n MT/yr Mitigated Total Research & Development 18.71 Land Use tons t o n MT/yr Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0 Land Use tons t on MT/yr Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0 Mitigated Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Research & Development 18.71 439 Eccles Avenue Project CalEEMod Results 16 277 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1 Date: 10/20/2023 5:54 PM 439 Eccles Ave SSF - San Mateo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Total Load Factor Fuel Type Emergency Generator 2 0 50 2000 0.73 Diesel Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year 0.0241 0.0241 0.0241 0.0241 0.0241 0.02417.9000e- 004 0.0241 0.0241Emergency Generator - Diesel (750 - 9999 HP) 0.1641 0.7339 0.4184 11.0 Vegetation Total 0.1641 0.7339 0.4184 7.9000e- 004 Equipment Type tons/yr PM2.5 Total 10.1 Stationary Sources Unmitigated/Mitigated ROG NOx 439 Eccles Avenue Project CalEEMod Results 17 278 HISTORIC RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, CULTURAL RECORDS SEARCH, NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION RESPONSE ATTACHMENT 3 to the 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist 279 446 17th Street #302 Oakland CA 94612 510.418.0285 mhulbert@earthlink.net July 28, 2023 439 ECCLES AVE., SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Historic Resource Evaluation This report provides an historical evaluation of the property and building located at the above address. The purpose of this evaluation effort is to determine if the subject property and its building do or do not qualify as historic resources under the California Register of Historical Resources criteria as per the California Environmental Quality Act. This evaluation effort is based on site visits to record the subject building and setting; the collection and review of applicable records, including historic maps, newspapers (@CDNC.org) and telephone directories (@LOC.gov); building permit research at the City of South San Francisco; along with supplemental historical and architectural research. This evaluation is also based on previous historical evaluations of several industrial resources in the immediate vicinity, especially including the evaluation of a directly related property and building at 440 Eccles Blvd. (Preservation Architecture, Historic Resource Evaluation: 440 Eccles Blvd., South San Francisco; November 21, 2022), from which directly applicable background and context portions of the current evaluation have been replicated. The property at 439 Eccles Ave. (APN 015-071-260) contains a tilt-up concrete warehouse building with an attached office structure at front (southeast). Aside from a landscaped strip across the front of the site and yard at the front of the office structure, asphalt auto and truck parking and driveways adjoin both sides of the warehouse and office building (figs.1-3). To the rear (northwest), the warehouse building abuts a former railroad and current recreational access easement, from which its solid, blank rear wall is setback. Evaluation Summary The extant building at 439 Eccles Ave., South San Francisco, is principally a common light industrial/warehouse structure of tilt-up concrete wall construction. The ubiquity of such light industrial structures is in evidence throughout the immediate vicinity, where there are other, highly similar mid-20th century buildings of the same type and construction, while such resource types are found throughout the region’s industrial zones. In sum, there was and is minimal architectural and no artistic enhancement in the subject building, as its design was utilitarian and expedient. Based on empirical as well as historical evidence, the subject building is without historical design or construction distinction. Additionally, there are no associated events of any potential historical importance because no individual developments, discoveries, innovations or inventions of importance are identifiably associated with this distribution warehouse facility, nor is there any direct association between this mid-20th century development and any person or persons of potential historical importance. Consequently, as further detailed herein and per the California Register evaluation criteria, the property and building at 439 Eccles Ave. do not have any potential for a finding of historical significance. Summary History The still future South San Francisco was first mapped in 1881 when the subject land was then in lot 3 of the Land of Charles Lux (fig.4). In addition to his land acquisition talent, Lux was a butcher in the 280 439 ECCLES AVE., SSF MHPA – HR EVAL – 072823 – P2 livestock and meat packing industry serving nearby San Francisco from his lands.1 While the subject and adjoining parcels were undeveloped and while there is not a subsequently recorded map specific to this block, the 1950 Sanborn maps are otherwise salient because they show the surrounding context (fig.5).2 The 1950 Sanborns also depicted the heavy industry that then largely occupied the lands of South San Francisco east of the highway and railway, just prior to the initial development of the subject parcel and its block. The most dominant, Bethlehem Steel, filled the site between E. Grand and Butler avenues (the latter, today’s Oyster Point Ave.) on both sides of the railroad tracks and Industrial Avenue. Another as yet dominant industry was the meat packing facilities and stock yards of Swift & Co., Lux’s successor, whose facilities and yards then stood on both sides of E. Grand at Allerton Ave. (along with an associated property with a group of South San Francisco Land & Improvement Co. dwellings). In 1950, other surviving heavy industries were metal welders, refiners, foundries and recyclers (Thermit; Wildberg Bros.; U.S. Pipe), paint and coating manufacturers (W.P. Fuller; Du Pont De Nemours), along with another meat packing facility (Armour). Those heavy industrial uses were extant in the 1920 Map of South San Francisco, when Swift & Co. of Chicago was, in their SSF location, the Western Meat Company. The heavy industries that survived into the 1950s were generally illustrated in a 1920 map of SSF (fig.6). The original 439 Eccles Ave. building was permitted for development in mid-1964 on previously undeveloped land that had been deeded in August of 1963 by one of the large landholders of surrounding South San Francisco (SSF) industrial property, Bethlehem Steel, to a Boston Massachusetts based real estate management company, Cabot Cabot & Eccles (SF Examiner, August 30, 1963, p.17). In September 1963, Cabot Cabot & Eccles (CC&F) first announced plans to develop a new industrial park on their newly acquired 500-acre SSF property, which they also then announced would be called the San Francisco Bay Industrial Park (SF Examiner, September 30, 1963, p.21). By early 1964, CC&F were advertising their newly created industrial park as the Cabot Cabot & Eccles Industrial Park (SF Examiner, April 5, 1964, p.RE-10). When 439 Eccles was originally constructed, a number of other companies had already built or begun to build within the CC&F Industrial Park. Located on the northwest side of Eccles Ave., the subject parcel was originally mapped as lots 8-12 of the June 1958 SSF Industrial Park Unit No.3 (fig.7) and, subsequently, lot 6 of the October 1964 CC&F Industrial Park Unit No. 3B tract (fig.8). Unit 3-B formed a diagonal swath of properties along Eccles Ave. from Eccles Blvd. to the south and Oyster Point Blvd. north. Upon subject lot 6, new construction of an approximately 32,000 square foot warehouse and 7,800 square foot office building was completed in August 1964, the owner identified as the Graybar Electric Co. and the contractor Cahill Bros., both of San Francisco. No original plans of the project have been located and no engineer or architect has been identified. Graybar Electric Co. was an appliance sales company. They were listed in San Mateo County directories at 439 Eccles Ave. only in 1965 and 1966, when the Hotpoint Appliance Division of 1 See, for example, “History of South San Francisco” @ https://www.californiahistorian.com/south_san_francisco (accessed March 2022). 2 Digital Sanborn Maps, South San Francisco, Apr.1925-Sept.1950, sheets 1, 17-19, 21-27 @ https://digitalsanbornmaps-proquest-com.ezproxy.sfpl.org/browse_maps/5/863/3677/3928/61253?accountid=35117 281 439 ECCLES AVE., SSF MHPA – HR EVAL – 072823 – P3 General Electric was also listed at 439 Eccles, where Hotpoint was listed until 1974. Beginning in 1974, permit records identified Novo International Air Freight at the subject address, though it appears that Hotpoint/General Electric may have retained ownership in the Novo period of occupancy, which ended in 1983. From 1983 until c2000, the presumed owner and occupant was Allan & Henry, Inc. and the Allan Automatic Sprinkler Company. Recent permit records do not list owners yet identify a number of subsequent occupants, including Tangle, Inc. (2005), an unidentified cable company (2009), Frank M. Booth (2013-2014), Spider Ranch Productions (2014) and Zume Inc. (2021). In this recent period, a second tenant space at the address 439-B Eccles was created. Per permit records, the only substantive exterior alterations were at the south side loading docks, including the addition of the existing open loading dock and loading door in 1969, when the owner was listed as yet listed as Graybar Electric/Hot Point. Setting The subject site is urban industrial. Freeway 101 and Caltrain pass to the west. The San Francisco International Airport is also located nearby, to the south, so the vicinity is deeply marked by modes of transportation. Today, on the east side of the freeway and railway, where heavy industry that capitalized on transportation connections once predominated, facilities largely servicing light industrial and technological science industrial uses are now located (though there are a mix of other uses, including retail and hotel). Summary Descriptions (figs.9-14) The existing building at 439 Eccles Ave. is, predominately and primarily, a light industrial warehouse with a secondary office structure. Its front faces north to Eccles Ave. Other industrial uses and properties adjoin each side and rear, where a former railroad right-of-way and future recreational trail forms the northwestern boundary. Some of the adjoining development is contemporaneous with the subject property, others visibly undergoing changeover to the next generation of uses. The warehouse building is tilt-up concrete construction and which, as is typical, consists of tall concrete wall panels within a grid of vertically expressed structural concrete piers creating a basic rhythm of bays and, at the interior, high volume industrial space. The painted concrete warehouse building is approximately 180 feet wide by 178 feet deep and a height of some 25 feet. The southwest side has a partly covered loading dock along its depth, the northeast side is open, both sides have truck loading openings with metal doors and along with some egress doors. The uncovered dock extension and associated loading door at the northwest corner were added in 1969. Appended to the front of the warehouse is the single-story office building, 130 feet wide by 60 feet deep and some 15 feet tall, its 3 exposed exterior walls of panelized construction. Vertical, aluminum framed window units with wood battens, solid aprons and transoms fill most of the front; the central most bay is an entry door with top and side lites, windows at each side and a broad solid transom; the concatenation of window units interrupted at the front’s northeastern end by a solid wall with aggregated cement finish; a flat roof eave with metal fascia overhanging and spanning the front. Both sides consist of narrow window units, again with solid transoms and aprons, interrupted by intervening aggregated cement panels. Given the slightly downsloping site from east to west, the southeast side has a raised concrete base whereas the opposite side stands on grade. Both warehouse and office structures have low-slope roofs so their rooflines are strictly flat. 282 439 ECCLES AVE., SSF MHPA – HR EVAL – 072823 – P4 Associated Persons The earliest property owner of the 19th century ranch and wet lands of which the future 439 Eccles Ave. were miniscule spots, and whose lands became the bulk of future South San Francisco, was Charles Lux (1823-1887). A subsequent property owner of the peninsular industrial lands of South San Francisco was Bethlehem Steel, whose holdings included the then undeveloped subject and surrounding plots. In the course of this evaluation, no individuals have arisen with directly associations to the extant 439 Eccles property and building. The original master developers, CC&F, were a corporation remote to the region. Likewise, the subject building owners, the Graybar Electric Co. and Hot Point/General Electric, were semi-remote companies without specifically identifiable individuals associated with this distribution facility. As an example, Graybar Electric was founded in the latter 19th century in the Midwest and thereafter expanded their operations throughout the U.S., where in the 20th century they operated hundreds of facilities nationwide, of which the SSF location is but one.3 Architects, Engineers & Builder No engineer or architect of the subject 1964 building has been identified. The builder of the original building was San Francisco’s Cahill Bros. Historic Contexts The development context of the subject and adjoining blocks is situated in the post-World War II, American suburbanization and transportation period, which context also embodied the large-scale suburban and urbanization of agricultural lands. This development context was far-ranging in the post-war period throughout the region, including the towns and cities of the San Francisco Peninsula, each of which then experienced extensive new development, including industrial and residential adaptation of agricultural properties and extensive infill of wetlands. Given the period of development, the subject resource also relates to and is thus situated in the context of mid-20th century, commercial and industrial design and construction. Based on directly applicable historic contexts, for example, San Jose’s modern context statement and the City of San Francisco’s, architecturally, the most applicable style is the Midcentury Modern.4 As documented in San Francisco’s context, characteristics of the style include: • Cantilevered roofs and overhangs • The use of bright or contrasting colors • Projecting eaves • Canted windows • Projecting boxes that frame the upper stories • Stucco siding • Spandrel glass • Large expanses of windows • Flat or shed roof forms 3 re: Graybar Electric history: “Strange Romance of Business Began With $400 Mortgage on Homestead,’ Madera Tribune, 2 February 1926. 4 Mary Brown, San Francisco City and County Planning Department. San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design 1935-1970: Historic Context Statement, September 30, 2010. 283 439 ECCLES AVE., SSF MHPA – HR EVAL – 072823 – P5 • Vertical corrugated siding • Stacked roman brick cladding • And, occasionally, vertical wood siding. • New technology and materials, such as plastic laminates, spandrel glass, and anodized metal sheaths. While these characteristics are most applicable to architecturally designed resources, the overall characterization is also applicable toward gauging the character of built resources from the mid-20th century period. Evaluation The subject parcel and building have not previously been evaluated for historic resource eligibility. The City of South San Francisco has a range of sites that the City has identified as historic and are mapped and listed on the South San Francisco Historic Sites and Historic Marker Program.5 While some of those sites are located in the industrial lands east of the freeway, the subject property is not listed thereon, there are no sites within the subject block, nor (per an over-the-counter review with SSF Planning in March 2022) is there any evidence of more current or ongoing historical evaluations or designations. Additionally, no historical records for the subject property are available at the State’s California Historic Resource Information System, as neither the subject property nor any nearby properties are listed on the State’s current Built Environment Resource Database (BERD).6 In order to address the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) specific to historic resources, the current effort has been requested and is intended to provide such historic resource evaluation. To be eligible for listing on the California Register, a resource must be historically significant at the local, state or national level, under one or more of the following four criteria, each of which is iterated and followed with a summary evaluation statement specific to the 2 subject resources. 1. It 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. The events associated with the 439 Eccles property were the mid-20th century conversion of former heavy industrial properties of eastern SSF to light industrial uses. The CC&F Industrial Park was developed on land of Bethlehem Steel, a very large SSF landholder in the 20th century. The CC&F Industrial Park first broke ground in 1964. While their advertisements evoked the invention of industrial park typology, industrial parks had been developed elsewhere, including locally. So, the pattern of development of industrial parks was well established by the time CC&F’s was begun in SSF (for example, the Stanford Industrial Park was founded in 1951). In fact, Boston, where CC&F were based, was by the 1960s home to numerous planned industrial districts containing numerous industrial facilities.7 In their 1960s development context, there is no potential historical significance associated with this warehousing use or building, which generally fit a far-ranging post-war commercial 5 Historic Marker Program @https://www.ssf.net/home/showpublisheddocument/1802/636344246018530000. 6 BERD @https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=30338 (accessed August 2023). 7 John M. Findlay, Magic Lands: Western Cityscapes and American Culture After 1940, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1992; from chap.3, “Stanford Industrial Park,” p40. 284 439 ECCLES AVE., SSF MHPA – HR EVAL – 072823 – P6 development pattern. No individual developments, companies, discoveries, innovations, inventions or products of importance are identifiably associated with this property. As there is no evidence, individually or collectively, of any historic events directly associated with the subject property, the property and building at 439 Eccles Ave. do not meet CR criterion 1. 2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. In the course of this evaluation, no individuals have arisen as directly associated persons. The earliest property owner of the then ranch and wetlands, of which the future, subject site was a miniscule piece, and whose lands became the bulk of South San Francisco, was Charles Lux. While an evidently important person in 19th century local and state history, Lux has no direct or applicable association to the mid-20th century development on his former lands. The subsequent property owner of large portions of the peninsular industrial lands of South San Francisco was Bethlehem Steel. Again, whatever historical importance Bethlehem Steel may have, there is no direct association to the existing, 1960s development on the subject or surrounding parcels. The original master developers, CC&F, were a corporation remote to the region. While they had local representation, those were company persons who do not have identifiable associations specific to the subject development. Likewise, the subject building owners, the Graybar Electric Co. and Hot Point/General Electric, were semi-remote companies without specifically identifiable persons associated with this individual development. Consequently, as no persons of historic importance have direct association to 439 Eccles Ave., the subject resource does not meet CR criterion 2. 3. It 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. The building type of 439 Eccles is principally and standardly a mid-size distribution warehouse with a front office component. The bulk of the building is tilt-up concrete construction, which method was standardly used at the time of its construction and remains in standard use for warehouse buildings. The relatively small office structure is of the Modern architectural style. It is low and linear with vertically expressed aluminum framed window and door assemblies intermixed with aggregated concrete wall panels and a cantilevered eave across the front. The subject building and its parts are of standard construction materials and methods. Such building construction is based on expedience rather than invention. The office structure alone is the only architectural component yet is a relatively smaller piece of the overall building while it does not express design distinction relative to its Modern architectural period. Further, no original engineers or architects have been identified. Lastly, while the subject building indirectly relates to surrounding, mid-20th century light- industrial development, there is no evidence of any planning or design interrelationships as all of these utilitarian buildings were developed individually and expediently. 285 439 ECCLES AVE., SSF MHPA – HR EVAL – 072823 – P7 As the subject building does not embody any design or construction distinction in terms of type, period, region or methods; as it is not a work of any identified architect, engineer, designer or an important work of its builder; nor does it possess any artistic values; the extant building at 439 Eccles Ave. is not eligible for the CR under CR Criterion 3. 4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the Nation. The subject property and building have not yielded and do not appear to have the potential to yield any important historic information beyond the present historical record (prehistory is outside the scope of this historical effort). Thus, relative to the subject of this evaluation – potential historic resources – the subject resource has not yielded and has no identifiable potential to yield important historical information, so does not meet CR Criterion 4. Conclusion In conclusion, the extant property and building at 439 Eccles Ave. do not meet any applicable criteria so are not eligible for the California Register. While additional historical research is always possible – complete deed research, for example – further details would not alter the unequivocal conclusion of this evaluation effort, which is that the subject property and building have no potential historical or cultural importance. It is also clear that the removal and replacement of such a building has no potential to affect any presently identified resources of historical interest in the vicinity – of which there are none within visual range of the subject property. Nor does there appear to be any nearby potential historic resources or, specifically, a group of resources that could comprise an historic district. Signed: Mark Hulbert Preservation Architect attached: figs.1-14 (pp.8-14); MH professional qualifications (3pp.) 286 439 ECCLES AVE., SSF MHPA – HR EVAL – 072823 – P8 Fig.1 – 439 Eccles Ave. (circled) - Location aerial (Google Earth 2022, north is up) Fig.2 – 439 Eccles Ave. (highlighted) - Location aerial (Google Earth 2022, north at upper right) E. GRAND AVE. SPRR 101 FREEWAY CALTRAIN ALLERTON AVE. ECCLES AVE. DOWNTOWN SSF SAN FRANCISCO BAY FORMER R.R. EASEMENT FORBES AVE. ECCLES 287 439 ECCLES AVE., SSF MHPA – HR EVAL – 072823 – P9 Fig.3 – 439 Eccles Ave. (current site highlighted) - from Assessor’s parcel map Fig.4 – 439 Eccles Ave. (circled, approx.) - 1881 map (from San Mateo County Assessor) 288 439 ECCLES AVE., SSF MHPA – HR EVAL – 072823 – P10 Fig.5 – 439 Eccles Ave. (future, circle, approx.) – from 1950 Sanborn map Fig.6 – 439 Eccles Ave. (future) - from 1920 Map of South San Francisco (from digicoll.lib.berkeley.edu) 289 439 ECCLES AVE., SSF MHPA – HR EVAL – 072823 – P11 Fig.7 – 439 Eccles Ave. (highlighted) - from 1958 tract map Fig.8 – 439 Eccles Ave. – 1964 South San Francisco Industrial Park Unit No. 3-B tract map (from San Mateo County Assessor-Recorder) 290 439 ECCLES AVE., SSF MHPA – HR EVAL – 072823 – P12 Fig.9 – 439 Eccles Ave. - Front (southeast) looking north (figs.9-14, MH 2023) Fig.10 – 439 Eccles Ave. - Front entry way Fig.11 – 439 Eccles Ave. - Front looking west 291 439 ECCLES AVE., SSF MHPA – HR EVAL – 072823 – P13 Fig.12 – 439 Eccles Ave. – Southwest side Fig.13 – 439 Eccles Ave. – Northeast side of office building Fig.14 – 439 Eccles Ave. – Warehouse front, right side, looking northwest from driveway 292 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION Page 1 of 2 August 12, 2023 Rebecca Auld Lamphier-Gregory Via Email to: rauld@lamphier-gregory.com Re: Native American Tribal Consultation, Pursuant to the Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), Amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014), Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 (m), 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2 and 21084.3, 439 Eccles Avenue Project, San Mateo County To Whom It May Concern: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (c), attached is a consultation list of tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the above-listed project. Please note that the intent of the AB 52 amendments to CEQA is to avoid and/or mitigate impacts to tribal cultural resources, (Pub. Resources Code §21084.3 (a)) (“Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource.”) Public Resources Code sections 21080.3.1 and 21084.3(c) require CEQA lead agencies to consult with California Native American tribes that have requested notice from such agencies of proposed projects in the geographic area that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the tribes on projects for which a Notice of Preparation or Notice of Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration has been filed on or after July 1, 2015. Specifically, Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (d) provides: Within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency shall provide formal notification to the designated contact of, or a tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice, which shall be accomplished by means of at least one written notification that includes a brief description of the proposed project and its location, the lead agency contact information, and a notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation pursuant to this section. The AB 52 amendments to CEQA law does not preclude initiating consultation with the tribes that are culturally and traditionally affiliated within your jurisdiction prior to receiving requests for notification of projects in the tribe’s areas of traditional and cultural affiliation. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) recommends, but does not require, early consultation as a best practice to ensure that lead agencies receive sufficient information about cultural resources in a project area to avoid damaging effects to tribal cultural resources. The NAHC also recommends, but does not require that agencies should also include with their notification letters, information regarding any cultural resources assessment that has been completed on the area of potential effect (APE), such as: 1. The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to: ACTING 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 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 293 Page 2 of 2 • A listing of any and all known cultural resources that have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE, such as known archaeological sites; • Copies of any and all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided by the Information Center as part of the records search response; • Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate, or high probability that unrecorded cultural resources are located in the APE; and • If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present. 2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including: • Any report that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measures. All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for public disclosure in accordance with Government Code section 6254.10. 3. The result of any Sacred Lands File (SLF) check conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission was negative. 4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the APE; and 5. Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the APE. Lead agencies should be aware that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS are not exhaustive and a negative response to these searches does not preclude the existence of a tribal cultural resource. A tribe may be the only source of information regarding the existence of a tribal cultural resource. This information will aid tribes in determining whether to request formal consultation. In the event that they do, having the information beforehand will help to facilitate the consultation process. If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your assistance, we can assure that our consultation list remains current. If you have any questions, please contact me at my email address: Cody.Campagne@nahc.ca.gov. Sincerely, Cody Campagne Cultural Resources Analyst Attachment 294 August 8, 2023 NWIC File No.: 23-0143 Jenna Sunderlin Lamphier-Gregory, Inc. 4100 Redwood Road, Ste. 20A - #601 Oakland, CA 94619 Re: Record search results for the proposed 439 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco Project Dear Jenna Sunderlin: Per your request received by our office on August 2nd, 2023, a rapid response records search was conducted for the above referenced project by reviewing pertinent Northwest Information Center (NWIC) base maps that reference cultural resources records and reports, historic-period maps, and literature for San Mateo County. Please note that use of the term cultural resources includes both archaeological resources and historical buildings and/or structures. The 2.63-acre project site (APN 015-071-260) is located in the City of South San Francisco, California at 439 Eccles Avenue, on the north side of Eccles Avenue. The site is located in the City’s developed East of 101 Area and is surrounded by commercial and industrial uses and associated parking and circulation. Existing development at the site is a 66,100 square foot, single-story tilt-up warehouse constructed in 1960 and associated surface parking, which covers the majority of the site except for some landscaping along the street frontage. The project proposes to demolish the existing improvements and construct a new 7-story building and associated parking garage, intended for use as research and development, office, or technology use. The project would involve a full basement level below the building, with excavation extending to depths of approximately 25 feet below ground surface in an approximately 0.85-acre footprint. Review of the information at our office indicates that there has been no cultural resource study that covers the 439 Eccles Avenue project area. This 439 Eccles Avenue project area contains no recorded archaeological resources. The State Office of Historic Preservation Built Environment Resources Directory (OHP BERD), which includes listings of the California Register of Historical Resources, California State Historical Landmarks, California State Points of Historical Interest, and the National Register of Historic Places, lists no recorded buildings or structures within or adjacent to the proposed 439 Eccles Avenue project area. In addition to these inventories, the NWIC base maps show no recorded buildings or structures within the proposed 439 Eccles Avenue project area. At the time of Euroamerican contact, the Native Americans that lived in the area were speakers of the Ramaytush language, which is part of the Costanoan/Ohlone language family (Levy 1978:485). Using Milliken’s study of various mission records, the proposed 439 Eccles Avenue project area is located within the lands of the Urebure tribe, whose territory was located from the 295 2            23‐0143  San Bruno Creek area just south of San Bruno Mountain on the San Francisco Peninsula, including in the area of the Mexican land grant of Buriburi, patented in the year 1826, and lands from the present City of Millbrae to the present City of South San Francisco (Milliken 1995: 258- 259) Based on an evaluation of the environmental setting and features associated with known sites, Native American resources in this part of San Mateo County have been found in areas marginal to San Francisco Bay, inland near the base of hills, and near freshwater courses. The 439 Eccles Avenue project area is located in San Mateo County in the City of South San Francisco in the area of Point San Bruno on the second hill in from the shore, approximately 0.3 miles from the San Francisco historic and current bayshore margins. Aerial maps indicate the project area is completely covered in asphalt and building(s) with a few large trees lining the southeastern boundary of the parcel. Given the similarity of these environmental factors and the archaeological sensitivity of the area, there is a moderate potential for unrecorded Native American resources to be within the proposed 439 Eccles Avenue project area. Review of historical literature and maps indicated the possibility of historic-period activity within the 439 Eccles Avenue project area. Early San Mateo County maps indicated the project area was located within the lands of South San Francisco Land & Improvements Co. (Bromfield 1894). As there are no buildings indicated on this early map, it is unclear if the area was developed at that time. With this information in mind, there is a moderate potential for unrecorded historic-period archaeological resources to be within the proposed 439 Eccles Avenue project area. The 1956 photo revised 1980 San Francisco South USGS 15-minute topographic quadrangle depicts one large building within the 439 Eccles Avenue project area. If present, this unrecorded building meets the Office of Historic Preservation’s minimum age standard that buildings, structures, and objects 45 years or older may be of historical value. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1) There is a moderate potential for Native American archaeological resources and a moderate potential for historic-period archaeological resources to be within the project area. Given the potential for archaeological resources in the proposed 439 Eccles Avenue project area, our usual recommendation would include archival research and a field examination. The proposed project area, however, has been highly developed and is presently covered with asphalt, buildings, or fill that obscures the visibility of original surface soils, which negates the feasibility of an adequate surface inspection. Therefore, prior to demolition or other ground disturbance, we recommend a qualified archaeologist conduct further archival and field study to identify archaeological resources, including a good faith effort to identify archaeological deposits that may show no indications on the surface. Field study may include, but is not limited to, hand auger sampling, shovel test units, or geoarchaeological analyses as well as other common methods used to identify the presence of buried archaeological resources. Please refer to the list of consultants who meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards at http://www.chrisinfo.org. 296 3            23‐0143  2) We recommend the lead agency contact the local Native American tribe(s) regarding traditional, cultural, and religious heritage values. For a complete listing of tribes in the vicinity of the project, please contact the Native American Heritage Commission at 916/373-3710. 3) As per information provided by the requestor, the proposed 439 Eccles Avenue project area contains one unrecorded single-story tilt-up warehouse constructed in 1960. Prior to commencement of project activities, it is recommended that this resource be assessed by a professional familiar with the architecture and history of San Mateo County. Please refer to the list of consultants who meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards at http://www.chrisinfo.org. 4) Review for possible historic-period buildings or structures has included only those sources listed in the attached bibliography and should not be considered comprehensive. 5) If archaeological resources are encountered during construction, work should be temporarily halted in the vicinity of the discovered materials and workers should avoid altering the materials and their context until a qualified professional archaeologist has evaluated the situation and provided appropriate recommendations. Project personnel should not collect cultural resources. Native American resources include chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars, and pestles; and dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, heat- affected rock, or human burials. Historic-period resources include stone or adobe foundations or walls; structures and remains with square nails; and refuse deposits or bottle dumps, often located in old wells or privies. 6) It is recommended that any identified cultural resources be recorded on DPR 523 historic resource recordation forms, available online from the Office of Historic Preservation’s website: https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=28351 Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation are available via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area. Additionally, Native American tribes have historical resource information not in the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Inventory, and you should contact the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal contacts. The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) contracts with the California Historical Resources Information System’s (CHRIS) regional Information Centers (ICs) to maintain information in the CHRIS inventory and make it available to local, state, and federal 297 4            23‐0143  agencies, cultural resource professionals, Native American tribes, researchers, and the public. Recommendations made by IC coordinators or their staff regarding the interpretation and application of this information are advisory only. Such recommendations do not necessarily represent the evaluation or opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer in carrying out the OHP’s regulatory authority under federal and state law. Thank you for using our services. Please contact this office if you have any questions, (707) 588-8455. Sincerely, Jillian Guldenbrein Researcher 298 5            23‐0143  LITERATURE REVIEWED In addition to archaeological maps and site records on file at the Northwest Information Center of the Historical Resources Information System, the following literature was reviewed: Bromfield, Davenport 1894 Official Map of San Mateo County, California General Land Office 1854, 1866, 1868 Survey Plat for Township 3 South/Range 5 West. Helley, E.J., K.R. Lajoie, W.E. Spangle, and M.L. Blair 1979 Flatland Deposits of the San Francisco Bay Region - Their Geology and Engineering Properties, and Their Importance to Comprehensive Planning. Geological Survey Professional Paper 943. United States Geological Survey and Department of Housing and Urban Development. Levy, Richard 1978 Costanoan. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 485-495. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Nelson, N.C. 1909 Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Region. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 7(4):309-356. Berkeley. (Reprint by Kraus Reprint Corporation, New York, 1964) Nichols, Donald R., and Nancy A. Wright 1971 Preliminary Map of Historic Margins of Marshland, San Francisco Bay, California. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Map. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation 1976 California Inventory of Historic Resources. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation and Office of Historic Preservation 1988 Five Views: An Ethnic Sites Survey for California. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation and Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. State of California Office of Historic Preservation ** 2022 Built Environment Resources Directory. Listing by City (through September 23, 2022) State of California Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. **Note that the Office of Historic Preservation’s Historic Properties Directory includes National Register, State Registered Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and the California Register of Historical Resources as well as Certified Local Government surveys that have 299 ENERGY CALCULATIONS ATTACHMENT 4 to the 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist 300 To support the Energy Analysis for the following project:439 Eccles Avenue Construction Equipment/Vehicles # of Vehicles Hrs per Day Horse-power Load Factor Days in Phase Fuel Used (gallons) DemolitionRubber Tired Dozers 1 8 247 0.4 20 836 Concrete Saws 1 8 81 0.73 20 556Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8 97 0.37 20 1,013 Site PreparationGraders 1 8 187 0.41 3 97 Scrapers 1 8 367 0.48 3 224 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7 97 0.37 3 44Grading / Excavation Graders 1 8 187 0.41 62 2,012Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 247 0.4 62 2,592 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7 97 0.37 62 1,832 Building - Exterior Cranes 1 8 231 0.29 480 13,608 Forklifts 2 7 89 0.2 480 7,033 Generator Sets 1 8 84 0.74 480 14,035 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6 97 0.37 480 6,078 Welders 3 8 46 0.45 480 14,022 Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8 9 0.56 10 24 Pavers 1 8 130 0.42 10 231 Paving Equipment 1 8 132 0.36 10 201 Rollers 2 8 80 0.38 10 286 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8 97 0.37 10 169 Building - Interior / Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6 78 0.48 10 132 Total Fuel Used for Construction Equipment/Vehicles 65,026 (diesel) Compression-Ignition Engine Brake-Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC) Factors [1] used in the above calculations are (in gallons per horsepower-hour/BSFC)0.0588 <100 horsepower 0.0529 >100 horsepower Worker Trips Phase MPG [2]Trips Trip Length (miles)Total Miles per Day Days in Phase Fuel Used (gallons) Demolition 24 13 10.8 140.4 20 117Site Prep Phase 24 8 10.8 86.4 3 11 Grading Phase 24 10 10.8 108 62 279 Paving 24 15 10.8 162 10 68 Building Construction 24 169 10.8 1825.2 480 36,504 Architectural Coating 24 34 10.8 367.2 10 153 Total Fuel Used for Construction Worker Trips 37,131 (gasoline) Vendor Trips Phase MPG [2]Trips Trip Length (miles) Total Miles per Day Days in Phase Fuel Used (gallons) Demolition 7.4 0 7.3 0 20 0 Site Prep Phase 7.4 0 7.3 0 3 0 Grading Phase 7.4 0 7.3 0 62 0 Paving 7.4 0 7.3 0 10 0Building Construction 7.4 77 7.3 562.1 480 36,461 Architectural Coating 7.4 0 7.3 0 10 0 Total Fuel Used for Vendor Trips 36,461 (diesel) Hauling Trips Phase MPG [2] Trips in Phase Trip Length (miles) Total Miles in Phase Fuel Used (gallons) Demolition 7.4 183 20 3660 495 Site Prep Phase 7.4 0 20 0 0 Grading Phase 7.4 5062 20 101240 13,681 Paving 7.4 0 20 0 0 Building Construction 7.4 0 20 0 0Architectural Coating 7.4 0 20 0 0 Total Fuel Used for Hauling Trips 14,176 (diesel) Fuel Use Converted to MMBtu Source Diesel [3]15,890 MMBtuGasoline [4]4,076 MMBtu Total Energy Use from Construction Fuel 19,966 MMBtu Sum of above Total Construction Energy Use 19,966 MMBtu 37,131 137,381109,786 Construction Energy Use Construction Energy Use, Continued Fuel Converted to Energy UseTotal Construction Fuel Use (gallons)Conversion FactorBtu/gallon 115,662 Energy Calculations Page 1 of 3 301 Operational Vehicular Fuel Use Gross Annual VMT 3,681,522 Fleet Class Fleet Mix VMT per Class Fuel Ecomony [5] Fuel Consumption (gallons) Light Duty Auto (LDA)0.457911 1685809.4 30.9 54556.94 Light Duty Truck 1 (LDT1)0.074699 275006.01 26.63 10326.92 Light Duty Truck 2 (LDT2)0.239011 879924.25 24.36 36121.69 Medium Duty Vehicle (MDV)0.149017 548609.36 20.2 27158.88 Motorcycle (MCY)0.029236 107632.98 37.06 2904.29 Total Gasoline 131,069 Light Heavy Duty 1 (LHD1)0.025897 95340.375 18.23 5229.86 gallons Light Heavy Duty 2 (LHD2)0.006576 24209.689 16.24 1490.74 Medium Heavy Duty (MHD)0.010546 38825.331 9.43 4117.21 Heavy Heavy Duty (HHD)0.001994 7340.9549 6.42 1143.45 Other Bus (OBUS)0.001422 5235.1243 8.26 633.79 Urban Bus (UBUS)0.000553 2035.8817 5.17 393.79 School Bus (SBUS)0.000429 1579.3729 7.25 217.84 Motorhome (MH )0.00271 9976.9246 9.91 1006.75 Total Diesel 14,233 gallons Note that the above VMT includes a 21% reduction for the TDM plan [6]. Source Diesel 14,233 [3]1,955 MMBtu Gasoline 131,069 [4]14,390 MMBtu Total Energy Use from Operational Fuel 16,345 MMBtu Operational Built Environment Type of Energy Annual Usage Units Converted to MMBtu Electricity 3.16E+06 kWh 10778 Natural Gas 7242870 kBtu 7242.87 Sum of above Total Annual Operational Energy Use 34,366 MMBtu Operational Energy Use Note that the above numbers represent gross fuel consumption. 137,381 109,786 Fuel Converted to Energy Use Total Fuel Use (gallons) Conversion Factor Btu/gallon Energy Calculations Page 2 of 3 302 Sources Unless otherwise noted, information in these calculations is from the project-specific Air Quality/Emissions Assessment for the project, including CalEEMod output tables. [1] United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2018. Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Compression-Ignition Engines in MOVES2014b . July 2018. Available at: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100UXEN.pdf. [2] United States Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2018. National Transportation Statistics 2018 . Available at: https://www.bts.gov/sites/bts.dot.gov/files/docs/browse-statistical-products-anddata/national- transportation-statistics/223001/ntsentire2018q4.pdf. https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/archive/00352205.pdf [4] California Air Resources Board, CA-GREET 2.0 Supplemental Document and Tables of Changes, Appendix C, Supplement to the LCFS CA-GREET 2.0 Model, 12/15/2014 , page C-24, Table 10. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2015/lcfs2015/lcfs15appc.pdf [5] California Air Resources Board (CARB), EMFAC2021 v1.0.0., 2021. Available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- work/programs/mobile-source-emissions-inventory/msei-modeling-tools-emfac-software-and [6] Anticipated TDM reduction information is from the the project-specific CEQA Transportation Analysis. Acronyms used include: Btu = British Thermal Units hrs = hours kBtu = Thousand British Thermal Units kWH = kilowatt hours MMBtu = Million British Thermal Units MPG = miles per gallon TDM = Transportation Demand Management VMT = vehicle miles traveled Energy Calculations Page 3 of 3 303 TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS ATTACHMENT 5 to the 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist 304 439 Eccles Transportation Impact Analysis Prepared for: Vigilant Holdings and City of South San Francisco January 2024 305 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Description ............................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................................................................................................ 4 1.3 Report Organization ............................................................................................................................................................ 4 2. Environmental Setting .............................................................................................................. 5 2.1 Roadway Facilities ................................................................................................................................................................. 5 2.2 Transit Facilities and Service ............................................................................................................................................. 5 2.3 Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities .......................................................................................................................................... 9 2.4 Emergency Response ........................................................................................................................................................10 2.5 Transportation Plans & Policies ....................................................................................................................................12 3. Project Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 14 3.1 Travel Demand .....................................................................................................................................................................14 3.2 Consistency with Plans & Policies ................................................................................................................................15 3.3 Vehicle Miles Traveled ......................................................................................................................................................15 3.4 Site Circulation and Design Hazards ...........................................................................................................................16 3.5 Emergency Vehicle Access ..............................................................................................................................................17 4. Impacts and Mitigations......................................................................................................... 18 4.1 Consistency with Plans & Policies ................................................................................................................................18 4.2 Vehicle Miles Traveled ......................................................................................................................................................18 4.3 Design Hazards ....................................................................................................................................................................19 4.4 Emergency Access ..............................................................................................................................................................19 5. Local Transportation Analysis ................................................................................................ 20 5.1 Parking ....................................................................................................................................................................................20 5.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Access .......................................................................................................................................20 5.3 Transit ......................................................................................................................................................................................21 5.4 Passenger Loading .............................................................................................................................................................22 5.5 Traffic Operations ...............................................................................................................................................................22 5.6 Intersection Traffic Controls ...........................................................................................................................................25 306 List of Figures Figure 1. Project Location.................................................................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2. Project Site Plan & Circulation Diagram ................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3. Existing Transit Services .................................................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 4. Existing and Planned Bicycle Facilities.................................................................................................................... 11 List of Tables Table 2.1 Bus/Shuttle Stop Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 7 Table 2.2 South San Francisco General Plan Mobility Goals, Policies, and Actions ................................................ 12 Table 3.1 Trip Generation ............................................................................................................................................................... 14 Table 3.2 Home-Based Work Vehicle Miles Traveled Per Employee Thresholds ..................................................... 15 Table 5.1 Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria ....................................................................................................................... 23 Table 5.2 Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria .................................................................................................................. 23 Table 5.3 LOS Results ....................................................................................................................................................................... 24 307 439 Eccles Transportation Impact Analysis January 2024 1 1. Introduction 1.1 Project Description This transportation impact analysis (TIA) evaluates potential transportation impacts associated with the 439 Eccles development in South San Francisco (referred to as the “Project”). The Project is located approximately 700 feet north of the intersection of Forbes Boulevard and Eccles Avenue and presently has an unoccupied one‐story, 40,224 square-foot warehouse building. The Project would replace the existing land use with a seven-story, 298,470 square‐foot office/R&D building with one below‐grade basement level and a six-story parking garage. The proposed parking structure includes 448 proposed stalls. Figure 1 shows the Project location. Figure 2 presents the Project site plan. 308 £[101 439 Eccles Ave Project SiteGull DrDOWNTOWNDOWNTOWNDOWNTOWNDOWNTOWNDOWNTOWNDOWNTOWNDOWNTOWNDOWNTOWNDOWNTOWNDOWNTOWNDOWNTOWNDOWNTOWNDOWNTOWN EAST OFEAST OF 101 SIERRA SIERRA SIERRA POINT Oyster Point Blvd Gateway BlvdForbes Blvd Mitchell Ave Eas t G r a n d A v eAirport BlvdLinden AveGrand A v e Allerton AveSister C i t i e s B l v d Marina Blvd SouthAirportBlvdD N A WayDubuqueAveEccles Av e San Bruno Mountain State & County Park Oyster Point Channel San Bruno Channel Project Site Caltrain Station Ferry Terminal 309 439 Eccles Transportation Impact Analysis January 2024 3 Figure 2. Project Site Plan & Circulation Diagram 310 439 Eccles Transportation Impact Analysis January 2024 4 1.2 Thresholds of Significance The Project related transportation impacts will be considered significant under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) if any of the following Standards of Significance are exceeded, per Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines: • Conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities; • Generate per-employee vehicle miles traveled (VMT) greater than the City's adopted threshold of 15 percent below the regional average, according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) and City of South San Francisco Resolution 77-2020 related to VMT; • Substantially increased hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses; or • Result in inadequate emergency access. The criteria of significance apply to all Project scenarios as measured against the corresponding No Project scenarios. 1.3 Report Organization This transportation impact analysis includes the following sections focused on topics relating to the CEQA Thresholds of Significance described in the previous section. These topics are grouped into three sections: • Environmental Setting: An overview of the existing roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian networks, along with current transportation plans and policies. • Project Analysis: A summary of the Project’s transportation demand management (TDM) program, trip generation, distribution, and assignment, and vehicle miles traveled. • Impacts and Mitigations: An analysis of the Project’s impacts and mitigations in relation to the thresholds of significance. A local transportation analysis is presented in Section 5 for informational purposes consistent with the City of South San Francisco’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, accompanied by suggested conditions of approval. 311 439 Eccles Transportation Impact Analysis January 2024 5 2. Environmental Setting This section describes the existing transportation and circulation setting near the Project site: the existing roadway network, transit network and service, pedestrian conditions, bicycle conditions, and emergency vehicle access. 2.1 Roadway Facilities The Project site is located on the north side of Eccles Avenue near the intersection of Eccles Avenue and Forbes Boulevard. Regional access to the Project site is provided via US 101, accessed via Oyster Point Boulevard to the north and East Grand Avenue via Forbes Boulevard and Eccles Avenue to the south. Vehicular access is provided via three driveways on Eccles Avenue. The following roadways are located near the Project site: • Eccles Avenue is a two-lane north/south road that connects Forbes Boulevard to Oyster Point Boulevard. • Forbes Boulevard is a two- to four-lane east/west road that runs between East Grand Avenue and the San Francisco Bay • Oyster Point Boulevard is an east-west arterial roadway that connects US 101 with the Oyster Point Marina. It has four to six travel lanes. • East Grand Avenue is an east/west arterial street that runs between US 101 and the San Francisco Bay. It has four to six travel lanes. • US 101 is an eight-lane freeway and principal north-south roadway connection between San Francisco, San José, and the Peninsula. US 101 is located approximately 0.6 miles west of the Project site and has two primary interchanges at Oyster Point Boulevard and East Grand Avenue. • Corporate Drive is a two-lane east/west street that connects Gateway Boulevard in the west to Forbes Boulevard in the east. The Corporate Drive/Forbes Boulevard intersection is unsignalized, right-in/right-out only. 2.2 Transit Facilities and Service The Project site is located within walking distance of shuttle and bus service, while regional rail and ferry service may be accessed via first/last mile shuttles. Existing transit services are shown in Figure 3 and described below. 2.2.1 Regional Transit Service The following transit services operate within South San Francisco and are accessible from the Project site. 312 439 Eccles Transportation Impact Analysis January 2024 6 • BART provides regional rail service between the East Bay, San Francisco, and San Mateo County. The South San Francisco BART Station is located approximately 2.7 miles west of the Project site. Two BART lines serve South San Francisco Station: the Yellow Line connecting Antioch with San Francisco International Airport, and the Red Line connecting Richmond and Millbrae. Both lines travel to the East Bay via San Francsico. Each BART line operates every 15 minutes throughout the day. • Caltrain provides passenger rail service on the Peninsula between San Francisco and San José, and limited service to Morgan Hill and Gilroy during weekday commute periods. The South San Francisco Caltrain Station serves local and limited trains, with approximately 30 minute headways during peak times and 60 minute headways during off-peak times. Station access to the East of 101 area is located at the intersection of East Grand Avenue/Poletti Way. The Caltrain Station is located approximately 0.5 miles to the west of the Project site. In 2024, Caltrain plans to complete its electrification Project to support the operation of faster and more frequent rail service on the Peninsula. • The Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) provides weekday commuter ferry service between the Oakland/Alameda ferry terminals and the South San Francisco Ferry Terminal. There are three morning departures from Oakland/Alameda to South San Francisco, and three evening departures from South San Francisco to Oakland/Alameda. The Ferry Terminal is located approximately 1 mile to the northeast of the Project site. • SamTrans provides local bus services in San Mateo County. SamTrans Route 130B connects the East of 101 employment area and South San Francisco Ferry Terminal to downtown South San Francisco and Daly City via Oyster Point Boulevard and Gateway Boulevard. Route 130B operates every 30 minutes throughout the day. The nearest stop is located at 700/701 Gateway Boulevard and has a sheltered bus stop in each direction. 2.2.2 East of 101 Commuter Shuttle Service Commute.org and Oyster Point Mobility provide weekday commute period first/last mile shuttles connecting employers with BART, Caltrain, and the ferry. All shuttles operate along Gateway Boulevard, Oyster Point Boulevard, and East Grand Avenue; there are no shuttles with stops along Eccles Avenue or Forbes Boulevard. The following shuttles operate near the Project site (as summarized in Table 2.1): BART Service Commute.org operates the Utah-Grand BART Shuttle between the South San Francisco BART Station and East Grand Avenue corridor via Gateway Boulevard. Shuttles run every 30 minutes during peak commute periods. The nearest southbound/eastbound stop is located at 701 Gateway Boulevard, while the nearest northbound/westbound stop is located at 1000 Gateway Boulevard. A second Commute.org shuttle operates along Oyster Point Boulevard with similar frequency and service span. Oyster Point Mobility operates a shuttle service between the Glen Park BART Station to the Genentech Campus via Gateway Boulevard. Shuttles run every 15 minutes during peak commute periods and every 30 313 439 Eccles Transportation Impact Analysis January 2024 7 minutes during the midday period. The nearest stop is located at the intersection of Gateway Boulevard and Corporate Drive approximately one quarter-mile from the Project site. Caltrain Shuttle Service Commute.org operates the Oyster Point Caltrain Shuttle between the South San Francisco Caltrain Station and Oyster Point Boulevard corridor via Gateway Boulevard. Shuttles run every 30 minutes during peak commute periods. The nearest southbound/westbound stop is located at 701 Gateway Boulevard, while the nearest northbound/eastbound stop is located at 1000 Gateway Boulevard. Oyster Point Mobility operates a shuttle service between the Millbrae Caltrain Station to the Genentech Campus via Gateway Boulevard. Shuttles run every 30 minutes during peak commute periods. The nearest stop for the morning peak period service is located approximately 600 feet away along Gateway Boulevard, while the nearest evening peak period shuttle stop is located at the intersection of Gateway Boulevard and Corporate Drive approximately one quarter-mile from the Project site. Ferry Shuttle Service Commute.org operates the Oyster Point Ferry Shuttle between the South San Francisco Ferry Terminal and South San Francisco Caltrain Station via Gateway Boulevard. Shuttles run hourly during peak commute periods. The nearest southbound/westbound stop is located at 701 Gateway Boulevard, while the nearest northbound/eastbound stop is located near the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard intersection. Table 2.1 Bus/Shuttle Stop Summary (Fall 2023) Stop Direction Northbound Stop Locations Southbound Stop Locations 1000 Gateway 700 Gateway Gateway/ Corporate 701 Gateway Gateway/ Corporate SamTrans 130B ✓ ✓ ✓ Commute.org Utah/Grand BART ✓ ✓ Commute.org Oyster Point Caltrain ✓ ✓ Commute.org Oyster Point Ferry ✓ Oyster Point Mobility Glen Park BART ✓ ✓ Oyster Point Mobility Millbrae Caltrain ✓ ✓ 314 YXZ280 £[101 Existing Transit FacilitiesLittlefield AveUtah Ave Swfit Ave Hill s i d e B l v d S A i r p o r t B l v d Gull DrEAST OF101 SIERRA POINT DOWNTOWN Oyster Point Blvd Gateway Bl v d Forbes Blvd East G r a n d A v e DNA WayAirport BlvdLinden AveGrand Av e Allerton AveSister Citi e s B l v d Eccles AveMarina Blvd San Bruno Mountain State & County Park Oyster Point Channel San BrunoChannel Commute.org Shuttle Stops Caltrain Alignment and Station SamTrans Route 130B and Stops South San Francisco Ferry Terminal Oyster Point Mobility Shuttle Route and Stops SamTrans Routes Project Site Gateway BlvdCorporate Dr Commute.org Shuttles 700/701 DrivewayCaltrainFerry SamTrans 130BBARTOPMCaltrainFerryBARTOPMSamTrans 130B751 Driveway 315 439 Eccles Transportation Impact Analysis January 2024 9 2.3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities 2.3.1 Pedestrian Facilities Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, trails, and pedestrian signals. Pedestrian facilities near the Project site tend to serve walking trips connecting to shuttle and bus stops along with nearby offices and businesses. The following pedestrian facilities exist near the Project site: • Eccles Avenue has a sidewalk on the north side of the street that provides direct pedestrian access to the Project site. There is no sidewalk on the south side of Eccles due to the freight railroad. • On the northern frontage of the Project site, there is an under-construction multi-use trail running between Forbes Boulevard to the south and Oyster Point Boulevard to the north that will provide access to the Project Site. • Forbes Boulevard has a sidewalk on the north side of the street. There is no sidewalk on the south side of Forbes Boulevard. • Gateway Boulevard has sidewalks on both sides of the street. • Oyster Point Boulevard has sidewalks on both sides of the street Although the Project site is located only 700 to 900 feet from bus/shuttle stops at 700/701 Gateway Boulevard, no direct pedestrian connection is present (a retaining wall blocks access via the Gateway of the Pacific site). Pedestrians may divert to the north via the Gateway of the Pacific site, but this adds approximately 1,600 feet (about six minutes) of walking distance to reach the stop. Due to asymmetry in the northbound/southbound stops, the nearest northbound shuttle stop is presently located 2,200 feet to the north in front of 1000 Gateway Boulevard. 2.3.2 Bicycle Facilities Bicycle facilities consist of separated bikeways, bicycle lanes, routes, trails, and paths, as well as bicycle parking, bicycle lockers, and showers for cyclists. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) recognizes four classifications of bicycle facilities as described below. Class I – Shared-Use Pathway: Provides a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of cyclists and pedestrians with crossflow minimized (e.g., off-street bicycle paths). Class II – Bicycle Lanes: Provides a striped lane for one-way travel on a street or highway. May include a “buffer” zone consisting of a striped portion of roadway between the bicycle lane and the nearest vehicle travel lane. Class III – Bicycle Route: Provides for shared use with motor vehicle traffic; however, these facilities are often signed or include a striped bicycle lane. Class IV – Separated Bikeway: Provides a right-of-way designated exclusively for bicycle travel adjacent to a roadway that is protected from vehicular traffic. Types of separation 316 439 Eccles Transportation Impact Analysis January 2024 10 include, but are not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, or on-street parking. Current bicycle facilities in the Project vicinity as designated by the Active South City Plan are shown in Figure 4 and discussed below. • There are currently no bike facilities on Eccles Avenue. Class II buffered bicycle lanes are planned on Eccles Avenue from Forbes Boulevard to Oyster Point Boulevard. • The under-construction Class I trail on the Project site’s northern frontage will provide an off-street bicycle connection between the Project site, Oyster Point Boulevard, and Forbes Boulevard as a part of the Gateway of the Pacific development. The Class I trail will eventually connect to the South San Francisco Caltrain Station via Forbes Boulevard and East Grand Avenue. • Forbes Boulevard has Class II bicycle lanes between Allerton Avenue and DNA Way. An extension of the Class II bike lanes between Eccles Avenue and Allerton Avenue is planned (connecting to the Class I trail mentioned above). • Gateway Boulevard is a Class III bicycle route from East Grand Avenue to Oyster Point Boulevard and has Class II bike lanes planned from East Grand Avenue to Oyster Point Boulevard. • East Grand Avenue has Class II bicycle lanes from the South San Francisco Caltrain Station to the San Francisco Bay. A Class I shared path is planned on East Grand Avenue from Forbes Boulevard to the South San Francisco Caltrain Station. • Oyster Point Boulevard has Class II bicycle lanes from Gateway Boulevard to Marina Boulevard. A planned extension of Class II bicycle lanes across US 101 to Sister Cities Boulevard is planned on Oyster Point Boulevard. 2.4 Emergency Response The City of South San Francisco provides primary emergency response services to the Project site. The nearest fire station to the Project is Fire Station 62 located at 249 Harbor Way, approximately 0.5 miles south of the Project site. The South San Francisco Police Department is located 2 miles to the west of the Project site at 1 Chestnut Avenue. The Kaiser Permanente South San Francisco Medical Center is located at 1200 El Camino Real approximately 2.4 miles west of the Project site. 317 YXZ280 £[101 Bicycle FacilitiesEccles AveOyster Point Blvd Gateway BlvdForbes Blvd E Gr a n d A v e DNA WayAirport BlvdLinden AveGrand Av e Allerton AveSister Citi e s B l v d Marina Blvd Littlefield AveUtah Ave Swfit Ave Hill s i d e B l v d S A i r p o r t B l v d Gull DrMiller Ave San Bruno Mountain State & County Park Oyster Point Channel San BrunoChannel Existing Class II Bicycle Lane Existing Class I Shared Path Planned Class I Shared Path Planned Class II Bicycle Lane South San Francisco Ferry Terminal South San Francisco Caltrain StationExisting Class III Bicycle Route Planned Class III Bicycle Route Planned Class IV Separated Bikeway Project SiteExisting Class IV Separated Bikeway 0.5 mi 0.5 mi EAST OF101 SIERRA POINT DOWNTOWN 318 439 Eccles Transportation Impact Analysis January 2024 12 2.5 Transportation Plans & Policies 2.5.1 General Plan The South San Francisco 2040 General Plan establishes a vision for the City’s future growth. Its Circulation Element includes goals, policies, and actions covering topics such as complete streets, vehicle miles traveled, connectivity, safety, transit, active transportation, TDM, and parking. Each goal is presented in Table 2.2, accompanied by policies and actions that are particularly relevant the Project: Table 2.2 South San Francisco General Plan Mobility Goals, Policies, and Actions # Goal Project-Related Policies & Actions 1 South San Francisco prioritizes safety in all aspects of transportation planning and engineering. Policy MOB-1.2: Strive to reduce vehicle speeds throughout the city to reduce the frequency and severity of collisions. Action MOB-1.2.1. Incorporate traffic calming treatments into all street Projects to support lower design speeds. 2 South San Francisco provides a multimodal network with convenient choices for everyone. Policy MOB-2.1: Incorporate complete streets improvements into all roadway and development Projects. Action MOB-2.1.1: Complete multimodal design and impact analysis. Ensure that roadway and development Projects are designed and evaluated to meet the needs of all street users, and that development Projects contribute to multimodal improvements in proportion to their potential impacts on vehicle miles traveled. Action MOB-2.1.3: Implement Active South City Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan. All capital improvements and development Projects incorporate bicycle and pedestrian improvements identified in the Active South City Plan, such as trails, bikeways, bicycle detection at traffic signals, high-visibility crosswalks, and pedestrian-oriented site plans. Action MOB-2.1.4: Implement transit speed, reliability, and access improvements. All capital improvements and development Projects near regional transit stations or bus/shuttle routes incorporate improvements to advance speed, reliability, and access, such as in- lane far side bus stops, bus-only lanes, queue jumps, and pedestrian/bicycle gap closures. 319 439 Eccles Transportation Impact Analysis January 2024 13 # Goal Project-Related Policies & Actions 3 South San Francisco proactively manages traffic and parking demand. Policy MOB-3.1: Promote mode shift among employers. Manage the number of vehicle trips, with a focus on promoting mode shift among employers. Policy MOB-3.2: Optimize traffic operations on City streets. Optimize traffic operations on City streets while avoiding widening roadways or otherwise pursuing traffic operations changes at expense of multimodal safety, transit reliability, or bicycle and pedestrian comfort. Policy MOB-3.3: Right-size parking supply and maximize the efficiency of curb space. Action MOB-3.3.1: Incorporate parking maximums. Incorporate maximum parking requirements for new residential and office/R&D Projects that align with TDM Ordinance trip reduction goals. 4 South San Francisco’s land use and transportation actions reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas emissions. Policy MOB-4.1: Increase substantially the proportion of travel using modes other than driving alone. Action MOB-4.1.1: Use site plan review to improve connectivity. Use the development review process to identify opportunities to enhance bicycle, pedestrian, and transit connectivity. 5 South San Francisco residents have easy access to play, fitness, and active transportation networks. Policy MOB-5.1: Expand the low-stress bike and pedestrian network. Capitalize on opportunities to expand the low-stress bike and pedestrian network throughout the city. 2.5.2 Active South City Plan The Active South City Plan identifies priority Projects and policies to improve bicycle and pedestrian access through the city. The plan proposes an additional 50 miles of bike facilities for the network. The Active South City proposes Class II buffered bicycle lanes on Eccles Avenue and Class I shared use paths on Forbes Boulevard and East Grand Avenue. The plan also provides design guidance for pedestrian facilities and improvement measures, including sidewalk gap closures on Eccles Avenue. 2.5.3 Transportation Demand Management Ordinance South San Francisco’s TDM Ordinance (Chapter 20.400 of the Municipal Code) aims to reduce VMT of new developments, manage congestion, and promote efficient use of the existing transportation network. The City requires developments to implement a set of strategies, measures, and incentives to encourage the use of walking, bicycling, riding transit, carpooling, or telecommuting. Office/R&D projects with less than 400,000 square feet are required to implement a TDM program and annual monitoring sufficient to achieve a maximum of 60 percent of employees commuting via driving alone. 320 439 Eccles Transportation Impact Analysis January 2024 14 3. Project Analysis This section includes an analysis and findings of Project effects on transportation services and facilities in relation to the thresholds of significance identified in Section 1.2. 3.1 Travel Demand Project trip generation was calculated using data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition with adjustments to reflect local site-specific characteristics. ITE’s Research & Development site studies (Land Use Code 760) capture a range of comparable office/lab land uses consistent with the proposed Project. However, trip generation studies captured by ITE typically reflect suburban sites with ample parking and limited TDM requirements, whereas the City of South San Francisco’s parking and TDM requirements intend to enforce a lower drive-alone mode share. As noted in Section 2.5.3 and described in the Project’s TDM Plan, the Project must implement a TDM program sufficient to achieve a maximum of 60 percent of employees commuting via driving alone. The Project’s proposed parking supply of 1.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet further reinforces this reduced drive-alone mode share target. Based on the City of South San Francisco’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, a reduction of 21 percent was applied to ITE rates to reflect this drive alone mode share requirement and reduced parking supply.1 As shown in Table 3.1, the Project would generate 2,311 new daily trips, 212 new AM peak hour trips, and 201 new PM peak hour trips. Because the existing land use is unoccupied, no existing trip credit is taken into account for the Project’s trip generation. Table 3.1 Trip Generation Land Use Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Total Total In Out Total In Out Project: 298,470 Square Feet (ITE 760 R&D Use)) 2,925 268 220 48 254 41 213 TDM Reduction (-21%) -614 -56 -46 -10 -53 -9 -45 Project Trips 2,311 212 174 38 201 32 168 All Project vehicle travel would enter and exit the site via Eccles Avenue. Approximately 60 percent of vehicle trips are expected to travel to/from the south via East Grand Avenue and Forbes Boulevard, while approximately 40 percent are expected to travel to/from the north via Oyster Point Boulevard. Approximately 80 percent of vehicle trips are expected to travel to/from US 101 via Oyster Point Boulevard, East Grand Avenue, and South Airport Boulevard. 1 ITE rates reflect the national average drive alone commute mode share of around 76 percent based on survey data from the US Census and American Community Survey between 2000 and 2019. The City’s 60 percent drive alone mode share requirement results in a 21 percent reduction over this average mode share. 321 439 Eccles Transportation Impact Analysis January 2024 15 3.2 Consistency with Plans & Policies The Project is consistent with City transportation plans and policies. The Project would incorporate a pedestrian- and bicycle-oriented design consistent with General Plan Goals 1, 2, and 5 and the Active South City Plan. A pedestrian and bicycle connection would be provided to the multi-use trail along the Project’s northern frontage. The Project’s TDM Plan would meet the requirements of the City’s TDM Ordinance and General Plan Goals 3 and 4 by implementing a TDM program sufficient to achieve a maximum of 60 percent of employees commuting via driving alone and participating in annual monitoring efforts. The Project would not exceed the City’s parking maximums consistent with General Plan Goal 3. The Project has incorporated comments from the City’s site plan review process consistent with General Plan Goal 4. The Project would not preclude the City from implementing proposed transportation projects identified in the General Plan or Active South City Plan. 3.3 Vehicle Miles Traveled The Project’s effect on VMT was analyzed using the City of South San Francisco’s VMT thresholds established in Resolution 77-2020 on June 10, 2020 and consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). The adopted VMT threshold for employment-generating land uses states that a Project would have a significant transportation impact if its VMT is greater than 15 percent below the baseline for home-based work (HBW) VMT per employee. Based on the City’s General Plan analysis using the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) Model, this threshold would be set at 11.6 HBW VMT per employee under existing conditions and 11.3 HBW VMT under Cumulative conditions, as shown in Table 3.2. Table 3.2 Home-Based Work Vehicle Miles Traveled Per Employee Thresholds Scenario Topic Estimated Home-Based Work VMT per Employee Existing Bay Area Regional Average 14.9 Threshold of Significance (15% Below Regional Average) 12.7 City 16.6 Project1 16.5 Cumulative (2040) Bay Area Regional Average 14.7 Threshold of Significance (15% Below Regional Average) 12.5 City General Plan Buildout 13.4 Project1 12.2 1Based on Project’s transportation analysis zone in the C/CAG VTA Model. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2023; C/CAG-VTA Model, 2023. 322 439 Eccles Transportation Impact Analysis January 2024 16 The Project would exceed the VMT threshold of significance under existing conditions as indicated in Table 3.2. The Project is expected to generate 16.5 HBW VMT per employee under existing conditions and 12.2 HBW VMT per employee under Cumulative conditions. This finding is consistent with the City’s General Plan EIR (Impact TRANS-1), which concluded that the implementation of land use and transportation changes in the General Plan would result in VMT in excess of the VMT threshold of significance. General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 requires the City to implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ordinance and revise its parking standards to reduce VMT. The TDM ordinance was adopted in Chapter 20.400 of the City’s Zoning Code, while revised parking standards are presented in Chapter 20.330. The Project would implement a TDM program consistent with the TDM Ordinance as documented in the Project’s TDM Plan and would include a parking supply consistent with the City’s maximum allowed amount. Even with the implementation of these policies and mitigation measures, the General Plan EIR concluded that the City may not reduce VMT below the threshold of significance, citing uncertainty in the Cumulative effectiveness of these measures, as well as unknowns related to transit service levels, transportation technology, and travel behavior. Because of the programmatic nature of the General Plan, the EIR concluded that no additional mitigation measures were feasible, and this impact was found to be significant and unavoidable. The Project, being consistent with the findings of the General Plan, contributes to this significant and unavoidable impact to VMT, but would not exacerbate the previously identified impact identified in the General Plan EIR. 3.4 Site Circulation and Design Hazards The Project is located adjacent to existing industrial and R&D uses. It will replace two existing driveways with three new driveways. Most vehicles would use the driveway at the western edge of the Project site, which will serve the parking garage. The driveway at the center will primarily serve passenger loading activity associated with visitors, as well as facilitate emergency vehicle access. The eastern driveway will function as the service driveway for deliveries and refuse collection while also serving emergency vehicles. The Project would provide adequate sight distances at all driveways. Based on the Highway Design Manual 7th Edition, private driveways shall provide at least 250 feet of corner or stopping sight distance for a design speed of 35 miles per hour consistent with Eccles Avenue. There are no existing or planned obstructions present within a 250-foot cone between these driveways and oncoming traffic, provided that the Project maintains proposed landscaping to a state of good repair. Pedestrian and bicycle access would be provided via a walkway that connects to the sidewalk on the north side of Eccles Avenue. Two connections would also be provided to the under-construction trail on the northern frontage of the Project site: a stairwell at the center of the site and a ramp at the eastern edge of the site. From the trail, pedestrians and bicyclists may access bus/shuttle stops on Gateway Boulevard via the Gateway of the Pacific site or continue north to the ferry terminal or south to the Caltrain Station. 323 439 Eccles Transportation Impact Analysis January 2024 17 A pedestrian plaza would be located at the center of the site adjacent to the main building, parking garage, trail, and passenger loading area. Long-term bicycle parking would be provided in a bike room at the parking garage, while short term parking will be located adjacent to the main building entrance. All driveways, pedestrian connections, bicycle connections, and loading zones can be accessed without exacerbating conflicts between roadway users and would be designed consistent with applicable design standards. The Project’s site plan does not present any potential design hazards or include any uses that are incompatible with the surrounding land use or the existing roadway system. The Project would increase vehicle trips along US 101 freeway off-ramps at Oyster Point Boulevard, East Grand Avenue, and South Airport Boulevard. The South San Francisco General Plan EIR (Impact TRANS-4) determined that implementation of the General Plan is likely to increase vehicle trips on freeway ramps, which could exacerbate vehicle queues along ramps in excess of their storage capacity and present a potentially hazardous condition. The Project, being consistent with the General Plan, would contribute to this significant impact, but would not exacerbate the previously identified impact identified in the General Plan EIR. 3.5 Emergency Vehicle Access The Project would provide adequate emergency vehicle access consistent with applicable design standards. Each driveway will accommodate all types of emergency vehicles and meet requirements of the California Fire Code. Emergency vehicles would access the site via Eccles Avenue and may circulate through the passenger loading area, parking garage, plaza, and service driveway. Near the Project site, the addition of the Project is not expected to introduce or exacerbate conflicts for emergency vehicle travel. The Project would not introduce roadway features that would alter emergency vehicle access routes or roadway facilities. 324 439 Eccles Transportation Impact Analysis January 2024 18 4. Impacts and Mitigations This section includes the evaluation of the Project’s potential impacts under Existing Plus Project and Cumulative Plus Project conditions. This section also describes the required associated mitigation measures that would reduce impacts of the Project. 4.1 Consistency with Plans & Policies Impact TRANS-1: Development of the proposed Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system and results in a less than significant impact based on compliance with such plans and policies. The Project is consistent with City plans and policies as demonstrated in Section 3.2. The Project would enhance the streetscape of Eccles Avenue, provide a pedestrian and bicycle connection to the adjacent multi-use trail, comply with City parking maximums, and implement a TDM program consistent with City requirements. These measures are consistent with the City’s General Plan, Active South City Plan, and TDM Ordinance. The Project would not preclude the City from implementing proposed transportation Projects identified in adopted plans. For these reasons, the Project would result in a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures: None required. 4.2 Vehicle Miles Traveled Impact TRANS-2: Development of the Project would not exacerbate the previously identified impacts to VMT identified in the South San Francisco General Plan EIR. (Less than Significant / Does Not Exacerbate a Previously Identified Impact) As shown in Section 3.3, the Project would exceed the City’s VMT threshold of significance under existing and Cumulative conditions. This finding is consistent with the City’s General Plan EIR (Impact TRANS-1), which concluded that the implementation of land use and transportation changes in the General Plan would result in VMT in excess of the City’s VMT thresholds. General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 requires the City to implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ordinance and update its parking requirements to reduce VMT. The Project would implement a TDM program consistent with the TDM Ordinance, and would include a parking supply consistent with the City’s maximum allowed amount. Even with the implementation of these policies and mitigation measures, the General Plan EIR concluded that the City may not reduce VMT below the threshold of significance, citing uncertainty in the Cumulative effectiveness of these measures, as well as unknowns related to transit service levels, transportation technology, and travel behavior. Because of the programmatic nature of the General Plan, the EIR concluded that no additional mitigation measures were feasible, and this impact was found to be significant and unavoidable. The Project, being consistent with the findings of the General Plan, contributes to this 325 439 Eccles Transportation Impact Analysis January 2024 19 significant and unavoidable impact to VMT, but would not exacerbate the previously identified impact identified in the General Plan EIR. Mitigation Measure: South San Francisco General Plan Update MM TRANS-1 – Transportation Demand Management. The Project Sponsor shall implement a combination of TDM programs, services, and infrastructure improvements pursuant to Sections 20.400.003 and 20.400.004 of the Zoning Ordinance, such as establishing trip reduction programs; subsidizing transit use; coordinating carpooling and vanpooling; encouraging telecommuting and flexible work schedules; designing site plans to prioritize pedestrian, bicycle, and transit travel; and funding first/last mile shuttle services. The Project Sponsor shall be subject to annual reporting and monitoring. 4.3 Design Hazards Impact TRANS-3: Development of the Project would not exacerbate the previously identified impacts based on potential design hazards identified in the South San Francisco General Plan EIR. (Less than Significant / Does Not Exacerbate a Previously Identified Impact) As documented in Section 3.4, the Project’s site plan is not expected to pose any on-site design hazards or incompatible land uses. The Project’s site plan is consistent with applicable design standards and would provide adequate access and circulation for all modes of travel. The Project provides adequate sight distances at all driveways. The Project would increase vehicle trips along US 101 freeway off-ramps at Oyster Point Boulevard, East Grand Avenue, and South Airport Boulevard. The South San Francisco General Plan EIR (Impact TRANS-4) determined that implementation of the General Plan is likely to increase vehicle trips on freeway ramps, which could exacerbate vehicle queues along ramps in excess of their storage capacity and present a potentially hazardous condition under Cumulative conditions. The Project, being consistent with the General Plan, would contribute to this significant impact, but would not exacerbate the previously identified impact identified in the General Plan EIR. 4.4 Emergency Access Impact TRANS-4: Development of the Project would not result in inadequate emergency access under Existing Plus Project and Cumulative Plus Project conditions. (Less than Significant) The Project would provide adequate emergency vehicle access consistent with applicable design standards. Both driveways will accommodate all types of emergency vehicles accessed via Eccles Avenue. The Project is not expected to introduce or exacerbate conflicts for emergency vehicles. Therefore, the Project would not result in inadequate emergency vehicle access, and the Project’s impacts to emergency access would be less than significant under Existing Plus Project conditions and Cumulative Plus Project conditions. Mitigation Measures: None required. 326 439 Eccles Transportation Impact Analysis January 2024 20 5. Local Transportation Analysis This section evaluates the Project’s effects on the local transportation network consistent with the City of South San Francisco’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines for Tier 3 Projects. This analysis is provided for informational purposes and is not associated with CEQA thresholds of significance. 5.1 Parking The Project meets City parking requirements. The Project’s proposed parking supply meets the parking maximums for R&D and office building space set forth in Table 20.330.004 of the South San Francisco Zoning Code. The Project proposes a parking supply of 1.5 parking spaces per 1,000 gross square feet consistent with the maximum parking allowed for R&D uses. 5.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Development of the Project would limit conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. The Project’s site plan would incorporate pedestrian and bicycle enhancements to reduce the risk of conflicts between pedestrians and bicyclists. Pedestrian access to the Project from Eccles Avenue will be provided via a walkway adjacent to the Project’s center driveway that connects to the sidewalk on the north side of Eccles Avenue. Additionally, the Project will provide a connection to the under-construction multi-use trail on the north side of the Project frontage. This trail will allow for direct bicycle and pedestrian travel from the Project site to Oyster Point Boulevard and Forbes Boulevard, and will connect to planned bicycle facilities on Forbes Boulevard and East Grand Avenue that will lead to the South San Francisco Caltrain Station. The Project provides sufficient bicycle parking. The Project will provide short-term and long-term bicycle parking spaces consistent with the City code requirements. The City’s Zoning Code (Section 20.330.007) requires two types of bicycle parking: “short term” spaces that typically consist of racks within 50 feet of a main building entrance, and “long term” spaces that consist of lockers, fenced, or guarded parking. The City requires short term parking is supplied at a rate of five percent of the total auto parking supply, and long-term parking is supplied at a rate of five percent of the total auto parking supply. The Project would provide 22 long term spaces located in a bike room in the parking garage and 22 short term spaces located adjacent to the main building entrance, consistent with City requirements. 327 439 Eccles Transportation Impact Analysis January 2024 21 5.3 Transit The Project’s location may pose barriers to transit access. The Project is located approximately 700 to 900 feet away from the nearest bus/shuttle stops along Gateway Boulevard, which are served by a combination of SamTrans, Commute.org, and Oyster Point Mobility services. However, there is no direct path of access to these stops: while there is a driveway present along the southwestern edge of Gateway of the Pacific (700 Gateway), a retaining wall prevents a connection to the Class I trail or Project site. Consequently, transit riders must divert to the north via the Gateway of the Pacific campus, but this adds approximately 1,600 feet (about six minutes) of walking distance to reach the stop. The added travel time and meandering diversion may discourage transit use and limit the Project’s ability to meet its TDM mode share targets. Additionally, as illustrated in Figure 3, there is asymmetrical shuttle service near the Project site: the southbound stop at 701 Gateway is served by Commute.org’s Oyster Point Caltrain, Oyster Point Ferry, and Utah Grand BART shuttles, but northbound shuttle service is not present at the SamTrans stop at 700 Gateway; instead, a stop is provided near 1000 Gateway farther from the Project site in close proximity to other shuttle stops along Oyster Point Boulevard. No service is provided by Oyster Point Mobility near the site. There is some uncertainty around potential changes to shuttle service near the site. Shuttle operations by Commute.org and Oyster Point Mobility are expected to adapt to completion of future phases of Gateway of the Pacific and nearby developments, which may result in new stops along Gateway Boulevard and possible restoration of service along Eccles Avenue and/or Forbes Boulevard. However, the Project by itself is too small to warrant a diversion of shuttle service to directly serve the site, as such a diversion would delay other passengers. Therefore, the Project’s approach to shuttle service should be adaptable to different potential conditions that may include indirect access provided via Gateway of the Pacific as well as direct access via a site-specific shuttle stop. Condition of Approval – Transit Access: As a condition of approval, the Project Sponsor shall implement the following measures to ensure adequate access to transit services can be provided: ◦ Provide a letter of support from the owners of Gateway of the Pacific into the final TDM Plan stating that the two developments will make a good faith effort to ensure pedestrian access from 439 Eccles to bus and shuttle stops on Gateway Boulevard via the Gateway of the Pacific site. ◦ Incorporate space for an on-street shuttle stop along the Project’s frontage on southbound Eccles Avenue to provide the ability for shuttles to serve the site (including red curb, an eight foot by five foot accessible landing pad and a pole that operators may attach signage to). 328 439 Eccles Transportation Impact Analysis January 2024 22 5.4 Passenger Loading The Project does not result in a deficiency in passenger loading operations. The Project provides approximately two to three on-site passenger loading spaces adjacent to the loading loop. Passenger loading activities are not expected to interfere with or spill over onto the Project’s driveway or pedestrian/bicycle facilities. 5.5 Traffic Operations The Project does not result in a deficiency in traffic operations. The City of South San Francsico no longer has a level of service (LOS) standard for auto operations. Instead, General Plan Policy MOB-3.2 directs the City to “optimize traffic operations on City streets while avoiding widening roadways or otherwise pursuing traffic operations changes at expense of multimodal safety, transit reliability, or bicycle and pedestrian comfort.” This section provides an analysis of the Project’s effects on traffic operations and potential changes to address any deficiencies consistent with Policy MOB-3.2. 5.5.1 Assumptions and Methodology The City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines directs Tier 3 Projects to assess the effects on traffic operations for intersections adjacent to the Project site. Three intersections in the vicinity of the Project were evaluated: Eccles Avenue/Oyster Point Boulevard, Eccles Avenue/Grand Avenue, and Grand Avenue/Forbes Boulevard. A fourth new intersection in the vicinity of the Project at Forbes Boulevard/Corporate Drive was analyzed only for the Cumulative scenarios consistent with the City’s General Plan. The Project’s effects on off-site traffic circulation were assessed using Synchro traffic analysis software. The method from Chapter 19 of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 6th Edition bases signalized intersection operations on the average control delay experienced by motorists traveling through it. Control delay incorporates delay associated with deceleration, acceleration, stopping, and moving up in the queue. This method uses various intersection characteristics (such as traffic volumes, lane geometry, and signal phasing) to estimate the average control delay. Table 5.1 summarizes the relationship between average delay per vehicle and LOS for signalized intersections according to the HCM 6th Edition. Traffic conditions for the unsignalized intersections were evaluated using the method from Chapters 20 and 21 of the HCM 6th Edition. With this method, operations are defined by the average control delay per vehicle (measured in seconds) for each stop-controlled approach that must yield the right-of-way. At four- way stop-controlled intersections, the control delay is calculated for the entire intersection and for each approach. The delays and corresponding LOS for the entire intersection are reported in Table 5.2 summarizes the relationship between delay and LOS for unsignalized intersections. 329 439 Eccles Transportation Impact Analysis January 2024 23 Table 5.1 Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria LOS Description Average Delay Per Vehicle (Seconds) A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle length. ≤ 10 B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. > 10 and ≤ 20 C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. > 20 and ≤ 35 D Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. > 35 and ≤ 55 E Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. > 55 and ≤ 80 F Operation with very high delay values to most drivers occurring due to over saturation poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. > 80 Source: Transportation Research Board, 2016. Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition Table 5.2 Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria LOS Description Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (Seconds) A Little or no traffic delays. ≤ 10 B Short traffic delays. > 10 and ≤ 15 C Average traffic delays. > 15 and ≤ 25 D Long traffic delays. > 25 and ≤ 35 E Very long traffic delays. > 35 and ≤ 50 F Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded. > 50 Source: Transportation Research Board, 2016. Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition 5.5.2 Analysis Scenarios The effect of the Project on the surrounding transportation system was evaluated for Existing (2023) and Cumulative conditions. Existing conditions represent the baseline condition upon which the Project’s effects are measured. Existing plus Project conditions represent the baseline condition with the addition of the Project. Cumulative conditions represent transportation demand resulting from reasonably foreseeable land use changes and conditions associated with funded transportation Projects in the year 2040 based on the South San Francisco General Plan Update. Cumulative conditions are inclusive of the Project given its consistency with the General Plan. A second Cumulative scenario was analyzed with a new traffic signal at the Forbes Boulevard/Corporate Drive intersection consistent with the General Plan. 330 439 Eccles Transportation Impact Analysis January 2024 24 5.5.3 Analysis Results The Project would not substantially change control delay at the study intersections, with most intersections maintaining the same LOS conditions after addition of Project trips. Table 5.3 presents the traffic delay analysis for the three study intersections under Existing and Cumulative conditions. While all study intersections are expected to operate at LOS B or LOS C under Existing and Existing plus Project conditions, Cumulative conditions are expected to become more congested as nearby developments contribute to increased traffic volumes within the area. The addition of a traffic signal at the Forbes Boulevard/Corporate Drive intersection would help reduce delay at the Forbes Boulevard/East Grand Avenue intersection by shifting some trips from East Grand Avenue to Corporate Drive, but the Forbes Boulevard/East Grand Avenue intersection would continue to operate at LOS F. Table 5.3 LOS Results Intersection Control Type Peak Hour Existing Conditions Existing Plus Project Conditions Cumulative Conditions Cumulative Conditions with Forbes/ Corporate Signal Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Eccles Ave/ Oyster Point Blvd Signalized AM 11.2 B 14.4 B >80 F >80 F PM 10.3 B 14.3 B >80 F >80 F Eccles Ave/ Forbes Blvd Signalized AM 14.8 B 26.8 C >80 F >80 F PM 12 B 11.2 B 61.5 E 61.9 E Forbes Blvd/ East Grand Ave Signalized AM 24.6 C 27.4 C >80 F >80 F PM 26.9 C 29.5 C >80 F >80 F Forbes Blvd/ Corporate Dr Side-Street Stop Control AM - - - - 16.11 C 14.9 B PM - - - - >501 F 32.6 C Source: Fehr & Peers, 2023. 1. For signalized intersection, average intersection delay is shown. For unsignalized intersections, worst approach delay is shown. The City may consider applying transportation impact fees toward intersection improvements and signalization at Forbes Boulevard/Corporate Drive to help reduce delay at Forbes Boulevard/East Grand Avenue in the Cumulative condition. Since this measure is included in the General Plan and primarily needed in the Cumulative condition, no additional Project-specific contribution is required. Limited options remain for capacity improvements or widening near the Project site due to limited available right-of way. Such changes would also generally conflict with General Plan Policy MOB-3.2, which calls for optimizing operations while avoiding widening roadways, or otherwise pursuing traffic operations changes at the expense of multimodal safety, transit reliability, or bicycle and pedestrian comfort. 331 439 Eccles Transportation Impact Analysis January 2024 25 5.6 Intersection Traffic Controls The Project does not trigger a peak hour traffic signal warrant. The Project’s driveways do not meet peak hour signal warrants based on the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Adjacent intersections at Forbes Boulevard/Eccles Avenue and Eccles Avenue/Oyster Point Boulevard are already signalized. No additional changes are required. 5.7 Suggested Conditions of Approval This section restates suggested conditions of approval based on findings of this Local Transportation Analysis. Condition of Approval – Transit Access: As a condition of approval, the Project Sponsor shall implement the following measures to ensure adequate access to transit services can be provided: ◦ Provide a letter of support from the owners of Gateway of the Pacific into the final TDM Plan stating that the two developments will make a good faith effort to ensure pedestrian access from 439 Eccles to bus and shuttle stops on Gateway Boulevard via the Gateway of the Pacific site. ◦ Incorporate space for an on-street shuttle stop along the Project’s frontage on southbound Eccles Avenue to provide the ability for shuttles to serve the site (including red curb, an eight foot by five foot accessible landing pad and a pole that operators may attach signage to). 332 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:24-23 Agenda Date:2/15/2024 Version:1 Item #:6b. Resolution making findings and approving Design Review and a Transportation Demand Management Plan for the construction of a new seven-story office /R&D building within the Business Technology Park -High (BTP- H) Zoning District at 439 Eccles Avenue. WHEREAS,the applicant has proposed the construction of a seven-story,298,470 square foot (gross square footage)office /R&D building approximately 122 feet in height (with rooftop elements reaching 1146 feet),a 6 -level parking structure containing 448 parking stalls,open spaces,landscaping,and circulation improvements (“Project”)on the property located at 439 Eccles Avenue (APN 015-071-260)of approximately 2.63 acres (referred to as “Project Site”) in the City; and WHEREAS,the proposed Project is located within the Business Technology Park -High (BTP-H)General Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning District; and WHEREAS,the applicant seeks approval of a Design Review Permit (DR23-0018)and Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM23-0006) for the Project; and WHEREAS,approval of the applicant’s proposal is considered a “project”for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code §21000, et seq. (“CEQA”); and WHEREAS,the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”)on October 12,2022 (State Clearinghouse number 2021020064)in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the development of the 2040 General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments and Climate Action Plan (“2040 General Plan EIR”); and WHEREAS,the City Council also adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (“SOC”)on October 12, 2022 in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines,which carefully considered each significant and unavoidable impact identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR and found that the significant environmental impacts are acceptable in light of the project’s social, economic and environmental benefits; and WHEREAS,pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15183,the City conducted environmental analysis and prepared an environmental checklist for the proposed Project; and WHEREAS,the 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist and analysis concludes that in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15183,the proposed Project is consistent with the development density established by the existing general plan land use designation and zoning for which the 2040 General Plan EIR was certified,and demonstrates that the proposed Project qualifies for streamlined environmental City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/6/2024Page 1 of 4 powered by Legistar™333 File #:24-23 Agenda Date:2/15/2024 Version:1 Item #:6b. Plan EIR was certified,and demonstrates that the proposed Project qualifies for streamlined environmental review,as there are no project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the Project or the Project Site; and WHEREAS,on February 15,2024,the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the environmental effects of the Project and proposed entitlements and take public testimony; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission reviewed and carefully considered the information in the 2040 General Plan EIR and 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 and,by separate resolution,found that the Environmental Checklist demonstrates that the proposed Project qualifies for streamlining in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15183,as there are no project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the Project or the Project Site; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission exercised its independent judgment and analysis,and considered all reports, recommendations, and testimony before making a determination on the Project. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it,which includes without limitation,the California Environmental Quality Act,Public Resources Code §21000,et seq. (“CEQA”)and the CEQA Guidelines,14 California Code of Regulations §15000,et seq.;the South San Francisco 2040 General Plan;the South San Francisco Municipal Code;the 2040 General Plan EIR and Statement of Overriding Considerations;the Project applications;the 439 Eccles Avenue Project Plans,as prepared by DGA planning |architecture |interiors dated January 5,2024;the Proposed Transportation Demand Management Plan,as prepared by Fehr &Peers,dated January 2024;the 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist,including all appendices thereto,prepared by Lamphier-Gregory,Inc.dated January 2024;all site plans;all reports,minutes,and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed February 15,2024 public hearing;and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e)and §21082.2),the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: SECTION 1 FINDINGS A.General Findings 1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2.The Exhibits attached to this Resolution,including Conditions of Project Approval (Exhibit A),Project Plan Set (Exhibit B),Proposed Transportation Demand Management Plan (Exhibit C),and Tree Inventory and Assessment Report (Exhibit D)are each incorporated by reference and made a part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein. 3.The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/6/2024Page 2 of 4 powered by Legistar™334 File #:24-23 Agenda Date:2/15/2024 Version:1 Item #:6b. 3.The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco,315 Maple Avenue,South San Francisco,CA 94080, and in the custody of the Chief Planner. 4.By a separate resolution,the Planning Commission,exercising its independent judgment and analysis, has found that,the 439 Eccles Avenue Environmental Checklist prepared for the Project,is the appropriate document for the Project and no further environmental analysis would be required,as the Environmental Checklist concludes that implementation of the Project will not create any new significant impacts or trigger any new or more severe impacts than were studied in the previously certified 2040 General Plan EIR;that no substantial changes in the projects or circumstances justifying major revisions to the 2040 General Plan EIR have occurred;and that no new information of substantial importance has come to light since the 2040 General Plan EIR was certified that shows new or more severe significant impacts,impacts that are peculiar to the Project or Project Site,nor shows new, different or more feasible mitigation measures. B.Design Review 1.The Project,including Design Review,is consistent with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code because the Project has been designed as a high-quality office /R&D development,which will provide a pedestrian-and bicycle-friendly campus and transit-oriented environment with on-site amenities, and achieve a sustainable building and landscape design. 2.The Project,including Design Review,is consistent with the General Plan because the proposed office / R&D development is consistent with the policies and design direction provided in the South San Francisco General Plan Business Technology Park -High (BTP-H)Land Use designation by developing new office / R&D facilities with campus-serving amenities and connections to transit hubs. 3.The Project,including Design Review,is consistent with the applicable design guidelines adopted by the City Council in that the proposed Project is consistent with the BTP-H Zoning District development standards and the Citywide development standards,as evaluated in the Zoning Ordinance Compliance analysis for the Project. 4.The Project,including Design Review,is consistent with other planning or zoning approval that the project requires for the reasons stated above. 5.The Project is consistent with the applicable design review criteria in South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.480.006 (“Design Review Criteria”)because the project has been evaluated by the Design Review Board on September 19,2023,and found to be consistent with each of the eight design review criteria included in the “Design Review Criteria” section of the Ordinance. C.Transportation Demand Management Plan City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/6/2024Page 3 of 4 powered by Legistar™335 File #:24-23 Agenda Date:2/15/2024 Version:1 Item #:6b. 1.The proposed trip reduction measures contained in the TDM Plan (attached hereto as Exhibit C)are feasible and appropriate for the Project,considering the proposed use and the Project’s location,size, and hours of operation.Appropriate and feasible measures have been included in the TDM Plan to achieve the 40-point minimum in trip reduction measures for Tier 3 development. 2.The proposed performance guarantees will ensure that the target 40%alternative mode use established for the Project by SSFMC Chapter 20.400 (“Transportation Demand Management”)will be achieved and maintained.Conditions of approval have been included to require that the Final TDM Plan,which must be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit,shall outline the required process for on-going monitoring, including annual surveys and triennial reports. SECTION 2 DETERMINATION NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution and approves the entitlements request for 439 Eccles Avenue (P23-0076: DR23-0018 and TDM23-0006) subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. * * * * * * * City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/6/2024Page 4 of 4 powered by Legistar™336 DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL P23-0076: DR23-0018, TDM23-0006 & ND23-0004 439 Eccles Avenue (As recommended by City Staff on February 15, 2024) PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS Introduction The term “applicant”, “developer”, “project owner” or “project sponsor” used hereinafter shall have the same meaning: the applicant for the 439 Eccles Avenue project or the property / project owner if different from applicant. GENERAL 1. The project shall be constructed and operated substantially as indicated on the plan set prepared by DGA planning | architecture | interiors, dated January 5, 2024, and approved by the Planning Commission in association with P23-0076, as amended by the conditions of approval. The final plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the City’s Chief Planner. 2. The construction drawings shall comply with the Planning Commission approved plans, as amended by these Conditions of Approval, including the plans prepared by DGA planning | architecture | interiors, dated January 5, 2024. 3. The applicant shall submit a checklist showing compliance with these Conditions of Approval with the building permit application and plans. 4. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits for the construction of public improvements, the final design for all public improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer, Fire Marshal, and Chief Planner. 5. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits for grading improvements, the applicant shall submit final grading plans for review and approval by the City Engineer and Chief Planner. 6. The applicant shall comply with all permitting requirements of applicable agencies related to the project and provide proof of permits and/or approval prior to building permit issuance for these project elements. 337 Conditions of Approval Page 2 of 29 7. The applicant shall submit a checklist and any required documentation showing compliance with SSFMC Section 20.300.003 (“Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Consistency”) with the building permit application and plans. 8. Any modification to the approved plans shall be subject to SSFMC Section 20.450.012 (“Modification”), whereby the Chief Planner may approve minor changes. All exterior design modifications, including any and all utilities, shall be presented to the Chief Planner for a determination. 9. Unless the use has commenced or related building permits have been issued within two (2) years of the date this permit is granted, this permit will automatically expire on that date, subject to any extensions provided under the Subdivision Map Act or other applicable law. A one-year permit extension may be granted in accordance with provisions of the SSFMC Chapter 20.450 (“Common Procedures”). 10. The permit shall not be effective for any purpose until the property owner or a duly authorized representative files a signed acceptance form, prior to the issuance of a building permit, stating that the property owner is aware of, and accepts, all of the conditions of the permit. 11. The permit shall be subject to revocation if the project is not operated in compliance with the conditions of approval. 12. Neither the granting of this permit nor any conditions attached thereto shall authorize, require or permit anything contrary to, or in conflict with any ordinances specifically named therein. 13. Prior to construction, all required building permits shall be obtained from the City’s Building Division. 14. Demolition of any existing structures on site will require demolition permits. 15. All conditions of the permit shall be completely fulfilled to the satisfaction of the affected City Departments and Planning and Building Divisions prior to occupancy of any building. Any request for temporary power for testing equipment will be issued only upon substantial completion of the development. CONSTRUCTION 338 Conditions of Approval Page 3 of 29 16. The applicant is responsible for maintaining site security prior to, and throughout the construction process. This includes installation of appropriate fencing, lighting, remote monitors, or on-site security personnel as needed. 17. The applicant is responsible for providing site signage during construction, which contains contact information for questions regarding the construction. 18. During construction, the applicant shall provide parking on-site, or shall arrange for off- site parking, for construction workers. After completion of the project parking structure, the applicant shall provide parking for construction workers within the project parking structure when the Chief Building Official and Fire Marshal provide written approval. 19. Prior to proceeding with exterior construction, the applicant shall provide a full-scale mockup of a section of exterior wall that shows the cladding materials and finishes, windows, trim, and any other architectural features of the building to fully illustrate building fenestration, subject to site inspection and approval by Planning Division staff. 20. After the building permits are approved, but before beginning construction, the owner/applicant shall hold a preconstruction conference with City Planning, Building, Fire and Engineering staff and other interested parties. The developer shall arrange for the attendance of the construction manager, contractor, and all relevant subcontractors. DESIGN REVIEW / SITE PLANNING 21. All equipment (either roof, building, or ground-mounted) shall be screened from view through the use of integral architectural elements, such as enclosures or roof screens, and landscape screening or shall be incorporated inside the exterior building wall. Equipment enclosures and/or roof screens shall be painted to match the building. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit plans showing utility locations, stand-pipes, equipment enclosures, landscape screens, and/or roof screens for review and approval by the Chief Planner or designee. 22. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits for landscaping improvements, the applicant shall submit final landscaping and irrigation plans for review and approval by the City’s Chief Planner. The plans shall include documentation of compliance with SSFMC Section 20.300.008 (“Landscaping”). 23. Plant materials shall be replaced, when necessary, with the same species originally specified unless otherwise approved by the Chief Planner. 339 Conditions of Approval Page 4 of 29 24. All landscape areas shall be watered via an automatic irrigation system which shall be maintained in fully operable condition at all times, and which complies with SSFMC Chapter 20.300 (“Lot and Development Standards”). 25. All planting areas shall be maintained by a qualified professional. The landscape shall be kept on a regular fertilization and maintenance program and shall be maintained weed free. 26. Plant materials shall be selectively pruned by a qualified arborist. No topping or excessive cutting-back shall be permitted. Tree pruning shall allow the natural branching structure to develop. 27. All landscaping installed within the public right-of-way by the property owner shall be maintained by the property owner. 28. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall submit final landscaping and irrigation plans demonstrating compliance with the State’s Model Water Efficiency Landscaping Ordinance (MWELO), if applicable. (See SSFMC Section 20.300.008, and the City’s WELO Document Verification package.) a) Projects with a new aggregate landscape of 501 – 2,499 sq. ft. may comply with the prescriptive measures contained in Appendix D of the MWELO. b) Projects with a new aggregate landscape of 2,500 sq. ft. or greater must comply with the performance measures required by the MWELO. c) For all projects subject to the provisions of the MWELO, the applicant shall submit a Certificate of Completion to the City, upon completion of the installation of the landscaping and irrigation system. 29. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits, the applicant shall submit interim and final phasing plans and minor modifications to interim and final phasing plans for review and approval by the Chief Planner, City Engineer, and Chief Building Official. 30. The applicant shall contact the South San Francisco Scavenger Company to properly size any required trash enclosures and work with staff to locate and design the trash enclosure in accordance with SSFMC Section 20.300.014 (“Trash and Refuse Collection Areas”). The applicant shall submit an approval letter from South San Francisco Scavenger to the Chief Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. 340 Conditions of Approval Page 5 of 29 31. The applicant shall incorporate the recommendations of the Design Review Board from their meeting of September 19, 2023. 32. Landscaped areas in the project area may contain trees defined as protected by the South San Francisco Tree Preservation Ordinance, Title 13, Chapter 13.30. Any removal or pruning of protected trees shall comply with the Tree Preservation Ordinance, and the applicant shall obtain a permit for any tree removals or alterations of protected trees and avoid tree roots during trenching for utilities. 33. The applicant shall install three-inch diameter, PVC conduit along the project frontage, in the right-of-way, if any trenching is to take place, for the purpose of future fiber installation. Conduit shall have a pull rope or tape. A #8 stranded trace wire will be installed in the conduit or other trace wire system approved by the City. 34. Prior to receiving certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall install street furniture, trash receptacles, and bicycle racks along the project sidewalk frontages. The Planning Division shall review and approve all street furniture, trash receptacles and bicycle rack options during the building permit process. 35. Permanent project signage is not included in project entitlements. Prior to installation of any project signage, the applicant shall submit an appropriate sign application per SSFMC Chapter 20.360 (“Signs”) for review and approval. 36. The applicant shall utilize appropriate glazing for bird safety for the project, as required by SSFMC Section 20.310.002(I)(6) (“Glazing for Bird Safety”). The required bird-safe glazing measure(s) shall be included with the building permit application and plans. 37. The applicant shall implement the recommendations in the Tree Inventory and Assessment Report prepared for the project by Monarch Consulting Arborists, dated August 16, 2023. TRANSPORTATION / PARKING 38. A Parking and Traffic Control Plan for the construction of the project shall be submitted with the application for Building Permit, for review and approval by the Chief Planner, or designee, and City Engineer, or designee. 39. The applicant has prepared and submitted a draft Preliminary TDM Plan. In accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.400 (“Transportation Demand Management”), prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit a Final TDM Plan for review and approval by the Chief Planner. 341 Conditions of Approval Page 6 of 29 a) The Final TDM Plan shall include all mandatory elements included in the Ordinance in place at the time of building permit application submittal and shall substantially reflect the Preliminary TDM Plan prepared by Fehr + Peers, dated January 2024, and modified as necessary to reflect the structure of the current Ordinance. The Final TDM Plan shall be designed to ultimately achieve the requirements of a Tier 3 project. b) The Final TDM Plan shall outline the required process for on-going monitoring, beginning one (1) year after the granting of a certificate of occupancy. A compliance form documenting the continued implementation of TDM measures shall be submitted annually for the project’s lifespan, and an annual mode share compliance survey pursuant to SSFMC Section 20.400.006 (“Monitoring and Enforcement”) shall be required. c) A midday parking occupancy survey shall be prepared for the project every three years. The first midday parking occupancy survey shall be completed and submitted during the first year following project occupancy, with the required Annual Mode Share Compliance Survey. d) The applicant shall be required to reimburse the City for program costs associated with monitoring and enforcing the TDM Program on an annual basis. The annual monitoring fee is $3,637 and is updated by the City Council on an annual basis. The monitoring fee for the Project’s first year of operation is due to the City prior to the project receiving a Certificate of Occupancy. e) Prior to approval of a permit for tenant improvements or a business license, tenants shall submit a letter demonstrating concurrence with the Final TDM Plan. The letter shall acknowledge how applicable TDM requirements are identified in their lease and summarize how the tenant is implementing applicable TDM measures. 40. Clear signage shall be provided on-site for employee and visitor parking areas to help direct vehicle traffic. 41. Clear signage shall be provided on-site for rideshare drop-off and pick-up, and for delivery vehicles. 42. Once construction of an associated parking structure is complete, construction-related parking should be prioritized within the structure and construction vehicles should refrain from utilizing any on-street parking. 342 Conditions of Approval Page 7 of 29 43. The applicant shall implement the following measures outlined in the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for the project by Fehr + Peers, dated January 2024: a) Provide a letter of support from the owners of Gateway of the Pacific into the final TDM Plan stating that the two developments will make a good faith effort to ensure pedestrian access from 439 Eccles to bus and shuttle stops on Gateway Boulevard via the Gateway of the Pacific Site. b) Incorporate space for an on-street shuttle stop along the Project’s frontage on southbound Eccles Avenue to provide the ability for shuttles to serve the site (including red curb, an eight foot by five foot accessible pad, and a pole that operators may attach signage to.) ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES / CEQA 44. The applicant shall comply with all applicable conditions and mitigation measures outlined in the Standard Conditions and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist prepared by Lamphier- Gregory, Inc., dated January 2024 (ND23-0004). IMPACT and DEVELOPMENT FEES **Fees are subject to annual adjustment and will be calculated based on the fee in effect at the time that the payment of the fee is due. The fees included in these Conditions of Approval are estimates, based on the fees in place at the time of project approval.** 45. CHILDCARE FEE: Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall pay any applicable Childcare Fees in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 8.77. This fee is subject to annual adjustment. Based on the plans approved by the Planning Commission on February 15, 2024, the Childcare Impact Fee estimate for the project is: Office / R&D: $1.51/SF x 229,460 SF = $346,484.60 46. PARK FEES: Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall pay the Parkland Acquisition Fee and Parkland Construction Fee in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 8.67. The fee is subject to annual adjustment. Based on the plans reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on February 15, 2024, the Park Fee estimate for the project is: Office / R&D: $3.54/SF x 229,460 SF = $812,288.40 343 Conditions of Approval Page 8 of 29 47. CITYWIDE TRANSPORATATION FEE: Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall pay applicable transportation impact fees in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 8.73. The fee is subject to annual adjustment. Based on the plans reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on February 15, 2024, the Citywide Transportation Fee estimate for the project is: Office / R&D: $34.85/SF x 229,460 SF = $7,996,681.00 48. COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE: Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall pay the applicable Commercial Linkage Fee in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 8.69, based on the current fee for each applicable land use category. The fee shall be calculated based on the fee schedule in effect at the time the building permit is issued. Based on the plans approved by the Planning Commission on February 15, 2024, the Commercial Linkage Fee estimate for the project is: Office / R&D: $17.38/SF x 229,460 SF = $3,988,014.80 49. PUBLIC SAFEY IMPACT FEE: Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the development, the applicant shall pay applicable Public Safety Impact Fees in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 8.75. Based on the plans approved by the Planning Commission on February 15, 2024, the Public Safety Impact Fee estimate for the project is: Office / R&D: $1.31/SF x 229,460 SF = $300,592.60 50. LIBRARY IMPACT FEE: Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the development, the applicant shall pay the applicable Library Impact Fee in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 8.74. Based on the plans approved by the Planning Commission on February 15, 2024, the Library Impact Fee estimate for the project is: Office / R&D: $0.14/SF x 229,460 SF = $32,124.40 51. PUBLIC ART REQUIREMENT: All non-residential development is subject to the Public Art Requirement, per SSFMC Chapter 8.76. The public art requirement for this project shall be satisfied by providing qualifying public art, as defined in SSFMC Chapter 8.76 and reviewed and approved by the Cultural Arts Commission or designee, with a value equal to not less than 1% of construction costs for acquisition and installation of public art on the project site; or electing to make a public art contribution payment in an amount not less than 0.5% of construction costs into the public art fund. The in-lieu contribution payment shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit. 344 Conditions of Approval Page 9 of 29 52. COMMUNITY BENEFITS PROGRAM FEE. Per SSFMC Section 20.395, the Community Benefits Fee is assessed on the proposed FAR from 1.0 to 2.5. The established fee is $20 / SF. Based on the plans reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on February 15, 2024, the Community Benefits Fee estimate for this project is: Office / R&D: $20.00/SF x 114,730 SF = $2,294,600.00 For questions regarding Planning Division COAs, please contact Stephanie Skangos at Stephanie.Skangos@ssf.net BUILDING DIVISION CONDITIONS GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. The 2022 California Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, and Electrical Codes (i.e., 2021 IBC, UMC, UPC, and 2020 NEC, as amended by the State of California), 2022 California Green Building Standards Code, 2022 California Existing Building Code, and 2022 California Energy Code, as applicable, were used as the basis of our review. 2. There may be other comments generated by the Building Division and/or other City departments that will also require your attention and response. This attached list of comments, then, is only a portion of the plan review. Contact the City for other items. 3. Please be sure to include the architect and engineer's stamp and signature on all sheets of the drawings and on the coversheets of specifications and calculations per CBPC 5536.1 and CBPC 6735. This item will be verified prior to plan approval. ARCHITECTURAL COMMENTS: Fire Separation Distance: 4. Sheet G-6: For the Proposed Office/Lab Building, the site plan shows the plan west fire separation distance is 27’-5” from the exterior wall to the property line. CBC Table 705.5 requires 2-hour rated exterior walls where the fire separation distance is less than 30 feet for an L occupancy building. Please address. 5. Sheet AE-21 shows a projection that is located in the fire separation distance. Check the maximum projection distance per CBC 705.2. Means of Egress: 345 Conditions of Approval Page 10 of 29 6. At the upper floors of the office building, please confirm and note on the plan the exterior stair will not be a required exterior stair as CBC 1027.2 does not allow the use of exterior exit stairs in a high rise or a building over 6 stories high. 7. At the upper floors, review and address the highlighted sections of CBC 1023.7 noted below: “Where nonrated walls or unprotected openings enclose the exterior of the stairway or ramps and the walls or openings are exposed by other parts of the building at an angle of less than 180 degrees (3.14 rad), the building exterior walls within 10 feet (3048 mm) horizontally of a nonrated wall or unprotected opening shall have a fire- resistance rating of not less than 1 hour. Openings within such exterior walls shall be protected by opening protectives having a fire protection rating of not less than ¾ hour.” Wall Assembly & Finish 8. Elevation Views: Material Legend Note #8 calls for high-density exterior panels. a) Review the requirements of CBC 1405 for combustible materials on the exterior side of exterior walls and CBC 1406 for metal composite materials (MCM) b) Provide a written response clarifying whether combustible exterior elements are proposed for the project or not. c) Provide a narrative describing how compliance with these code sections is met, if applicable. For questions concerning Building Division COAs, please contact Erik Reitdorf at Erik.Reitdorf@ssf.net or (650) 829-6669. ENGINEERING DIVISION CONDITIONS Below are the conditions that apply to the subject permit, which may overlap with any standard development conditions – these conditions are subject to change. Permits 1. At the time of each permit submittal, the Applicant shall submit a deposit for each of the following permit reviews and processing: a) Building Permit plan check and civil review. Provide an engineer’s estimate or opinion of probable cost of on-site improvements for deposit amount calculation. 346 Conditions of Approval Page 11 of 29 b) Hauling/Grading plan check and permit processing. Provide Cubic Yards for deposit amount calculation. c) Encroachment for Public Improvements plan check and permit processing. Provide an engineer’s estimate or opinion of probable cost of ROW improvements for fees and deposit amount calculation. 2. A Grading Permit is required for grading over 50 cubic yards and if 50 cubic yards or more of soil is exported and/or imported. The Applicant shall pay all permit and inspection fees, as well as any deposits and/or bonds required to obtain said permits. The Grading Permit requires several documents to be submitted for the City’s review and approval. The Grading Permit Application, Checklist and Requirements may be found on the City website at http://www.ssf.net/departments/public-works/engineering-division. 3. A Hauling Permit shall be required for excavations and off-haul or on-haul, per Engineering requirements; should hauling of earth occur prior to grading. Otherwise, hauling conditions would be included with the grading permit. Hauling Permit may be found on the City website at: http://www.ssf.net/departments/public-works/engineering- division. 4. The Applicant shall submit a copy of their General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit Notice of Intent and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), where required by State or Federal regulations, to the Engineering Division for our information. These documents shall be submitted prior to receiving a grading or building permit for the subject project. 5. The City of South San Francisco is mandated by the State of California to divert sixty-five percent (65%) of all solid waste from landfills either by reusing or recycling. To help meet this goal, a City ordinance requires completion of a Waste Management Plan (“WMP”) for covered building projects identifying how at least sixty-five percent (65%) of non-inert project waste materials and one hundred percent (100%) of inert materials (“65/100”) will be diverted from the landfill through recycling and salvage. The Contractor shall submit a WMP application and fee payment prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. 6. An Encroachment Permit is required for any work proposed within the public right-of-way. The Applicant shall pay all permit, plan check, and inspection fees, as well as any deposits and/or bonds required to obtain said permits. 347 Conditions of Approval Page 12 of 29 7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit written evidence from the County or State Regulators in charge, indicating that the site is cleared of hazardous materials and hazardous groundwater to a level that poses no impacts to human health. The Applicant shall also confirm that any existing groundwater monitoring wells on the project site have been properly closed and/or relocated as necessary as approved by the County or State Regulators in charge. Plan Submittal 8. The Applicant shall submit detailed plans printed to PDF and combined into a single electronic file, with each being stamped and digitally signed by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of California. Incorporated within the construction plans shall be applicable franchise utility installation plans, stamped and signed and prepared by the proper authority. Plans shall include the following sheets: Cover, Separate Note Sheet, Existing Conditions, Demolition Plan, Grading Plan, Horizontal Plan, Striping and Signage Plan, Utility Plan(s), Detail Sheet(s), Erosion Control Plan, and Landscape Plans, (grading, storm drain, erosion control, and landscape plans are for reference only and shall not be reviewed during this submittal). 9. Prior to building permit issuance, the Applicant shall obtain a grading permit with the Engineering Division and shall submit an application, all documentation, fees, deposits, bonds and all necessary paperwork needed for the grading permit. The Applicant shall submit a grading plan that clearly states the amount of cut and fill required to grade the project. The Grading Plans shall include the following plans: Cover, Notes, Existing Conditions, Grading Plans, Storm Drain Plans, Stormwater Control Plan, and Erosion Control Plan. 10. Prior to building permit issuance, the Applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit for all proposed work within the City ROW and shall submit an application, all documentation, fees, deposits, bonds and all necessary paperwork needed for the Encroachment Permit. Applicant shall prepare and submit a separate Public Improvement Plan set that shall include only the scope of work within the City ROW (with reference to the on-site plans) consisting of the following plans: Civil Plans, Landscape Plans, and Joint Trench Plans. An engineer’s cost estimate for the scope of work shown on the approved Public Improvement Plans is required to determine the performance and payment bond amount. 348 Conditions of Approval Page 13 of 29 The submittal of the bonds is required prior to the execution of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. 11. The Applicant shall submit a copy of their General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit Notice of Intent and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), where required by State or Federal regulations, to the Engineering Division for our information. These documents shall be submitted prior to receiving a grading or building permit for the subject project. 12. All improvements shall be designed by a registered civil engineer and approved by the Engineering Division. 13. The Engineering Division reserves the right to include additional conditions during review of the building permit, grading permit, or encroachment permit. Mapping and Agreements 14. The Applicant shall dedicate to the City an Emergency Vehicle Access Easement from Eccles Avenue and through the project site to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal. 15. All required public easement dedications the City on the project site shall be accepted by the City and recorded with the San Mateo County Recorder’s Office prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 16. The Applicant shall ensure the proposed structures within the project site do not encroach into the existing recorded Building Setback Easements and the Railroad Easement as shown on the Alta Land Title Survey plans unless said easements are quitclaimed to the Applicant prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 17. The Applicant shall obtain approvals from the adjacent property owner for the proposed improvements encroaching into the rails to trail property prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 18. Applicant shall submit all documents required for review of any mapping or agreement application as a separate application from the improvement plans. 19. Prior to the approval of the Permits, the Applicant shall enter into an Improvement Agreement and Encroachment and Maintenance Agreement with the City. These agreements shall be approved by the City Attorney and City Engineer prior to execution. 349 Conditions of Approval Page 14 of 29 a) The Improvement Agreement shall require the Applicant to ensure the faithful performance of the design, construction, installation and inspection of all public improvements as reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division at no cost to the City and shall be secured by good and sufficient payment, performance, and one (1) year warranty bonds or cash deposit adequate to cover all of the costs, inspections and administrative expenses of completing such improvements in the event of a default. The value of the bonds or cash deposit shall include 110% of the cost of construction based on prevailing wage rates. The value of the warranty bond or cash deposit shall be equivalent to 10% of the value of the performance security. b) The Encroachment and Maintenance Agreement shall require the Applicant to maintain any street furniture that serves the property and all landscape within the project frontage at no cost to the City. The Encroachment and Maintenance Agreement shall be recorded with the San Mateo County Recorder and may be transferred to the property owner. 20. The Applicant shall pay for all Engineering Division deposits and fees required for any mapping application prior to review. Transportation 21. The Applicant shall prepare a feasibility analysis for a new direct pedestrian connection between the Project site and 700/701 Gateway Bus/shuttle stops via the Gateway of the Pacific (GOP) private property at 700 Gateway. The conceptual alignment shall utilize the 700 Gateway driveway / sidewalk and shall include ramps and a stairway to meet the site grading constraints. The feasibility analysis shall involve coordination with adjacent GOP property owners. If a new pedestrian connection is deemed feasible and mutually agreeable between the Applicant and adjacent GOP property owners, the Applicant shall design and construct the ramp and stairwell and obtain an easement or enter into an Agreement with GOP property owners for the use of this pedestrian connection. The Applicant shall also coordinate the addition or relocation of a shuttle stop at 700 Gateway Boulevard with Commute.org and Oyster Point Mobility, such that all shuttle services along Gateway Boulevard stop in both directions at the 700/701 Gateway stops shared with SamTrans. If a new pedestrian connection is not deemed feasible and mutually agreeable, and, should this access constraint limit the Project’s ability to meets its TDM mode share targets, the Applicant may need to modify its TDM program to provide a site-specific shuttle service or other measures to achieve compliance. 350 Conditions of Approval Page 15 of 29 Right-of-Way 22. Prior to building permit issuance and prior to any work within the City Right-of-Way, the Applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the Engineering Division. All new public improvements required to accommodate the development shall be installed at no cost to the City and shall be approved by the City Engineer and constructed to City Standards. All new public improvements shall be completed prior to Final Occupancy of the project or prior to any Temporary Occupancy as approved by the City Engineer. 23. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the Applicant shall submit a video survey of the adjacent streets (perimeter of proposed property location) to determine the pre-construction condition of the streets at no cost to the City. The Applicant will be responsible to ensure that the condition of the streets and striping is in at least existing condition or better after construction is completed. 24. Internal driveways shall be a minimum of 15’ wide for one-way travel and 25’ wide for areas subject to two-way travel. One-way travel lanes within the site shall be clearly posted and marked appropriately. 25. The Applicant shall perform base repairs and provide a 2-inch grind and overlay (edge of pavement to edge of pavement) of the asphalt concrete pavement along the project frontages on Eccles Avenue. 26. The Applicant shall reconstruct the curb, gutter and sidewalk along Eccles Avenue frontage of the project site and incorporate a new commercial driveways for the proposed EVAEs. 27. The Applicant shall install detectable warnings at frontage driveways per the City Standards. 28. The Applicant shall install a stop sign for vehicles exiting the project driveways on Eccles Avenue. 29. The Applicant shall install pedestrian lighting along the project frontage on Eccles Avenue. The light poles and fixtures shall be ornamental streetlights to match City Standards. 30. The Applicant shall install streetlights along the project street frontages on Eccles Avenue. The light poles and fixtures shall be ornamental streetlights to match City Standards. 31. Upon completion of construction and landscape work at the site, the Applicant shall clean, repair or reconstruct, at their expense, as required to conform to City Standards, all public 351 Conditions of Approval Page 16 of 29 improvements, including driveways, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and street pavements along the street frontages of the subdivision to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Damage to adjacent property caused by the Applicant, or their contractors or subcontractors, shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the affected property owner and the City Engineer, at no cost to the City or to the property owner. 32. The Applicant shall be responsible for maintaining all street trees and landscaped irrigation systems within the Public right-of-way. 33. Prior to the issuance of an Encroachment Permit, the Applicant shall provide an engineer’s estimate for all work performed with in the public right-of-way and submit a bond equal to 110% of the estimate. 34. Prior to the issuance of the Encroachment Permit, the Applicant shall submit Traffic and Pedestrian Control Plans for proposed work on Eccles Avenue and/or any area of work that will obstruct the existing pedestrian walkways. 35. No private foundation or private retaining wall support shall extend into the City Right-of- Way without express approval from the Engineering Division. The Applicant shall design any bioretention area or flow-through planters adjacent to the property line such that the facility and all foundations do not encroach within the City Right-of-Way or into an adjacent parcel. 36. Applicant shall ensure that any pavement markings impacted during construction are restored and upgraded to meet City standards current to the time of Encroachment Permit approval. 37. The project shall not include any permanent structural supports (retaining walls, tiebacks, etc.) within the ROW. City Engineer approval is required for any temporary structural supports within the ROW. Any temporary structural supports shall be removed after construction. 38. Any work within the public sidewalk and/or obstructing pedestrian routes shall require pedestrian routing plans along with traffic control plans. Temporary lane or sidewalk closures shall be approved by the City Engineer and by the Construction Coordination Committee (if within the CCC influence area). For any work affecting the sidewalks or pedestrian routes greater than 2 days in duration, the adjacent parking lane or adjacent travel lane shall be closed and temporary vehicle barriers placed to provide a protected pedestrian corridor. Temporary ramps shall be constructed to connect the pedestrian route from the sidewalk to the street if no ramp or driveway is available to serve that purpose. 352 Conditions of Approval Page 17 of 29 39. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applciant shall coordinate with Scavenger and submit all garbage related plans. Stormwater 40. The Applicant shall submit to the City Engineer a storm drainage and hydraulic study for the fully improved development analyzing existing conditions and post-development conditions. The study shall confirm that the proposed development will meet the goal of reducing peak runoff by 15% based on a 25-year, 5-minute design storm for each drainage basin or sub-watershed within the project site. Methods for reducing stormwater flow shall include stormwater storage on-site if necessary. The study shall also evaluate the capacity of each new storm drain installed as part of the development. Precipitation shall be based on NOAA Atlas 14 data for the site. The study shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 41. On-site storm drainage conveyance systems shall be designed to accommodate the 10-year design storm. Precipitation used for the hydraulic analysis shall be based on NOAA Atlas 14 data for the project site. Storm duration shall be equal to the time of concentration with an initial minimum of 10 minutes. 42. Hydraulic Grade lines shall not be less than 1 foot from the ground surface. 43. Runoff Coefficients used for hydraulic calculations shall be as follows: a) Pervious areas—0.35 b) Impervious areas—0.95 44. Drainage runoff shall not be allowed to flow across lot lines or across subdivision boundaries onto adjacent private property without an appropriate recorded easement being provided for this purpose. 45. All off-site upgrades to drainage facilities required by the City Engineer to accommodate the runoff from the subdivision shall be provided by the Applicant at no cost to the City. 46. All building downspouts shall be connected to rigid pipe roof leaders which shall discharge into an approved drainage device or facility that meets the C3 stormwater treatment requirements of Municipal Regional Permit. 47. All storm drainage runoff shall be discharged into a pipe system or concrete gutter. Runoff shall not be surface drained into surrounding private property or public streets. 353 Conditions of Approval Page 18 of 29 48. Existing on-site drains that are not adequately sized to accommodate run-off from the fully developed property and upstream drainage basin shall be improved as required by the Applicant’s civil engineering consultant’s plans and specifications as approved by the City Engineer. These on-site improvements shall be installed at no cost to the City. 49. The on-site storm drainage system shall not be dedicated to the City for ownership or maintenance. The storm drainage system and any storm water pollutions control devices within the subdivision shall be owned, repaired, and maintained by the property owner or Homeowner’s Association. Sanitary Sewer 50. The Applicant shall video inspect the sanitary sewer mains along the project frontage to the nearest manholes upstream and downstream of the project point of connection both prior to construction and post construction. The video must be submitted to City Engineering for review as part of the improvement plans submittal and shall confirm the number of existing sewer laterals serving the site that must be abandoned. 51. The Applicant shall abandon all existing private sewer laterals from the project site connected to the public sanitary sewer system. The number of sewer laterals to be abandoned shall be shown on the plans and shall be confirmed by the review of a video inspection of the private sanitary sewer main. 52. The Applicant shall install new sewer laterals to City Standards. 53. The Sanitary Sewer plan shall show all existing and proposed utilities. Be sure to provide minimum horizontal and vertical clearances for all existing and proposed utilities. Also include all existing and proposed manholes, catch basins, and pipe invert elevations. 54. All utility crossings shall be potholed, verified and shown on the plans prior to the building permit submittal. 55. The on-site sanitary sewer system/plumbing shall be designed and installed in accordance with the Uniform Plumbing Code, as amended and adopted by the City, and in accordance with the requirements of the South San Francisco Building Division. 56. Each on-site sanitary sewer manhole and cleanout shall be accessible to maintenance personnel and equipment via pathway or driveways as appropriate. Each maintenance structure shall be surrounded by a level pad of sufficient size to provide a safe work area. 354 Conditions of Approval Page 19 of 29 57. The on-site sanitary sewer system up to the public sanitary sewer manhole connection shall not be dedicated to the City for maintenance. The sanitary sewer facilities within the subdivision shall be repaired and maintained by the property owner or Homeowner’s Association. Dry Utilities 58. The Applicant shall underground the overhead utilities on Eccles Avenue along the project frontage. 59. The Applicant shall underground the existing overhead utilities within the development site. 60. All new electrical and communication lines serving the property shall be placed underground within the property being developed and to the nearest overhead facility or underground utility vault. Pull boxes, junction structures, vaults, valves, and similar devices shall not be installed within pedestrian walkway areas. 61. The Applicant shall install a 3-inch diameter spare conduit with pull boxes and pull rope for future fiber optic cable installation in the joint trench on Eccles Avenue. Domestic Water 62. The Applicant shall be responsible to coordinate with the California Water Service (Cal Water) to determine if their existing public water distribution system has the capacity to serve the development. Any off-site water system improvements that may be needed, as determined by Cal Water, will be the responsibility of the Applicant at the Applicant’s expense. 63. The Applicant shall coordinate with the California Water Service (Cal Water) for all water- related issues. All on-site private water mains and services shall be installed to the standards of Cal Water at the expense of the applicant. 64. The Applicant shall install fire hydrants at the locations specified by the Fire Marshal. Installation shall be in accordance with City Standards as administered by the Fire Marshal. On-site Improvements 65. Internal driveways shall be a minimum of 15’ wide for one-way travel and 25’ wide for areas subject to two-way travel. One-way travel lanes within the site shall be clearly posted and marked appropriately. 355 Conditions of Approval Page 20 of 29 66. Staging or storing of trash bins shall not be permitted on Public right-of-way or on-site within the Emergency Vehicle Access Easement. 67. The Applicant shall submit a construction access plan that clearly identifies all areas of proposed access during the proposed development. 68. Prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy from the Building Division, the Applicant shall require its Civil Engineer to inspect the finished grading surrounding the building and to certify that it conforms to the approved site plan and that there is positive drainage away from the exterior of the building. The Applicant shall make any modifications to the grading, drainage, or other improvements required by the project engineer to conform to intent of his plans. 69. The Applicant shall submit a proposed workplan and intended methodologies to ensure any existing structures on or along the development’s property line are protected during proposed activities. 70. All common areas are to be landscaped and irrigated and shall meet the requirements of the City’s Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance (WELO). Submit landscape, drainage and grading plans for review and approval by the Engineering Division. 71. Any monument signs to be installed for the project shall be located completely on private property and shall not encroach into the City’s right-of-way. The Developer shall ensure that placement of the monument signs do not obstruct clear lines of sight for vehicles entering or exiting the site. Grading 72. The recommendations contained within the geotechnical report shall be included in the Site Grading and Drainage Plan. The Site Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared by the developer’s civil engineer and approved by the project geotechnical engineer. 73. During grading operations, the entire project site shall be adequately sprinkled with water to prevent dust or sprayed with an effect dust palliative to prevent dust from being blown into the air and carried onto adjacent private and public property. Dust control shall be for seven days a week and 24 hours a day. Should any problems arise from dust, the developer shall hire an environmental inspector at his/her expense to ensure compliance with the grading permit. 356 Conditions of Approval Page 21 of 29 74. Haul roads within the City of South San Francisco shall be cleaned daily, or more often, as required by the City Engineer, of all dirt and debris spilled or tracked onto City streets or private driveways. 75. The Applicant shall submit a winterization plan for all undeveloped areas within the site to control silt and stormwater runoff from entering adjacent public or private property. This plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to September 1 of each year. The approved plan shall be implemented prior to November 1 of each year. 76. Prior to placing any foundation concrete, the Applicant shall hire a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer authorized to practice land surveying to certify that the new foundation forms conform with all setbacks from confirmed property lines as shown on the Plans. A letter certifying the foundation forms shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for approval. 77. The applicant is required by ordinance to provide for public safety and the protection of public and private property in the vicinity of the land to be graded from the impacts of the proposed grading work. 78. All hauling and grading operations are restricted to between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. for residential areas and 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. for industrial/commercial areas, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. 79. Unless approved in writing by the City Engineer, no grading in excess of 200 cubic yards shall be accomplished between November 1 and May 1 of each year. Engineering Impact Fees 80. The Applicant shall pay the following Fees prior to receiving a Building Permit for the subject project: a. The Oyster Point Interchange Impact Fee per the formula established by Resolution 71-84. b. The Citywide Transportation Impact Fee per the formula established by Resolution 120-2020. c. The East of 101 Sewer Impact Fee per the formula established by Resolution 97-2002 For questions concerning Engineering COAs, please contact Anthony Schaffer at Anthony.Schaffer@ssf.net. 357 Conditions of Approval Page 22 of 29 FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS 1. Projects shall be designed in compliance with established regulations as adopted by the City of South San Francisco affecting or related to structures, processes, premises, and safeguards in effect at time of building permit application. 2. Fire service features for buildings, structures and premises shall comply with all City adopted codes and standards in effect at the time of building permit application. 3. Fire Construction Permit(s) shall be required as set forth in adopted California Fire Code (CFC) Sections 105.5 and 105.6. Submittal documents consisting of construction documents, statement of special inspection, geotechnical report, referenced documents, and other data shall be submitted electronically with each permit application. The construction documents shall be prepared by a registered design professional. 4. Construction documents shall be to scale (graphic scale required on all plan sheets), dimensioned and drawn on suitable electronic media. Construction documents shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location, nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail that it will conform to the provisions of adopted codes and relevant laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations, as determined by the fire code official. 5. Construction/Shop drawings for the fire protection system(s) and other hazardous operations regulated by the fire department shall be submitted directly to the Fire Department to indicate conformance with adopted codes and standards. The construction documents shall be approved prior to the start of installation. 6. The construction documents submitted with the application for permit shall be accompanied by a site plan showing to scale the size and location of new construction and existing structures on the site, distances from lot lines, the established street grades and the proposed finished grades and it shall be drawn in accordance with an accurate boundary line survey. In the case of demolition, the site plan shall show construction to be demolished and the location and size of existing structures and construction that are to remain on the site or plot. 7. Prior to submittal of building permits, design documents for proposed fire service features, such as fire apparatus roads, fire protection water supplies, fire department connection locations, access to building openings and roofs, premise identification, key box locations, and fire command center locations shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval. 8. Where fire apparatus access roads or a water supply for fire protection are required to be installed, such protections shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction in accordance with adopted codes and standards. 358 Conditions of Approval Page 23 of 29 9. Construction documents for proposed fire apparatus access, location fire lanes, security gates across fire apparatus access roads and construction documents and hydraulic calculations for fire hydrant systems shall be submitted to the fire department for review and approval prior to construction. 10. Prior to issuance of building permits, the owner or owner’s authorized agent shall be responsible for the development, implementation, and maintenance of an approved written site safely plan approved by the fire code official in accordance with Section 3303. 11. Prior to issuance of building permits, the fire code official shall have the authority to require construction documents and calculations for all fire protection and life safety systems and to require permits be issued for the installation, rehabilitation or modification of any fire protection and life safety systems. Construction documents for fire protection and life safety systems shall be submitted for review and approval prior to system installation. 12. Fire apparatus access roads shall be approved by the fire code official, installed and maintained in accordance with CFC Section 503 and Appendix D. a) Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction in accordance with adopted codes and standards at time of building permit application. i. Traffic calming measures (bollards, speed cushions, humps, undulations, etc.) if proposed, are required to be approved by the fire code official prior to installation. ii. Should a security or construction gate(s) be planned to serve the facility, they shall be approved by the fire code official prior to installation. b) Commercial and industrial developments with buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet or three stories in height or 62,000 square feet shall have not fewer than two means of fire apparatus access for each structure. Where two fire apparatus access roads are required, they shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one half of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the lot or area to be served, measured in a straight line between accesses. c) Where the vertical distance between the grade plane and the highest roof surface exceeds 30 feet, approved aerial fire apparatus access roads shall be provided in accordance with CFC D105. For purposes of this requirement, the highest roof surface shall be determined by measurement to the eave of a pitched roof, the intersection of 359 Conditions of Approval Page 24 of 29 the roof to the exterior wall, or the top of parapet walls, whichever is greater. Aerial fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet, exclusive of shoulders, in the immediate vicinity of the building or portion thereof. One or more of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located not less than 15 feet and not greater than 30 feet from the building and shall be positioned parallel to one entire long side of the building or as approved by the fire code official. The side of the building on which the aerial fire apparatus access road is positioned shall be approved by the fire code official. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located over the aerial fire apparatus access road or between the aerial fire apparatus road and the building. There shall be no architectural features, projections or obstructions that would limit the articulation of the aerial apparatus. d) Required Fire Department access roads shall be signed “No Parking – Fire Lane” per current Fire Department standards and California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 22500. 13. The following are a list of submittal items that are required by the Fire Department and shall be submitted directly to the Fire Department, additional items may be called out based on subsequent reviews: a) Fire service feature site plan: fire apparatus access, water supply, FDC, address, key box, fire command center, etc. (See condition #7.) For questions concerning Fire Department COAs, please contact Ian Hardage at ian.hardage@ssf.net or (650) 829-6645. WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION CONDITIONS The following items must be included in the plans or are requirements of the Water Quality Control Stormwater and/or Pretreatment Programs and must be completed prior to the issuance of a building permit: 1. Storm drains must be protected during construction. Discharge of any demolition/construction debris or water to the storm drain system is prohibited. 2. Do not use gravel bags for erosion control in the street or drive aisles. Drains in street must have inlet and throat protection of a material that is not susceptible to breakage from vehicular traffic. 3. No floatable bark shall be used in landscaping. Only fibrous mulch or pea gravel is allowed. 360 Conditions of Approval Page 25 of 29 4. After 7/1/19, Demolition Projects must complete a PCBs Screening Assessment Form (available from the Building Division). If screening determines the building is an applicable structure, the Protocol for Evaluating PCBs-Containing Materials before Building Demolition shall be followed. Submit a PCB screening package for each address/building containing: a) PCBs Screening Form b) QAQC checklist c) Contractor’s Report d) Analytical Results (if applicable) 5. As the project site falls in a Moderate Trash Generation area per South San Francisco’s Trash Generation Map (http://www.flowstobay.org/content/municipal-trash-generation- maps), determined by the Water Quality Control Division: • Regional Water Quality Control Board-approved full trash capture devices must be installed to treat the stormwater drainage from the site. • At a minimum, a device must be installed before the onsite drainage enters the City’s public stormwater system (i.e. trash capture must take place no farther downstream than the last private stormwater drainage structure on the site). • An Operation & Maintenance Agreement will be required to be recorded with San Mateo County, ensuring the device(s) will be properly maintained. • A full trash capture system is any single device or series of devices that traps all particles retained by a 5 mm mesh screen and has a design treatment capacity of not less than the peak flow rate resulting from a one-year, one-hour storm in the sub- drainage area or designed to carry at least the same flow as the storm drain connected to the inlet. 6. Roof leaders/gutters must NOT be plumbed directly to storm drains; they shall discharge to stormwater treatment devices or landscaping first. 7. Fire sprinkler test drainage must be plumbed to sanitary sewer and be clearly shown on plans. 8. If located exterior to building, trash enclosure shall be covered (roof, canopy) and contained (wall/fence). Floor shall slope to a central drain that discharges to the sanitary sewer system. If food prep is to be involved, the central drain shall first discharge to a grease trap/interceptor 361 Conditions of Approval Page 26 of 29 and then connect to the sanitary sewer. Details of trash enclosure shall be clearly provided on plans. 9. Install a condensate drain line connected to the sanitary sewer for rooftop equipment and clearly show on plans. 10. If laboratories will be installed, a segregated non-pressurized lab waste line must collect all laboratory waste. Install a sample port on the lab waste line outside the building, which will be accessible at all times. 11. Submit specs on the sample port. 12. Applicant will be required to pay a Sewer Capacity Fee (connection fee) based on SSF City Council-approved EDU calculation (involving anticipated flow, BOD and TSS calculations and including credits for previous site use). Based on the information received, the estimated Sewer Capacity Fee will be $485,312.00, payable with the Building Permit. 13. Elevator sump drainage (if applicable) shall be connected to an oil/water separator prior to connection to the sanitary sewer. 14. Drains in parking garage (if applicable) must be plumbed through an oil/water separator and then into the sanitary sewer system and clearly shown on plans. 15. Wherever feasible, install landscaping that minimizes irrigation runoff, promotes surface infiltration, minimizes use of pesticides and fertilizers and incorporates appropriate sustainable landscaping programs (such as Bay-Friendly Landscaping). 16. Site is subject to C.3 requirements of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (please see SMCWPPP C.3 Regulated Projects Guide at https://www.flowstobay.org/newdevelopment for guidance). C.3 compliance will be reviewed by the City’s consultant and the following items will be required. 17. Applicant shall provide 100% Low-Impact Development for C.3 stormwater treatment for all of the project’s impervious areas per MRP Section C.3.b. In-lieu of feasible on-site treatment, qualifying applicants may apply for the Special Project Status exemption per Provision C.3.e.ii to Low Impact Development for C.3 treatment. However, the applicant must provide a complete Infeasibility Narrative establishing all of the following (while still treating as much of the runoff via LID onsite as possible): 362 Conditions of Approval Page 27 of 29 a) Infeasibility of treating 100% of the amount of runoff identified in Provision C.3.d for the project’s drainage area with LID treatment measures onsite; b) Infeasibility of treating 100% of the amount of runoff identified in Provision C.3.d for the project’s drainage area with LID tre4atment measures offsite within South San Francisco, providing LID treatment of an equivalent amount of runoff either at a: i. Available Regional Stormwater Project in same watershed; ii. Property owned by the project proponent in the same watershed; or iii. Planned South San Francisco Green Infrastructure (GI) Stormwater Project. 1. Project options to be made available by City Engineering staff upon request. c) Infeasibility of treating 100% of the amount of runoff identified in Provision C.3.d for the project’s drainage area with some combination of LID treatment measures onsite, offsite or at a Regional Project in the same watershed; d) Infeasibility of installing LID treatment within the Right-of-Way. If Applicant chooses to treat any of their Project’s impervious areas within the ROW, Applicant shall size the treatment measures to treat both the Project’s impervious areas and the ROW. The ROW area to be treated shall be from the property line to the street centerline or crown whichever is a greater distance along the entire project frontage. Sizing and design shall conform to the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program design templates and technical guidance and be approved by the Water Quality Control Plant and the Engineering Division. Applicant shall maintain all treatment measures required by the project and enter into a Stormwater Treatment Measure Maintenance Agreement with the City. 18. Completed forms for Low Impact Development (C3-C6 Project Checklist). Forms must be on 8.5in X 11in paper and signed and wet stamped by a professional engineer. Calculations must be submitted with this package. Forms can be found at http://www.flowstobay.org/newdevelopment A completed copy must also be emailed to andrew.wemmer @ssf.net 19. Sign and have engineer wet stamp forms for Low Impact Development. 363 Conditions of Approval Page 28 of 29 20. Submit flow calculations and related math for LID. 21. Complete Operation and Maintenance (O&M) agreements. Use attached forms for completing documents, as old forms are no longer sufficient. Do not sign agreement, as the City will need to review prior to signature. Prepare packet and submit including a preferred return address for owner signature. Packet should also be mailed or emailed to: Andrew Wemmer City of SSF WQCP 195 Belle Air Road South San Francisco, CA 94080 Andrew.wemmer@ssf.net Exhibit Templates can also be found within Chapter 6 the C.3 Technical Guidance at http://www.flowstobay.org/newdevelopment. 22. The onsite catch basins are to be stenciled with the approved San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Logo (No Dumping! Flows to Bay). 23. Landscaping shall meet the following conditions related to reduction of pesticide use on the project site: a) Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat stormwater runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain, and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolonged exposure to water shall be specified. b) Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. c) Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent practicable. d) Proper maintenance of landscaping, with minimal pesticide use, shall be the responsibility of the property owner. 364 Conditions of Approval Page 29 of 29 e) Integrated pest management (IPM) principles and techniques shall be encouraged as part of the landscaping design to the maximum extent practicable. Examples of IPM principles and techniques include: i. Select plants that are well adapted to soil conditions at the site. ii. Select plants that are well adapted to sun and shade conditions at the site. In making these selections, consider future conditions when plants reach maturity, as well as seasonal changes. iii. Provide irrigation appropriate to the water requirements of the selected plants. iv. Select pest-resistant and disease-resistant plants. v. Plant a diversity of species to prevent a potential pest infestation from affecting the entire landscaping plan. vi. Use “insectary” plants in the landscaping to attract and keep beneficial insects. 24. A SWPPP must be submitted (if > 1 acre). Drawings must note that erosion control shall be in effect all year long. 25. A copy of the state approved NOI must be submitted (if > 1 acre). For questions concerning Water Quality Control Division COAs, contact Andrew Wemmer at Andrew.Wemmer@ssf.net or (650) 829-3840. 365 STAMPKEY PLANCLIENTPROJECTADDRESSPROJECT NO.SCALETITLEDGA planning | architecture | interiors2022DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.CONSULTANTSCivil EngineerLandscape Architect255 SHORELINE DR. STE. 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065650.482.6306BKF ENGINEERSPlumbing Engineer25 SAN ANSELMO AVENUESAN ANSELMO, CA 94960415.524.8517 x101STUDIO FIVE DESIGN300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3753AEIElectrical EngineerAEIStructural Engineer1301 FIFTH AVENUE STE 3200SEATTLE, WA 98101206.215.8221MKAAEIMechanical Engineer560 14TH ST. SUITE 300OAKLAND, CA 94612510.473.0300IPD-----300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3706300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3759Parking Garage1/4/2024 3:19:34 PM Autodesk Docs://22316 Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Avenue/22316_Vigilant_SmartLabs 439 Eccles_R23_Arch.rvtCOVER SHEETVIGILANT HOLDINGSVIGILANT HOLDINGS 439 ECCLESLAB/OFFICE BUILDING439 ECCLES AVE. SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CA 9408022316G-0439 ECCLES AVE.SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CAPLANNING COMMISSION SUBMISSIONJANUARY 5, 2024PLANNING SUBMISSION 06.09.2023PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 08.11.2023PLANNING EXHIBIT B01.05.2024366 DBDBDBDBDBDBDBDBFDCFHFHSSSSSSPIT9T2T5T4T17T11T7T8T3T6T15T13T18T1SITEPROJECT SITESTAMPKEY PLANCLIENTPROJECTADDRESSPROJECT NO.SCALETITLEDGA planning | architecture | interiors2022DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.CONSULTANTSCivil EngineerLandscape Architect255 SHORELINE DR. STE. 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065650.482.6306BKF ENGINEERSPlumbing Engineer25 SAN ANSELMO AVENUESAN ANSELMO, CA 94960415.524.8517 x101STUDIO FIVE DESIGN300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3753AEIElectrical EngineerAEIStructural Engineer1301 FIFTH AVENUE STE 3200SEATTLE, WA 98101206.215.8221MKAAEIMechanical Engineer560 14TH ST. SUITE 300OAKLAND, CA 94612510.473.0300IPD-----300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3706300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3759Parking GarageAs indicated1/4/2024 4:58:05 PM Autodesk Docs://22316 Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Avenue/22316_Vigilant_SmartLabs 439 Eccles_R23_Arch.rvtTITLE SHEETVIGILANT HOLDINGSVIGILANT HOLDINGS 439 ECCLESLAB/OFFICE BUILDING439 ECCLES AVE. SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CA 9408022316G-1PROJECT DATAPROJECT TEAMVIGILANT HOLDINGS, INC.200 VESEY ST. 24TH FLOORNEW YORK, NY 10281TEL: 732.977.6158CONTACT: DAVID FOWLEREMAIL: david.fowler@vigilant-holdings.comOWNERDGA planning I architecture I interiorsGOVERNING CODES550 ELLIS STREETMOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94043TEL: 650.943.1660CONTACT: DAVID MCADAMSEMAIL: dmcadams@dga-sf.comARCHITECTSTRUCTURALPLUMBING/ FIRE PROTECTION MECHANICALELECTRICALMAGNUSSON KLEMENCIC ASSOCIATES1301 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 3200SEATTLE, WA 98101TEL: 206.292.1200CONTACT: GREGORY ROGERSEMAIL: grogers@mka.comAFFILIATED ENGINEERS, INC.300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104TEL: 415.764.3700CONTACT: MICHELLE SWANEMAIL: mswan@aeieng.com439 ECCLES AVE.SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080VICINITY MAPBKF ENGINEERS255 SHORELINE DRIVE, SUITE 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065TEL: 650.482.6306CONTACT: JONATHAN TANGEMAIL: jtang@bkf.comCIVILSTUDIO FIVE | DESIGN INC.25 SAN ANSELMO AVENUESAN ANSELMO, CA 94960TEL: 415.524.8517CONTACT: RICHARD SHARPEMAIL: sharpr@studiofivedesign.comLANDSCAPEPROJECT DESCRIPTIONVIGILANT HOLDINGS AND SMARTLABS ARE SEEKING ENTITLEMENTS TO REDEVELOP THE PARCEL LOCATED AT 439 ECCLES AVE., REPLACING THE EXISTING SINGLE STORY INDUSTRIAL BUIDLINGS WITH CLASS-A HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS FOR OFFICE, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OR TECHNOLOGY USE, AND A PARKING STRUCTURE.THE BUILDING IS PROPOSED TO BE AN SEVEN-STORY BUILDING WITH A BASEMENT, TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 294,822 SF OF GROSS FLOOR AREA. THE PARKING STRUCTURE IS PROPOSED TO BE SIX AND A HALF STORIES, CONTAINING 439 PARKING STALLS, WITH A CANOPY OF PHOTOVOLTAIC PANELS OVER THE TOP LEVEL, TO CONVERT SUNLIGHT TO ELECTRICAL POWER.THE BUILDING IS PROPOSED TO BE RECTANGULAR IN PLAN. THE FLOOR PLATES RANGE FROM ABOUT 32,500 SF ON THE GROUND LEVEL TO ABOUT 37200 SF ON THE UPPER LEVELS. EACH LEVEL ABOVE THE THIRD FLOOR HAS IT'S OWN PRIVATE OUTDOOR BALCONY TERRACE, HELPING TO BREAK UP THE MASSING OF THE STREET-FACING FACADE.DRAWINGNO. DRAWING NAMEGENERALG-0 COVER SHEETG-1 TITLE SHEETG-2 AREA SUMMARY DIAGRAMS & TABLEG-3 FAA IMAGINARY SURFACESG-4 FEMA FIRMETTEG-5 EXISTING SITE PHOTOSG-6 SITE PLANG-7 SITE ACCESS PLAN - PEDESTRIAN, VEHICULARG-8 SITE FIRE ACCESS PLANCIVILC100 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLANC200 GRADING PLANC300 UTILITY PLANC400 STORMWATER CONTROL PLANC500 FIRE TRUCK ACCESS PLANC600 TRUCK ACCESS PLANC700 SAN MATEO COUNTY BEST PRACTICES MANAGEMENTLANDSCAPEL001 ILLUSTRATIVE PLANL002 MATERIAL SCHEDULEL003 PLANTING SCHEDULEL004 SKETCHUP VIEWSL005 TREE DISPOSITION PLANL006 TREE DISPOSITION DETAILS AND SCHEDULEL100 MATERIAL PLANL200 PLANTING PLANARCHITECTURAL - BLDGAE-0 B1 FLOOR PLANAE-1 FIRST FLOOR PLANAE-2 SECOND FLOOR PLANAE-3 THIRD FLOOR PLANAE-4 FOURTH FLOOR PLANAE-5 FIFTH FLOOR PLANAE-6 SIXTH FLOOR PLANAE-7 SEVENTH FLOOR PLANAE-8 ROOF PLANAE-10 EAST ELEVATIONAE-11 SOUTH ELEVATIONAE-12 WEST ELEVATIONAE-13 NORTH ELEVATIONAE-14 BUILDING SECTIONAE-15 BUILDING SECTIONAE-16 GARAGE GROUND LEVEL PLAN AND GENERAL INFORMATIONAE-17 GARAGE TYPICAL LEVEL PLANAE-18 GARAGE ROOF LEVEL PLANAE-19 GARAGE ELEVATIONSAE-20 SHADOW STUDIESAE-21 PERSPECTIVE VIEWAE-22 PERSPECTIVE VIEWAE-23 PERSPECTIVE VIEWAE-24 PERSPECTIVE VIEWAE-25 PROPOSED MATERIALSAFFILIATED ENGINEERS, INC.300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104TEL: 415.764.3700CONTACT: BLAINE D. CONNEREMAIL: bconner@aeieng.comAFFILIATED ENGINEERS, INC.300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104TEL: 415.764.3700CONTACT: DENNY KENNEDYEMAIL: dkennedy@aeieng.comApprovals Being Sought for this Project:APPROVAL OF PROPOSED BUILDING AND GARAGE DESIGN, FLOOR AREA AND PARKING RATIO1.2.APPROVAL OF EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACESS AND SITE PLAN3.REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED LOADING SPACES4.DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTPARKING CALCULATIONSRESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT1.5 PER 1000 SFGROSS BUILDING AREA (INCLUDES BASEMENT)298,470 SFMAXIMUM PARKING ALLOWED448 SPACESSHORT-TERM BICYCLE PARKINGPROPOSED PARKINGSHORT TERM BICYCLE PARKINGBASED ON REQUIRED WITH NO REDUCTIONS298,470 SFSHORT TERM RATIOPROJECT WILL PROVIDE448 SPACES5% OF SPACES23 SPACESBUILDING AREAPROPOSED PARKINGLONG-TERM BICYCLE PARKINGPROPOSED PARKINGLONG TERM BICYCLE PARKINGBASED ON REQUIRED WITH NO REDUCTIONS298,470 SFLONG TERM RATIOPROJECT WILL PROVIDE448 SPACES5% OF SPACES23 SPACESBUILDING AREAPROPOSED PARKING20.330.007 BICYCLE PARKINGSHORT-TERM BICYCLE PARKING. SHORT-TERM BICYCLE PARKING SHALL BE PROVIDED, ACCORDING TO THEPROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, IN ORDER TO SERVE SHOPPERS, CUSTOMERS, MESSENGERS, GUESTS AND OTHER VISITORSTO A SITE WHO GENERALLY STAY FOR A SHORT TIME.1. PARKING SPACES REQUIRED. SHORT-TERM BICYCLE PARKING SPACES SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR THE FOLLOWING USES AT A RATE OF 5 PERCENT OFTHE NUMBER OF REQUIRED AUTOMOBILE PARKING SPACES, WITH A MINIMUMOF FOUR PARKING SPACES PROVIDEDPER ESTABLISHMENT. 20.330.007 BICYCLE PARKINGLONG-TERM BICYCLE PARKING. LONG-TERM BICYCLE PARKING SHALL BE PROVIDED, ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, IN ORDER TO SERVE EMPLOYEES, STUDENTS, RESIDENTS, COMMUTERS, AND OTHERS WHO GENERALLY STAY AT A SITE FOR FOUR HOURS OR LONGER.1. PARKING REQUIRED.C. PARKING STRUCTURES. LONG-TERM BICYCLE PARKING SHALL BE PROVIDED AT A RATIO OF ONE SPACE PER 50 VEHICLE SPACES.TABLE 20.330.004 REQUIRED ON-SITE PARKING SPACESEMPLOYMENT USE CLASSIFICATIONSRESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT: 1.5 PER 1,000SQ. FT.20.330.008 ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONELECTRIC VEHICLE (EV) CHARGING STATIONS AND EV-CAPABLE PARKING SPACES SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL NEW BUILDINGS ERECTED AS REQUIRED BY THIS SECTION. ALL SUCH SPACES SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF PARKING DEMANDS OF SECTION 20.330.004 (“REQUIRED PARKING SPACES”).REQUIRED EV CHARGING STATIONS.THE TOTAL NUMBER OF REQUIRED EV CHARGING STATIONS SPACES ARE SPECIFIED IN TABLE 20.330.008 OR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MOST CURRENT CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE, WHICHEVER STANDARD IS GREATER. TABLE 20.330.008: REQUIRED EV CHARGING SPACESTOTAL NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES: 51+ MINIMUM EV CHARGING STATIONS: 6%ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONSPROPOSED PARKINGELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONSBASED ON REQUIRED PARKING WITH NO REDUCTIONSBUILDING AREA298,470 SFMINIMUM REQUIREDPROJECT WILL PROVIDEPROPOSED PARKING 448 SPACES6% SPACES27 SPACES20.330.009 ON-SITE LOADINGLOADING SPACES REQUIRED.EVERY NEW BUILDING, AND EVERY BUILDING ENLARGED BY MORE THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET THAT IS TO BE OCCUPIED BY A MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENT, STORAGE FACILITY, WAREHOUSE FACILITY, PARCEL HUB, LIVE-WORK DEVELOPMENT, RETAIL STORE, EATING AND DRINKING, WHOLESALE STORE, MARKET, HOTEL, HOSPITAL, MORTUARY, LAUNDRY, DRYCLEANING ESTABLISHMENT, OR OTHER USE SIMILARLY REQUIRING THE RECEIPT OR DISTRIBUTION BY VEHICLES OR TRUCKS OF MATERIAL ORMERCHANDISE SHALL PROVIDE OFF-STREET LOADING AND UNLOADING AREAS AS INDICATED IN TABLE 20.330.009. SUCH ON-SITE LOADING SPACE SHALL BE MAINTAINED DURING THE EXISTENCE OF THE BUILDING OR USE THAT IT IS REQUIRED TO SERVE.REQUIRED LOADING SPACESREQUIREDPROPOSED REDUCTIONGROSS FLOOR AREAOVER 230,000 SF298,470 SFREQURED LOADING5 SPACES4 SPACESFOUR (4) LOADING SPACES HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO BE ADEQUATE ON OTHERR&D BUILDINGS WE HAVE DONE IN SSF. AN ANALYSIS IS BEING PREPARED BY AMERICAN TRASH MANAGEMENT TO JUSTIFY THE PROPOSED NUMBER OF LOADING SPACES.EV CAPABLE PARKING SPACES (CGBSC TABLE 5.106.5.3.1)PROPOSED PARKINGEV CAPABLE PARKING SPACESBASED ON REQUIRED PARKING WITH NO REDUCTIONSBUILDING AREA298,470 SFMINIMUM REQUIREDPROJECT WILL PROVIDEPROPOSED PARKING 448 SPACES20% SPACES90 SPACESPARKING PROVIDED448 SPACESPROJECT NAME:439 ECCLES BUILDING AND GARAGEPROJECT ADDRESS:439 ECCLES AVE.SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080OCCUPANCY TYPE(S):A-3, B, L, S-2NON-SEPARATED OCCUPANCIESALLOWABLE HEIGHT:20 STORIES, UNLIMITED HEIGHTPROPOSED HEIGHT: BUILDING146'PARKING GARAGE60'NUMBER OF STORIES BUILDING7PARKING GARAGE5.5CONSTRUCTION TYPE:BUILDING: I-A GARAGE: II-AFIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM:AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLERS THROUGHOUTPROPOSED USE:LAB/OFFICE BUILDINGZONING CODE:BTP-HZONING DESCRIPTION:BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY PARK-HIGHASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER:015-071-260SITE AREA:114,730 SF (2.634 ACRES)LANDSCAPE AREA:20,008 SF (17.4%)FLOOR AREA RATIO:2.0ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA:UNLIMITEDPROPOSED BUILDING FLOOR AREA:PROPOSED PARKING GARAGE AREA:27,631 PER LEVELALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE:60%PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE:58.2%298,956 SF298,470CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS TITLE 24, INCLUDING ALL AMENDMENTS:PART 1: 2022 CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (CAC)PART 2: 2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC)PART 3: 2022 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (CEC)PART 4: 2022 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (CMC)PART 5: 2022 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (CPC)PART 6: 2022 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE PART 9: 2022 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE (CFC)PART 11: 2022 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE PART 12: 2022 CALIFORNIA REFERENCE STANDARDS CODECALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 8 (CAL OSHA)CALIFORNIA ELEVATOR SAFETY CODE: CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 8:DIVISION 1: DEPARTEMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, CHAPTER 4: DIVISION OF INDUSTRIAL SAFETYSUBCHAPTER 6: ELEVATOR SAFETY ORDERSGROUP 1: ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS (SECTION 3000 - 3009)GROUP 3: NEW ELEVATOR INSTALLATIONS (SECTION 3120.0 - 3139) OTHER REGULATIONSBAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (BAAQMD)CITY OF XXXXX ADOPTED CODES, REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCESPLANNING SUBMISSION 06.09.2023PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 08.11.2023SITE MAPPARKING GARAGEINTERNATIONAL PARKING DESIGN560 14TH ST. SUITE 300OAKLAND, CA 94612TEL: 510.473.0300CONTACT: RAJU NANDWANAEMAIL: rnandwana@ipd-oak.comGENERAL CONTRACTORHATHAWAY DINWIDDIE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY275 BATTERY ST. SUITE 300 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111TEL: 415.912.3232CONTACT: SAM MESIKEPPEMAIL: mesikepps@hdcco.comDGA planning | architecture | interiors2022G-1PLANNING EXHIBIT B01.05.2024367 33294 SFPROPOSED AREA943 SFAMENITY/BALCONY AREA625 SFEXCLUDED AREA693 SFEXCLUDED AREA482 SFEXCLUDED AREA628 SFEXCLUDED MEP AREA1440 SFEXCLUDED AREA402 SFEXCLUDED AREA29094 SFPROPOSED AREA451 SFEXCLUDED MEP AREA2455 SFEXCLUDED AREABUILDING AREA LEGENDAMENITY AREAEXCLUDED AREAEXCLUDED MEPAREAFLOOR AREAOPEN AREAROOF AREA1702 SFEXCLUDED MEP AREA708 SFPROPOSED AREA275 SFPROPOSED AREALONG TERM BICYCLE PARKINGFIRE COMMAND CENTERPARKING GARAGE AREAS1104 SFPROPOSED AREAUTILITY ROOM32298 SFPROPOSED AREA1440 SFEXCLUDED AREA406 SFEXCLUDED AREA482 SFEXCLUDED AREA628 SFEXCLUDED MEP AREA693 SFEXCLUDED AREA625 SFEXCLUDED AREA32808 SFPROPOSED AREA943 SFAMENITY/BALCONY AREA625 SFEXCLUDED AREA402 SFEXCLUDED AREA482 SFEXCLUDED AREA628 SFEXCLUDED MEP AREA1440 SFEXCLUDED AREA693 SFEXCLUDED AREA33294 SFPROPOSED AREA943 SFAMENITY/BALCONY AREA625 SFEXCLUDED AREA693 SFEXCLUDED AREA482 SFEXCLUDED AREA628 SFEXCLUDED MEP AREA1440 SFEXCLUDED AREA402 SFEXCLUDED AREA33289 SFPROPOSED AREA947 SFAMENITY/BALCONY AREA625 SFEXCLUDED AREA693 SFEXCLUDED AREA482 SFEXCLUDED AREA628 SFEXCLUDED MEP AREA1440 SFEXCLUDED AREA402 SFEXCLUDED AREA33294 SFPROPOSED AREA943 SFAMENITY/BALCONY AREA625 SFEXCLUDED AREA693 SFEXCLUDED AREA482 SFEXCLUDED AREA628 SFEXCLUDED MEP AREA1440 SFEXCLUDED AREA402 SFEXCLUDED AREA27693 SFOPEN AREA (ROOF)422 SFEXCLUDED AREA39265 SFEXCLUDED AREASTAMPKEY PLANCLIENTPROJECTADDRESSPROJECT NO.SCALETITLEDGA planning | architecture | interiors2022DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.CONSULTANTSCivil EngineerLandscape Architect255 SHORELINE DR. STE. 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065650.482.6306BKF ENGINEERSPlumbing Engineer25 SAN ANSELMO AVENUESAN ANSELMO, CA 94960415.524.8517 x101STUDIO FIVE DESIGN300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3753AEIElectrical EngineerAEIStructural Engineer1301 FIFTH AVENUE STE 3200SEATTLE, WA 98101206.215.8221MKAAEIMechanical Engineer560 14TH ST. SUITE 300OAKLAND, CA 94612510.473.0300IPD-----300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3706300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3759Parking Garage1/32" = 1'-0"1/4/2024 3:19:46 PM Autodesk Docs://22316 Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Avenue/22316_Vigilant_SmartLabs 439 Eccles_R23_Arch.rvtAREA SUMMARYDIAGRAMS & TABLEVIGILANT HOLDINGSVIGILANT HOLDINGS 439 ECCLESLAB/OFFICE BUILDING439 ECCLES AVE. SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CA 9408022316G-2SCALE:1/32" = 1'-0"6AREA PLAN - LEVEL 6SCALE:1/32" = 1'-0"1AREA PLAN - LEVEL 1SCALE:1/32" = 1'-0"2AREA PLAN - LEVEL 2SCALE:1/32" = 1'-0"3AREA PLAN - LEVEL 3SCALE:1/32" = 1'-0"4AREA PLAN - LEVEL 4SCALE:1/32" = 1'-0"5AREA PLAN - LEVEL 5SCALE:1/32" = 1'-0"7AREA PLAN - LEVEL 7SCALE:1/32" = 1'-0"8AREA PLAN - ROOF PLANGROSS AREAB1 39,265 SFLEVEL 1 35,789 SFLEVEL 2 36,572 SFLEVEL 3 37,078 SFLEVEL 4 37,564 SFLEVEL 5 37,560 SFLEVEL 6 37,564 SFLEVEL 7 37,564 SF298,956 SFSCALE:1/32" = 1'-0"B1AREA PLAN - LEVEL B1BUILDING AREA TABLESITE AREA:114,730 SFALLOWBLE FAR (PER TABLE 20.100.003(A)): 2.0ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA: 229,460 SFPROPOSED GROSS FLOOR AREA (PER 20.040.008 A):298,470 SFPROPOSED FLOOR AREA WITH EXCLUSIONS (PER 20.040.008 B) :229,460 SFPROPOSED FAR:2.0EXCLUDEDAREA39,265 SF2,455 SF3,645 SF3,642 SF3,642 SF3,642 SF3,642 SF3,642 SF63,573 SFEXCLUDED MEPAREA0 SF2,153 SF628 SF628 SF628 SF628 SF628 SF628 SF5,924 SFPROPOSED FLOORAREA PER FAR0 SF31,182 SF32,298 SF32,808 SF33,294 SF33,289 SF33,294 SF33,294 SF229,459 SFEXTERIOR AMENITY AREA NOTINCLUDED IN GROSS AREA0 SF0 SF0 SF943 SF943 SF947 SF943 SF943 SF4,718 SFPLANNING SUBMISSION 06.09.2023PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 08.11.2023298,470PLANNING EXHIBIT B01.05.2024368 LEVEL 1100' -0"ROOF222' -0"T.O. SCREEN246' -0"STAMPKEY PLANCLIENTPROJECTADDRESSPROJECT NO.SCALETITLEDGA planning | architecture | interiors2022DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.CONSULTANTSCivil EngineerLandscape Architect255 SHORELINE DR. STE. 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065650.482.6306BKF ENGINEERSPlumbing Engineer25 SAN ANSELMO AVENUESAN ANSELMO, CA 94960415.524.8517 x101STUDIO FIVE DESIGN300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3753AEIElectrical EngineerAEIStructural Engineer1301 FIFTH AVENUE STE 3200SEATTLE, WA 98101206.215.8221MKAAEIMechanical Engineer560 14TH ST. SUITE 300OAKLAND, CA 94612510.473.0300IPD-----300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3706300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3759Parking Garage1/16" = 1'-0"1/4/2024 3:20:41 PM Autodesk Docs://22316 Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Avenue/22316_Vigilant_SmartLabs 439 Eccles_R23_Arch.rvtFAA IMAGINARYSURFACESVIGILANT HOLDINGSVIGILANT HOLDINGS 439 ECCLESLAB/OFFICE BUILDING439 ECCLES AVE. SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CA 9408022316G-3SCALE:1/16" = 1'-0"1SOUTH ELEVATION OVERALLPROJECT SITEPROJECT SITEPLANNING SUBMISSION 06.09.2023PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 08.11.2023PLANNING EXHIBIT B01.05.2024369 STAMPKEY PLANCLIENTPROJECTADDRESSPROJECT NO.SCALETITLEDGA planning | architecture | interiors2022DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.CONSULTANTSCivil EngineerLandscape Architect255 SHORELINE DR. STE. 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065650.482.6306BKF ENGINEERSPlumbing Engineer25 SAN ANSELMO AVENUESAN ANSELMO, CA 94960415.524.8517 x101STUDIO FIVE DESIGN300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3753AEIElectrical EngineerAEIStructural Engineer1301 FIFTH AVENUE STE 3200SEATTLE, WA 98101206.215.8221MKAAEIMechanical Engineer560 14TH ST. SUITE 300OAKLAND, CA 94612510.473.0300IPD-----300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3706300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3759Parking Garage1/4/2024 3:20:42 PM Autodesk Docs://22316 Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Avenue/22316_Vigilant_SmartLabs 439 Eccles_R23_Arch.rvtFEMA FIRMETTEVIGILANT HOLDINGSVIGILANT HOLDINGS 439 ECCLESLAB/OFFICE BUILDING439 ECCLES AVE. SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CA 9408022316G-4NATIONAL FLOOD HAZARD LAYER FIRMETTEPLANNING SUBMISSION 06.09.2023PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 08.11.2023PLANNING EXHIBIT B01.05.2024370 STAMP KEY PLAN CLIENT PROJECT ADDRESS PROJECT NO. SCALE TITLE DGA planning | architecture | interiors 2022 DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.6/19/2023 9:42:18 PM C:\Users\cavanzino\Documents\22269_Vigilant_SmartLabs 573 Forbes_R23_Central_cavanzino.rvt EXISTING SITE PHOTOS VIGILANT HOLDINGS/ SMARTLABS VIGILANT SMARTLABS 573 FORBES BLVD. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 573 FORBES BLVD. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 22269 G-5 PLANNING SUBMISSION 03.20.2023 PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 06.13.2023 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 - 451 ECCLES AVE ELEVATED VIEW FROM 750 GATEWAY BLVD. PARKING GARAGE 2 - 439 ECCLES AVE ELEVATED VIEW FROM 750 GATEWAY BLVD. PARKING GARAGE 3 - 425 ECCLES AVE ELEVATED VIEW FROM 750 GATEWAY BLVD. PARKING GARAGE 4 - 439 ECCLES AVE VIEW FROM 425 ECCLES AVE PARKING LOT 5 - 425 ECCLES AVE PARKING LOT VIEW FROM ECCLES AVE. 6 - 439 ECCLES AVE VIEW FROM ECCLES AVE. 7 - 439 ECCLES AVE VIEW FROM ECCLES AVE. 8 - 451 ECCLES AVE VIEW FROM ECCLES AVE. PLANNING EXHIBIT B 01.05.2024 371 UPUPUPFCCSETBACK20' - 0"PROPOSED OFFICE / LAB BUILDING7 STORIESPROPOSED PARKING GARAGE6 STORIES23' - 7 1/2"27' - 5"LINE OF FLOOR ABOVEADJACENT BUILDINGADJACENT BUILDINGMAIN ENTRYENTRYEXITLINE OF TERRACE ABOVEPLANNORTHTRUENORTHECCLES AVE.GENERAL NOTES:1. SITE LIGHTING AND GARAGE LIGHTING TO COMPLY WITH SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ZONNING ORDIANACE2. FOR SITE PAVING /LANDSCAPING LAYOUT SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN4 TRUCK LOADING / UNLOADIG SPACESFCC20' BUILDING SETBACKSHORT-TERM BICYCLE PARKINGLONG-TERM BICYCLE PARKINGLEGENDRAILS TO TRAILS PATHPASSENGER LOADINGPARKING GARAGE PEDESTRIAN ACCESSSTAMPKEY PLANCLIENTPROJECTADDRESSPROJECT NO.SCALETITLEDGA planning | architecture | interiors2022DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.CONSULTANTSCivil EngineerLandscape Architect255 SHORELINE DR. STE. 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065650.482.6306BKF ENGINEERSPlumbing Engineer25 SAN ANSELMO AVENUESAN ANSELMO, CA 94960415.524.8517 x101STUDIO FIVE DESIGN300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3753AEIElectrical EngineerAEIStructural Engineer1301 FIFTH AVENUE STE 3200SEATTLE, WA 98101206.215.8221MKAAEIMechanical Engineer560 14TH ST. SUITE 300OAKLAND, CA 94612510.473.0300IPD-----300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3706300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3759Parking Garage1/16" = 1'-0"1/4/2024 3:20:46 PM Autodesk Docs://22316 Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Avenue/22316_Vigilant_SmartLabs 439 Eccles_R23_Arch.rvtSITE PLANVIGILANT HOLDINGSVIGILANT HOLDINGS 439 ECCLESLAB/OFFICE BUILDING439 ECCLES AVE. SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CA 9408022316G-61961963921/16" = 1'-0"0FEETSCALESCALE:1/16" = 1'-0"1SITE PLAN IMAGEPLANNING SUBMISSION 06.09.2023PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 08.11.2023PLANNING EXHIBIT B01.05.2024372 UPUPUPFCCPROPOSED OFFICE / LAB BUILDING7 STORIESPROPOSED PARKING GARAGE6 STORIESLINE OF FLOOR ABOVEADJACENT BUILDINGADJACENT BUILDINGMAIN ENTRYENTRYEXITLINE OF TERRACE ABOVEPLANNORTHTRUENORTHECCLES AVE.4 TRUCK LOADING / UNLOADIG SPACESFCCACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL TO ENTRANCES AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAYVEHICULAR ACCESSLEGENDBICYCLE ACCESS/ PATH OF TRAVELSHORT-TERM BICYCLE PARKINGAERIAL APPARATUS ACCESSRAILS TO TRAILS PATHPASSENGER LOADINGEMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESSSTAMPKEY PLANCLIENTPROJECTADDRESSPROJECT NO.SCALETITLEDGA planning | architecture | interiors2022DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.CONSULTANTSCivil EngineerLandscape Architect255 SHORELINE DR. STE. 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065650.482.6306BKF ENGINEERSPlumbing Engineer25 SAN ANSELMO AVENUESAN ANSELMO, CA 94960415.524.8517 x101STUDIO FIVE DESIGN300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3753AEIElectrical EngineerAEIStructural Engineer1301 FIFTH AVENUE STE 3200SEATTLE, WA 98101206.215.8221MKAAEIMechanical Engineer560 14TH ST. SUITE 300OAKLAND, CA 94612510.473.0300IPD-----300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3706300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3759Parking Garage1/16" = 1'-0"1/4/2024 4:31:23 PM Autodesk Docs://22316 Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Avenue/22316_Vigilant_SmartLabs 439 Eccles_R23_Arch.rvtSITE ACCESS PLAN -PEDESTRIAN, VEHICULARVIGILANT HOLDINGSVIGILANT HOLDINGS 439 ECCLESLAB/OFFICE BUILDING439 ECCLES AVE. SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CA 9408022316G-71961963921/16" = 1'-0"0FEETSCALEPLANNING SUBMISSION 06.09.2023PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 08.11.2023SCALE:1/16" = 1'-0"1DRB SITE ACCESS PLANPLANNING EXHIBIT B01.05.2024373 FS FSFSFS FSFSFS FSFSFS FSFSUPUPUP24'-8 5/8"PROPOSED BUILDING(7 LEVELS, 105' TO HIGHEST OCCUPIED FLOOR LEVEL)PROPOSED PARKING GARAGE(6 LEVELS, 66' TO HIGHEST OCCUPIED FLOOR LEVEL)16'-6"170' - 0"26' Wide Aerial Apparatus, 15'-30' From FacadeLEGEND20' Fire Truck Access RoadHose Pull Length200' HOSE PULL200' HOSE PULLECCLES AVE24'-8 5/8"106' - 0"195' HOSE PULL195' HOSE PULLAerial Access SegmentsParking Garage:120' + 106' = 226'Length of East Facade = 225'Percentage of Facade Coverage = 101%Lab/Office Building:133' + 170' = 303'Length of West Facade = 258'Percentage of Facade Coverage = 117%Hose Pull GapSolid Rated Wall at First LevelRAILS TO TRAILS PATH94' GAPDEAD END120' - 0"Existing HydrantFDCFCCDEAD END150' - 0"PLANNORTHTRUENORTH25'-8"26'-0"262'-8"225'-0"28'-10 1/2"133' - 0"120' - 0"25' - 6"STAMPKEY PLANCLIENTPROJECTADDRESSPROJECT NO.SCALETITLEDGA planning | architecture | interiors2022DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.CONSULTANTSCivil EngineerLandscape Architect255 SHORELINE DR. STE. 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065650.482.6306BKF ENGINEERSPlumbing Engineer25 SAN ANSELMO AVENUESAN ANSELMO, CA 94960415.524.8517 x101STUDIO FIVE DESIGN300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3753AEIElectrical EngineerAEIStructural Engineer1301 FIFTH AVENUE STE 3200SEATTLE, WA 98101206.215.8221MKAAEIMechanical Engineer560 14TH ST. SUITE 300OAKLAND, CA 94612510.473.0300IPD-----300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3706300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3759Parking Garage1/16" = 1'-0"1/4/2024 3:20:52 PM Autodesk Docs://22316 Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Avenue/22316_Vigilant_SmartLabs 439 Eccles_R23_Arch.rvtSITE FIRE ACCESS PLANVIGILANT HOLDINGSVIGILANT HOLDINGS 439 ECCLESLAB/OFFICE BUILDING439 ECCLES AVE. SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CA 9408022316G-81961963921/16" = 1'-0"0FEETSCALESCALE:1/16" = 1'-0"1SITE FIRE ACCESS PLANPLANNING SUBMISSION 06.09.2023PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 08.11.2023PLANNING EXHIBIT B01.05.2024374 STAMP KEY PLAN CLIENT PROJECT ADDRESS PROJECT NO. SCALE TITLE DGA planning | architecture | interiors 2022 DATEDESCRIPTIONNO. CONSULTANTS Civil Engineer Landscape Architect 255 SHORELINE DR. STE. 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065650.482.6306 BKF ENGINEERS Plumbing Engineer 25 SAN ANSELMO AVENUESAN ANSELMO, CA 94960415.524.8517 x101 STUDIO FIVE DESIGN 300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3753 AEI Electrical Engineer AEI Structural Engineer 1301 FIFTH AVENUE STE 3200SEATTLE, WA 98101206.215.8221 MKA AEIMechanical Engineer 560 14TH ST. SUITE 300OAKLAND, CA 94612510.473.0300 IPD - --- - 300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3706 300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3759 Parking Garage VIGILANT HOLDINGS VIGILANT HOLDINGS 439 ECCLESLAB/OFFICE BUILDING 439 ECCLES AVE. SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CA 94080 22316 PLANNING SUBMISSION 06.09.2023 PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 08.11.2023 50% SD 09.06.2023 100% SD 11.10.2023 C100 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN 1"=20' PLANNING EXHIBIT B 01.05.2024 375 STAMP KEY PLAN CLIENT PROJECT ADDRESS PROJECT NO. SCALE TITLE DGA planning | architecture | interiors 2022 DATEDESCRIPTIONNO. CONSULTANTS Civil Engineer Landscape Architect 255 SHORELINE DR. STE. 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065650.482.6306 BKF ENGINEERS Plumbing Engineer 25 SAN ANSELMO AVENUESAN ANSELMO, CA 94960415.524.8517 x101 STUDIO FIVE DESIGN 300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3753 AEI Electrical Engineer AEI Structural Engineer 1301 FIFTH AVENUE STE 3200SEATTLE, WA 98101206.215.8221 MKA AEIMechanical Engineer 560 14TH ST. SUITE 300OAKLAND, CA 94612510.473.0300 IPD - --- - 300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3706 300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3759 Parking Garage VIGILANT HOLDINGS VIGILANT HOLDINGS 439 ECCLESLAB/OFFICE BUILDING 439 ECCLES AVE. SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CA 94080 22316 PLANNING SUBMISSION 06.09.2023 PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 08.11.2023 50% SD 09.06.2023 100% SD 11.10.2023 C300 GRADING PLAN 1"=20' 2 PLANNING EXHIBIT B 01.05.2024 376 STAMP KEY PLAN CLIENT PROJECT ADDRESS PROJECT NO. SCALE TITLE DGA planning | architecture | interiors 2022 DATEDESCRIPTIONNO. CONSULTANTS Civil Engineer Landscape Architect 255 SHORELINE DR. STE. 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065650.482.6306 BKF ENGINEERS Plumbing Engineer 25 SAN ANSELMO AVENUESAN ANSELMO, CA 94960415.524.8517 x101 STUDIO FIVE DESIGN 300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3753 AEI Electrical Engineer AEI Structural Engineer 1301 FIFTH AVENUE STE 3200SEATTLE, WA 98101206.215.8221 MKA AEIMechanical Engineer 560 14TH ST. SUITE 300OAKLAND, CA 94612510.473.0300 IPD - --- - 300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3706 300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3759 Parking Garage VIGILANT HOLDINGS VIGILANT HOLDINGS 439 ECCLESLAB/OFFICE BUILDING 439 ECCLES AVE. SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CA 94080 22316 PLANNING SUBMISSION 06.09.2023 PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 08.11.2023 50% SD 09.06.2023 100% SD 11.10.2023 C400 UTILITY PLAN 1"=20' DGA planning | architecture | interiors 2022 C300 PLANNING EXHIBIT B 01.05.2024 377 STAMP KEY PLAN CLIENT PROJECT ADDRESS PROJECT NO. SCALE TITLE DGA planning | architecture | interiors 2022 DATEDESCRIPTIONNO. CONSULTANTS Civil Engineer Landscape Architect 255 SHORELINE DR. STE. 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065650.482.6306 BKF ENGINEERS Plumbing Engineer 25 SAN ANSELMO AVENUESAN ANSELMO, CA 94960415.524.8517 x101 STUDIO FIVE DESIGN 300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3753 AEI Electrical Engineer AEI Structural Engineer 1301 FIFTH AVENUE STE 3200SEATTLE, WA 98101206.215.8221 MKA AEIMechanical Engineer 560 14TH ST. SUITE 300OAKLAND, CA 94612510.473.0300 IPD - --- - 300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3706 300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3759 Parking Garage VIGILANT HOLDINGS VIGILANT HOLDINGS 439 ECCLESLAB/OFFICE BUILDING 439 ECCLES AVE. SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CA 94080 22316 PLANNING SUBMISSION 06.09.2023 PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 08.11.2023 50% SD 09.06.2023 100% SD 11.10.2023 C500 STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN 1"=20' DGA planning | architecture | interiors 2022 C400 PLANNING EXHIBIT B 01.05.2024 378 CLIENT ADDRESS PROJECT NO. SCALE TITLE DGA planning | architecture | interiors 2022 DATEDESCRIPTIONNO. VIGILANT HOLDINGS PROJECT VIGILANT HOLDINGS 439 ECCLESLAB/OFFICE BUILDING 439 ECCLES AVE. SOUTH SANFRANCISCO 22316 PLANNING SUBMISSION 06.09.2023 STAMP KEY PLAN BKF ENGINEERS 255 SHORELINE DRIVESUITE 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065(650) 482-6300 www.bkf.com PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 08.11.2023 C500 FIRE TRUCK ACCESS PLAN AS SHOWN PLANNING EXHIBIT B 01.05.2024 379 CLIENT ADDRESS PROJECT NO. SCALE TITLE DGA planning | architecture | interiors 2022 DATEDESCRIPTIONNO. VIGILANT HOLDINGS PROJECT VIGILANT HOLDINGS 439 ECCLESLAB/OFFICE BUILDING 439 ECCLES AVE. SOUTH SANFRANCISCO 22316 PLANNING SUBMISSION 06.09.2023 STAMP KEY PLAN BKF ENGINEERS 255 SHORELINE DRIVESUITE 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065(650) 482-6300 www.bkf.com PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 08.11.2023 C600 TRUCK ACCESS PLAN 1"=20' PLANNING EXHIBIT B 01.05.2024 380 CLIENT ADDRESS PROJECT NO. SCALE TITLE DGA planning | architecture | interiors 2022 DATEDESCRIPTIONNO. VIGILANT HOLDINGS PROJECT VIGILANT HOLDINGS 439 ECCLESLAB/OFFICE BUILDING 439 ECCLES AVE. SOUTH SANFRANCISCO 22316 PLANNING SUBMISSION 06.09.2023 STAMP KEY PLAN BKF ENGINEERS 255 SHORELINE DRIVESUITE 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065(650) 482-6300 www.bkf.com PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 08.11.2023 C700 SAN MATEO COUNTY BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AS SHOWN PLANNING EXHIBIT B 01.05.2024 381 STAMPKEY PLANCLIENTPROJECTADDRESSPROJECT NO.SCALETITLEDGA planning | architecture | interiors2022DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.CONSULTANTSCivil EngineerLandscape Architect255 SHORELINE DR. STE. 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065650.482.6306BKF ENGINEERSPlumbing Engineer25 SAN ANSELMO AVENUESAN ANSELMO, CA 94960415.524.8517 x101STUDIO FIVE DESIGN300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3753AEIElectrical EngineerAEIStructural Engineer1301 FIFTH AVENUE STE 3200SEATTLE, WA 98101206.215.8221MKAAEIMechanical Engineer560 14TH ST. SUITE 300OAKLAND, CA 94612510.473.0300IPD-----300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3706300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3759Parking Garage11/2/2023 10:15:36 AM Autodesk Docs://22316 Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Avenue/22316_Vigilant_SmartLabs 439 Eccles_R23_Arch.rvt VIGILANT HOLDINGSVIGILANT HOLDINGS 439 ECCLESLAB/OFFICE BUILDING439 ECCLES AVE. SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CA 9408022316XX000PLANNING SUBMISSION06.09.2023PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 08.11.202350% SD09.06.2023100% SD11.10.2023L001ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN1 1/16" = 1'-0"10' 20'40'0'LIMIT OF WORK LIMIT OF WORKECCLES AVESERVICE DRIVE PLANNING EXHIBIT B01.05.2024382 MATERIAL SCHEDULEPAVING, HEADERSSITE FURNISHINGSLIGHTINGSTAMPKEY PLANCLIENTPROJECTADDRESSPROJECT NO.SCALETITLEDGA planning | architecture | interiors2022DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.CONSULTANTSCivil EngineerLandscape Architect255 SHORELINE DR. STE. 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065650.482.6306BKF ENGINEERSPlumbing Engineer25 SAN ANSELMO AVENUESAN ANSELMO, CA 94960415.524.8517 x101STUDIO FIVE DESIGN300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3753AEIElectrical EngineerAEIStructural Engineer1301 FIFTH AVENUE STE 3200SEATTLE, WA 98101206.215.8221MKAAEIMechanical Engineer560 14TH ST. SUITE 300OAKLAND, CA 94612510.473.0300IPD-----300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3706300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3759Parking Garage11/2/2023 10:15:36 AM Autodesk Docs://22316 Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Avenue/22316_Vigilant_SmartLabs 439 Eccles_R23_Arch.rvt VIGILANT HOLDINGSVIGILANT HOLDINGS 439 ECCLESLAB/OFFICE BUILDING439 ECCLES AVE. SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CA 9408022316XX000PLANNING SUBMISSION06.09.2023PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 08.11.202350% SD09.06.2023100% SD11.10.2023L002PLANNING EXHIBIT B01.05.2024383 PLANT SCHEDULEQUE AGRCHI RETMAY BORACE RUBLAU NOBARB MARLAG PATQUE VIRTRI LAUTREESCER OCCGLE TRISHRUBS, PERENNIALS, SUCCULENTS, CON'T.ORNAMENTAL GRASSES, RUSHES, GROUNDCOVERAPMALOAAAEOAZARSBPPCJCCABECGLHMHQPLSWMCOELPCNAUCSGAVBYGCHTCPLLBLPSASMCTSMEBGSHRUBS, PERENNIALS, SUCCULENTSHACHHPIBPLROPBMGJPLA RACEPABJSTAMPKEY PLANCLIENTPROJECTADDRESSPROJECT NO.SCALETITLEDGA planning | architecture | interiors2022DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.CONSULTANTSCivil EngineerLandscape Architect255 SHORELINE DR. STE. 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065650.482.6306BKF ENGINEERSPlumbing Engineer25 SAN ANSELMO AVENUESAN ANSELMO, CA 94960415.524.8517 x101STUDIO FIVE DESIGN300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3753AEIElectrical EngineerAEIStructural Engineer1301 FIFTH AVENUE STE 3200SEATTLE, WA 98101206.215.8221MKAAEIMechanical Engineer560 14TH ST. SUITE 300OAKLAND, CA 94612510.473.0300IPD-----300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3706300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3759Parking Garage11/2/2023 10:15:36 AM Autodesk Docs://22316 Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Avenue/22316_Vigilant_SmartLabs 439 Eccles_R23_Arch.rvt VIGILANT HOLDINGSVIGILANT HOLDINGS 439 ECCLESLAB/OFFICE BUILDING439 ECCLES AVE. SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CA 9408022316XX000PLANNING SUBMISSION06.09.2023PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 08.11.202350% SD09.06.2023100% SD11.10.2023L-003ACDRWFAPJPLANNING EXHIBIT B01.05.2024384 GLE TRI36GLE TRI36GLE TRI36GLE TRI36GLE TRI36GLE TRI36GLE TRI36QUE VIR36QUE AGR36QUE AGR36QUE AGR36QUE VIR36CHI RET36CHI RET36CHI RET36CHI RET36QUE VIR36GLE TRI36QUE VIR36QUE VIR36QUE VIR36LAU NOB24LAU NOB24LAU NOB24LAU NOB24LAU NOB24LAU NOB24QUE AGR36TRI CON24TRI CON24TRI CON24TRI CON24TRI CON24TRI CON24TRI CON24TRI CON24MAG GRA36MAG GRA36MAG GRA36MAG GRA36MAG GRA36MAG GRA36MAG GRA36MAG GRA36MAG GRA36MAG GRA36QUE VIR36QUE VIR36QUE AGR36QUE VIR36LAU NOB24LAU NOB24LAU NOB24#1#4#2#3TREE DISPOSITION PLAN"PROTECTED" TREE TO BE REMOVED"NON-PROTECTED" TREE TO BE REMOVED04*NOTE:SEE SHEET L006 FOR TREE DISPOSITION DETAILSTREES TO REMAINTREE SUMMARY0PROTECTED TREES TO REMAIN0 1/16" = 1'-0"10' 20'40'0'STAMPKEY PLANCLIENTPROJECTADDRESSPROJECT NO.SCALETITLEDGA planning | architecture | interiors2022DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.CONSULTANTSCivil EngineerLandscape Architect255 SHORELINE DR. STE. 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065650.482.6306BKF ENGINEERSPlumbing Engineer25 SAN ANSELMO AVENUESAN ANSELMO, CA 94960415.524.8517 x101STUDIO FIVE DESIGN300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3753AEIElectrical EngineerAEIStructural Engineer1301 FIFTH AVENUE STE 3200SEATTLE, WA 98101206.215.8221MKAAEIMechanical Engineer560 14TH ST. SUITE 300OAKLAND, CA 94612510.473.0300IPD-----300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3706300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3759Parking Garage11/2/2023 10:15:36 AM Autodesk Docs://22316 Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Avenue/22316_Vigilant_SmartLabs 439 Eccles_R23_Arch.rvt VIGILANT HOLDINGSVIGILANT HOLDINGS 439 ECCLESLAB/OFFICE BUILDING439 ECCLES AVE. SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CA 9408022316XX000PLANNING SUBMISSION06.09.2023PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 08.11.202350% SD09.06.2023100% SD11.10.2023L005PLANNING EXHIBIT B01.05.2024385 ”1234TREE DISPOSITIONDETAILS & SCHEDULE5TREE REMOVAL SCHEDULESTAMPKEY PLANCLIENTPROJECTADDRESSPROJECT NO.SCALETITLEDGA planning | architecture | interiors2022DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.CONSULTANTSCivil EngineerLandscape Architect255 SHORELINE DR. STE. 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065650.482.6306BKF ENGINEERSPlumbing Engineer25 SAN ANSELMO AVENUESAN ANSELMO, CA 94960415.524.8517 x101STUDIO FIVE DESIGN300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3753AEIElectrical EngineerAEIStructural Engineer1301 FIFTH AVENUE STE 3200SEATTLE, WA 98101206.215.8221MKAAEIMechanical Engineer560 14TH ST. SUITE 300OAKLAND, CA 94612510.473.0300IPD-----300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3706300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3759Parking Garage11/2/2023 10:15:36 AM Autodesk Docs://22316 Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Avenue/22316_Vigilant_SmartLabs 439 Eccles_R23_Arch.rvt VIGILANT HOLDINGSVIGILANT HOLDINGS 439 ECCLESLAB/OFFICE BUILDING439 ECCLES AVE. SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CA 9408022316XX000PLANNING SUBMISSION06.09.2023PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 08.11.202350% SD09.06.2023100% SD11.10.2023L006PLANNING EXHIBIT B01.05.2024386 1/16" = 1'-0"10'20'40'0'STAMPKEY PLANCLIENTPROJECTADDRESSPROJECT NO.SCALETITLEDGA planning | architecture | interiors2022DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.CONSULTANTSCivil EngineerLandscape Architect255 SHORELINE DR. STE. 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065650.482.6306BKF ENGINEERSPlumbing Engineer25 SAN ANSELMO AVENUESAN ANSELMO, CA 94960415.524.8517 x101STUDIO FIVE DESIGN300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3753AEIElectrical EngineerAEIStructural Engineer1301 FIFTH AVENUE STE 3200SEATTLE, WA 98101206.215.8221MKAAEIMechanical Engineer560 14TH ST. SUITE 300OAKLAND, CA 94612510.473.0300IPD-----300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3706300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3759Parking Garage11/2/2023 10:15:36 AM Autodesk Docs://22316 Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Avenue/22316_Vigilant_SmartLabs 439 Eccles_R23_Arch.rvt VIGILANT HOLDINGSVIGILANT HOLDINGS 439 ECCLESLAB/OFFICE BUILDING439 ECCLES AVE. SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CA 9408022316XX000PLANNING SUBMISSION06.09.2023PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 08.11.202350% SD09.06.2023100% SD11.10.2023L100MATERIAL PLANPLANNING EXHIBIT B01.05.2024387 PLANTING PLAN1LIMIT OF WORK LIMIT OF WORK 1/16" = 1'-0"10' 20'40'0'STAMPKEY PLANCLIENTPROJECTADDRESSPROJECT NO.SCALETITLEDGA planning | architecture | interiors2022DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.CONSULTANTSCivil EngineerLandscape Architect255 SHORELINE DR. STE. 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065650.482.6306BKF ENGINEERSPlumbing Engineer25 SAN ANSELMO AVENUESAN ANSELMO, CA 94960415.524.8517 x101STUDIO FIVE DESIGN300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3753AEIElectrical EngineerAEIStructural Engineer1301 FIFTH AVENUE STE 3200SEATTLE, WA 98101206.215.8221MKAAEIMechanical Engineer560 14TH ST. SUITE 300OAKLAND, CA 94612510.473.0300IPD-----300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3706300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3759Parking Garage11/2/2023 10:15:36 AM Autodesk Docs://22316 Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Avenue/22316_Vigilant_SmartLabs 439 Eccles_R23_Arch.rvt VIGILANT HOLDINGSVIGILANT HOLDINGS 439 ECCLESLAB/OFFICE BUILDING439 ECCLES AVE. SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CA 9408022316XX000PLANNING SUBMISSION06.09.2023PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 08.11.202350% SD09.06.2023100% SD11.10.2023L200ECCLES AVESERVICE DRIVE PLANNING EXHIBIT B01.05.2024388 CLIENT ADDRESS PROJECT NO. SCALE TITLE DGA planning | architecture | interiors 2022 DATEDESCRIPTIONNO. VIGILANT HOLDINGS PROJECT VIGILANT HOLDINGS 439 ECCLESLAB/OFFICE BUILDING 439 ECCLES AVE. SOUTH SANFRANCISCO 22316 PLANNING SUBMISSION 06.09.2023 STAMP KEY PLAN BKF ENGINEERS 255 SHORELINE DRIVESUITE 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065(650) 482-6300 www.bkf.com PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 08.11.2023 C700 SAN MATEO COUNTY BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AS SHOWN PLANNING EXHIBIT B 01.05.2024 389 UP1ABCDEFGHK234LJFUTURE TENANT1AE-14_________1AE-15_________51' - 0"44' - 0"51' - 0"146' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"2' - 10 1/2"PLANNORTHTRUENORTHMSTAIR 2253' - 0"STORAGESTAIR 2 VESTP ELEV. LOBBYP ELEV.P. ELEV.P. ELEV.ELECTRICALTELE/DATAMENWOMENSERVICE LOBBYSERVICE LOBBYS ELEVSTAIR 2 VEST STAIR 3STAMPKEY PLANCLIENTPROJECTADDRESSPROJECT NO.SCALETITLEDGA planning | architecture | interiors2022DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.CONSULTANTSCivil EngineerLandscape Architect255 SHORELINE DR. STE. 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065650.482.6306BKF ENGINEERSPlumbing Engineer25 SAN ANSELMO AVENUESAN ANSELMO, CA 94960415.524.8517 x101STUDIO FIVE DESIGN300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3753AEIElectrical EngineerAEIStructural Engineer1301 FIFTH AVENUE STE 3200SEATTLE, WA 98101206.215.8221MKAAEIMechanical Engineer560 14TH ST. SUITE 300OAKLAND, CA 94612510.473.0300IPD-----300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3706300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3759Parking Garage3/32" = 1'-0"1/4/2024 3:20:52 PM Autodesk Docs://22316 Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Avenue/22316_Vigilant_SmartLabs 439 Eccles_R23_Arch.rvtB1 FLOOR PLANVIGILANT HOLDINGSVIGILANT HOLDINGS 439 ECCLESLAB/OFFICE BUILDING439 ECCLES AVE. SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CA 9408022316AE-0SCALE:3/32" = 1'-0"1BASEMENT FLOOR OVERALL PLANPLANNING SUBMISSION 06.09.2023PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 08.11.2023PLANNING EXHIBIT B01.05.2024390 TTTTTTUPUPUP__________AE-101__________AE-111__________AE-1311ABCDEFGHK234LJ__________AE-121GENERATORLOADING DOCK51' - 0"44' - 0"51' - 0"146' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"1AE-14_________1AE-15_________TRUENORTHGENERATORM253' - 0"19' - 4 1/8"FIRE COMMANDCENTERPLUMBING1' - 6"TRASHMAIN ELECTRICALFUTURE TENANTFIRE PUMPLOBBYFUTURE TENANTSHAFTFOOD ANDBEVERAGEBOX TRUCKSERVICE LOBBYSHAFTS ELEV30' - 0"40' - 4"EMERGENCYELECTRICAL46' - 8 1/2"46' - 8 1/2"SCIZZOR LIFTBOX TRUCKBOX TRUCKWB-40 TRUCKSTAIR 2STAIR 3STAIR 3 VESTGEN. EXHAUSTELECTRICALTELE/DATAMENWOMENSTAIR 1P ELEV. LOBBYSTORAGEP ELEV.P. ELEV.SHAFTP. ELEV.MEDIUM VOLTAGESWITCHGEARSTAMPKEY PLANCLIENTPROJECTADDRESSPROJECT NO.SCALETITLEDGA planning | architecture | interiors2022DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.CONSULTANTSCivil EngineerLandscape Architect255 SHORELINE DR. STE. 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065650.482.6306BKF ENGINEERSPlumbing Engineer25 SAN ANSELMO AVENUESAN ANSELMO, CA 94960415.524.8517 x101STUDIO FIVE DESIGN300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3753AEIElectrical EngineerAEIStructural Engineer1301 FIFTH AVENUE STE 3200SEATTLE, WA 98101206.215.8221MKAAEIMechanical Engineer560 14TH ST. SUITE 300OAKLAND, CA 94612510.473.0300IPD-----300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3706300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3759Parking Garage3/32" = 1'-0"1/4/2024 3:20:53 PM Autodesk Docs://22316 Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Avenue/22316_Vigilant_SmartLabs 439 Eccles_R23_Arch.rvtFIRST FLOOR PLANVIGILANT HOLDINGSVIGILANT HOLDINGS 439 ECCLESLAB/OFFICE BUILDING439 ECCLES AVE. SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CA 9408022316AE-1SCALE:3/32" = 1'-0"1FIRST FLOOR OVERALL PLANPLANNING SUBMISSION 06.09.2023PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 08.11.2023PLANNING EXHIBIT B01.05.2024391 TUPUPUPUP__________AE-101__________AE-111__________AE-1311ABCDEFGHK234LJ__________AE-12151' - 0"44' - 0"51' - 0"146' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"253' - 0"1AE-14_________1AE-15_________PLANNORTHTRUENORTHMFUTURE TENANTELECTRICALTELE/DATAMENWOMENSHAFTS ELEV. LOBBYS ELEV. LOBBYS ELEVSTAIR 3STAIR 2 VESTP. ELEV.P ELEV.P. ELEV.P ELEV. LOBBYSHAFTSTAIR 1 VESTSTAIR 1STORAGESTAIR 1 VEST STAIR 2STORAGESHAFTSTAMPKEY PLANCLIENTPROJECTADDRESSPROJECT NO.SCALETITLEDGA planning | architecture | interiors2022DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.CONSULTANTSCivil EngineerLandscape Architect255 SHORELINE DR. STE. 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065650.482.6306BKF ENGINEERSPlumbing Engineer25 SAN ANSELMO AVENUESAN ANSELMO, CA 94960415.524.8517 x101STUDIO FIVE DESIGN300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3753AEIElectrical EngineerAEIStructural Engineer1301 FIFTH AVENUE STE 3200SEATTLE, WA 98101206.215.8221MKAAEIMechanical Engineer560 14TH ST. SUITE 300OAKLAND, CA 94612510.473.0300IPD-----300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3706300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3759Parking Garage3/32" = 1'-0"1/4/2024 3:20:54 PM Autodesk Docs://22316 Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Avenue/22316_Vigilant_SmartLabs 439 Eccles_R23_Arch.rvtSECOND FLOOR PLANVIGILANT HOLDINGSVIGILANT HOLDINGS 439 ECCLESLAB/OFFICE BUILDING439 ECCLES AVE. SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CA 9408022316AE-2SCALE:3/32" = 1'-0"1SECOND FLOOR OVERALL PLANPLANNING SUBMISSION 06.09.2023PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 08.11.2023PLANNING EXHIBIT B01.05.2024392 TUPUP__________AE-101__________AE-111__________AE-1311AABBCCDDEEFFGGHHKK234LLJJ__________AE-121FUTURE TENANT51' - 0"44' - 0"51' - 0"146' - 0"1AE-14_________1AE-15_________146' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"PLANNORTHTRUENORTHMM253' - 0"BALCONYSERVICE LOBBYSHAFTSTAIR 1 VESTELECTRICALTELE/DATASTAIR 1 VESTSERVICE LOBBY5' - 0"253' - 0"ELEVATOR LOBBYP. ELEV.STORAGESHAFTSTAIR 1STORAGESTAIR 2SHAFTWOMENMENS ELEVSTAIR 2 VEST STAIR 3STAMPKEY PLANCLIENTPROJECTADDRESSPROJECT NO.SCALETITLEDGA planning | architecture | interiors2022DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.CONSULTANTSCivil EngineerLandscape Architect255 SHORELINE DR. STE. 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065650.482.6306BKF ENGINEERSPlumbing Engineer25 SAN ANSELMO AVENUESAN ANSELMO, CA 94960415.524.8517 x101STUDIO FIVE DESIGN300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3753AEIElectrical EngineerAEIStructural Engineer1301 FIFTH AVENUE STE 3200SEATTLE, WA 98101206.215.8221MKAAEIMechanical Engineer560 14TH ST. SUITE 300OAKLAND, CA 94612510.473.0300IPD-----300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3706300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3759Parking Garage3/32" = 1'-0"1/4/2024 3:20:55 PM Autodesk Docs://22316 Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Avenue/22316_Vigilant_SmartLabs 439 Eccles_R23_Arch.rvtTHIRD FLOOR PLANVIGILANT HOLDINGSVIGILANT HOLDINGS 439 ECCLESLAB/OFFICE BUILDING439 ECCLES AVE. SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CA 9408022316AE-3SCALE:3/32" = 1'-0"1THIRD FLOOR OVERALL PLANPLANNING SUBMISSION 06.09.2023PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 08.11.2023PLANNING EXHIBIT B01.05.2024393 UPUP__________AE-101__________AE-111__________AE-1311ABCDEFGHK234LJ__________AE-121?AMENITY - BALCONY51' - 0"44' - 0"51' - 0"146' - 0"1AE-14_________1AE-15_________51' - 0"44' - 0"51' - 0"146' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"253' - 0"PLANNORTHTRUENORTHMSERVICE LOBBY SERVICE LOBBYSHAFTELECTRICALTELE/DATAMENWOMENSHAFTS ELEVSTAIR 3STAIR 3 VESTSTORAGEP ELEV.P. ELEV.P. ELEV.SHAFTSTAIR 1 VESTSTORAGESTAIR 2STAIR 1 VESTFUTURE TENANTSTAMPKEY PLANCLIENTPROJECTADDRESSPROJECT NO.SCALETITLEDGA planning | architecture | interiors2022DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.CONSULTANTSCivil EngineerLandscape Architect255 SHORELINE DR. STE. 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065650.482.6306BKF ENGINEERSPlumbing Engineer25 SAN ANSELMO AVENUESAN ANSELMO, CA 94960415.524.8517 x101STUDIO FIVE DESIGN300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3753AEIElectrical EngineerAEIStructural Engineer1301 FIFTH AVENUE STE 3200SEATTLE, WA 98101206.215.8221MKAAEIMechanical Engineer560 14TH ST. SUITE 300OAKLAND, CA 94612510.473.0300IPD-----300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3706300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3759Parking Garage3/32" = 1'-0"1/4/2024 3:20:56 PM Autodesk Docs://22316 Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Avenue/22316_Vigilant_SmartLabs 439 Eccles_R23_Arch.rvtFOURTH FLOOR PLANVIGILANT HOLDINGSVIGILANT HOLDINGS 439 ECCLESLAB/OFFICE BUILDING439 ECCLES AVE. SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CA 9408022316AE-4SCALE:3/32" = 1'-0"1FOURTH FLOOR OVERALL PLANPLANNING SUBMISSION 06.09.2023PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 08.11.2023PLANNING EXHIBIT B01.05.2024394 TTUPUP__________AE-101__________AE-111__________AE-1311ABCDEFGHK234LJ__________AE-121FUTURE TENANTAMENITY - BALCONY51' - 0"44' - 0"51' - 0"146' - 0"1AE-14_________1AE-15_________51' - 0"44' - 0"51' - 0"146' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"253' - 0"PLANNORTHTRUENORTHMELECTRICALTELE/DATAMENWOMENSHAFTSTAIR 2STAIR 1P. ELEV.P ELEV.P. ELEV.SHAFTSHAFTS ELEVSTAIR 3STAMPKEY PLANCLIENTPROJECTADDRESSPROJECT NO.SCALETITLEDGA planning | architecture | interiors2022DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.CONSULTANTSCivil EngineerLandscape Architect255 SHORELINE DR. STE. 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065650.482.6306BKF ENGINEERSPlumbing Engineer25 SAN ANSELMO AVENUESAN ANSELMO, CA 94960415.524.8517 x101STUDIO FIVE DESIGN300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3753AEIElectrical EngineerAEIStructural Engineer1301 FIFTH AVENUE STE 3200SEATTLE, WA 98101206.215.8221MKAAEIMechanical Engineer560 14TH ST. SUITE 300OAKLAND, CA 94612510.473.0300IPD-----300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3706300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3759Parking Garage3/32" = 1'-0"1/4/2024 3:20:56 PM Autodesk Docs://22316 Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Avenue/22316_Vigilant_SmartLabs 439 Eccles_R23_Arch.rvtFIFTH FLOOR PLANVIGILANT HOLDINGSVIGILANT HOLDINGS 439 ECCLESLAB/OFFICE BUILDING439 ECCLES AVE. SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CA 9408022316AE-5SCALE:3/32" = 1'-0"1FIFTH FLOOR OVERALL PLANPLANNING SUBMISSION 06.09.2023PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 08.11.2023PLANNING EXHIBIT B01.05.2024395 UPUP__________AE-101__________AE-111__________AE-1311ABCDEFGHK234LJ__________AE-121AMENITY - BALCONY51' - 0"44' - 0"51' - 0"146' - 0"1AE-14_________1AE-15_________51' - 0"44' - 0"51' - 0"146' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"253' - 0"PLANNORTHTRUENORTHMSTAIR 3S ELEVSHAFTFUTURE TENANTELECTRICALTELE/DATAWOMENMENSHAFTSTAIR 2STAIR 1P ELEV.P. ELEV.P. ELEV.SHAFTSTAMPKEY PLANCLIENTPROJECTADDRESSPROJECT NO.SCALETITLEDGA planning | architecture | interiors2022DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.CONSULTANTSCivil EngineerLandscape Architect255 SHORELINE DR. STE. 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065650.482.6306BKF ENGINEERSPlumbing Engineer25 SAN ANSELMO AVENUESAN ANSELMO, CA 94960415.524.8517 x101STUDIO FIVE DESIGN300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3753AEIElectrical EngineerAEIStructural Engineer1301 FIFTH AVENUE STE 3200SEATTLE, WA 98101206.215.8221MKAAEIMechanical Engineer560 14TH ST. SUITE 300OAKLAND, CA 94612510.473.0300IPD-----300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3706300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3759Parking Garage3/32" = 1'-0"1/4/2024 3:20:58 PM Autodesk Docs://22316 Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Avenue/22316_Vigilant_SmartLabs 439 Eccles_R23_Arch.rvtSIXTH FLOOR PLANVIGILANT HOLDINGSVIGILANT HOLDINGS 439 ECCLESLAB/OFFICE BUILDING439 ECCLES AVE. SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CA 9408022316AE-6SCALE:3/32" = 1'-0"1SIXTH FLOOR OVERALL PLANPLANNING SUBMISSION 06.09.2023PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 08.11.2023PLANNING EXHIBIT B01.05.2024396 TTUPUP__________AE-101__________AE-111__________AE-1311ABCDEFGHK234LJ__________AE-121FUTURE TENANTAMENITY - BALCONY51' - 0"44' - 0"51' - 0"146' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"253' - 0"1AE-14_________1AE-15_________51' - 0"44' - 0"51' - 0"146' - 0"PLANNORTHTRUENORTHMELECTRICALTELE/DATAMENWOMENSHAFTSTAIR 2STAIR 1P. ELEV.SHAFTP ELEV.P. ELEV.SHAFTS ELEVSTAIR 3P. ELEV. LOBBYSTAMPKEY PLANCLIENTPROJECTADDRESSPROJECT NO.SCALETITLEDGA planning | architecture | interiors2022DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.CONSULTANTSCivil EngineerLandscape Architect255 SHORELINE DR. STE. 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065650.482.6306BKF ENGINEERSPlumbing Engineer25 SAN ANSELMO AVENUESAN ANSELMO, CA 94960415.524.8517 x101STUDIO FIVE DESIGN300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3753AEIElectrical EngineerAEIStructural Engineer1301 FIFTH AVENUE STE 3200SEATTLE, WA 98101206.215.8221MKAAEIMechanical Engineer560 14TH ST. SUITE 300OAKLAND, CA 94612510.473.0300IPD-----300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3706300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3759Parking Garage3/32" = 1'-0"1/4/2024 3:21:00 PM Autodesk Docs://22316 Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Avenue/22316_Vigilant_SmartLabs 439 Eccles_R23_Arch.rvtSEVENTH FLOOR PLANVIGILANT HOLDINGSVIGILANT HOLDINGS 439 ECCLESLAB/OFFICE BUILDING439 ECCLES AVE. SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CA 9408022316AE-7SCALE:3/32" = 1'-0"1SEVENTH FLOOR OVERALL PLANPLANNING SUBMISSION 06.09.2023PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 08.11.2023PLANNING EXHIBIT B01.05.2024397 BFPBFP1ABCDEFGHK234LJ1AE-14_________1AE-15_________51' - 0"44' - 0"51' - 0"146' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"23' - 0"253' - 0"PLANNORTHTRUENORTHMROOF SCREENEDGE OF ROOFSTAMPKEY PLANCLIENTPROJECTADDRESSPROJECT NO.SCALETITLEDGA planning | architecture | interiors2022DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.CONSULTANTSCivil EngineerLandscape Architect255 SHORELINE DR. STE. 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065650.482.6306BKF ENGINEERSPlumbing Engineer25 SAN ANSELMO AVENUESAN ANSELMO, CA 94960415.524.8517 x101STUDIO FIVE DESIGN300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3753AEIElectrical EngineerAEIStructural Engineer1301 FIFTH AVENUE STE 3200SEATTLE, WA 98101206.215.8221MKAAEIMechanical Engineer560 14TH ST. SUITE 300OAKLAND, CA 94612510.473.0300IPD-----300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3706300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3759Parking Garage3/32" = 1'-0"1/4/2024 3:21:00 PM Autodesk Docs://22316 Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Avenue/22316_Vigilant_SmartLabs 439 Eccles_R23_Arch.rvtROOF PLANVIGILANT HOLDINGSVIGILANT HOLDINGS 439 ECCLESLAB/OFFICE BUILDING439 ECCLES AVE. SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CA 9408022316AE-8SCALE:3/32" = 1'-0"1ROOF PLAN OVERALL PLANPLANNING SUBMISSION 06.09.2023PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 08.11.2023PLANNING EXHIBIT B01.05.2024398 LEVEL 1100' -0"LEVEL 2120' -0"ROOF222' -0"T.O. SCREEN246' -0"LEVEL 3137' -0"LEVEL 4154' -0"LEVEL 5171' -0"LEVEL 6188' -0"LEVEL 7205' -0"16327101135131. CURTAINWALL SYSTEM WITH HIGH PERFORMANCE INSULATED TINTED GLAZING UNITS. INCLUDE BIRD FRIT UP TO 60' FROM GROUND LEVEL2. COMPOSITE PANEL RAINSCREEN SYSTEM (DARK GREY)3. CURTAINWALL SYSTEM WITH HIGH PERFORMANCE INSULATED SPANDREL GLAZING UNITS4. FLUTED METAL PANEL BALCONY BASE5. PREFINISHED METAL PANEL COLUMN SURROUNDS6. ROOF SCREEN SYSTEM WITH PREFINISHED FLUTED METAL PANELS OR LOUVERS7. PREFINISHED ALUMINUM FINS8. COMPOSITE PANEL RAINSCREEN SYSTEM (MEDIUM GREY)9. TEMPERED GLASS GUARDRAIL AND WINDSCREEN. INCLUDE BIRD FRIT UP TO 60' FROM GROUND LEVEL.10.LOUVERS AT GENERATOR ROOMS11.ROLL-UP METAL DOORS AT TRUCK DOCKS12.HIGH DENSITY EXTERIOR PANEL WITH WOOD LIKE APPEARANCE13.PROFILED HORIZONTAL METAL REVEALMATERIAL LEGEND:STAMPKEY PLANCLIENTPROJECTADDRESSPROJECT NO.SCALETITLEDGA planning | architecture | interiors2022DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.CONSULTANTSCivil EngineerLandscape Architect255 SHORELINE DR. STE. 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065650.482.6306BKF ENGINEERSPlumbing Engineer25 SAN ANSELMO AVENUESAN ANSELMO, CA 94960415.524.8517 x101STUDIO FIVE DESIGN300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3753AEIElectrical EngineerAEIStructural Engineer1301 FIFTH AVENUE STE 3200SEATTLE, WA 98101206.215.8221MKAAEIMechanical Engineer560 14TH ST. SUITE 300OAKLAND, CA 94612510.473.0300IPD-----300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3706300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3759Parking Garage3/32" = 1'-0"1/4/2024 3:22:09 PM Autodesk Docs://22316 Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Avenue/22316_Vigilant_SmartLabs 439 Eccles_R23_Arch.rvtEAST ELEVATIONVIGILANT HOLDINGSVIGILANT HOLDINGS 439 ECCLESLAB/OFFICE BUILDING439 ECCLES AVE. SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CA 9408022316AE-10PLANNING SUBMISSION 06.09.2023PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 08.11.2023PLANNING EXHIBIT B01.05.2024399 LEVEL 1100' -0"LEVEL 2120' -0"ROOF222' -0"T.O. SCREEN246' -0"LEVEL 3137' -0"LEVEL 4154' -0"LEVEL 5171' -0"LEVEL 6188' -0"LEVEL 7205' -0"16327958PARKING GARAGE43131. CURTAINWALL SYSTEM WITH HIGH PERFORMANCE INSULATED TINTED GLAZING UNITS. INCLUDE BIRD FRIT UP TO 60' FROM GROUND LEVEL2. COMPOSITE PANEL RAINSCREEN SYSTEM (DARK GREY)3. CURTAINWALL SYSTEM WITH HIGH PERFORMANCE INSULATED SPANDREL GLAZING UNITS4. FLUTED METAL PANEL BALCONY BASE5. PREFINISHED METAL PANEL COLUMN SURROUNDS6. ROOF SCREEN SYSTEM WITH PREFINISHED FLUTED METAL PANELS OR LOUVERS7. PREFINISHED ALUMINUM FINS8. COMPOSITE PANEL RAINSCREEN SYSTEM (MEDIUM GREY)9. TEMPERED GLASS GUARDRAIL AND WINDSCREEN. INCLUDE BIRD FRIT UP TO 60' FROM GROUND LEVEL.10.LOUVERS AT GENERATOR ROOMS11.ROLL-UP METAL DOORS AT TRUCK DOCKS12.HIGH DENSITY EXTERIOR PANEL WITH WOOD LIKE APPEARANCE13.PROFILED HORIZONTAL METAL REVEALMATERIAL LEGEND:STAMPKEY PLANCLIENTPROJECTADDRESSPROJECT NO.SCALETITLEDGA planning | architecture | interiors2022DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.CONSULTANTSCivil EngineerLandscape Architect255 SHORELINE DR. STE. 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065650.482.6306BKF ENGINEERSPlumbing Engineer25 SAN ANSELMO AVENUESAN ANSELMO, CA 94960415.524.8517 x101STUDIO FIVE DESIGN300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3753AEIElectrical EngineerAEIStructural Engineer1301 FIFTH AVENUE STE 3200SEATTLE, WA 98101206.215.8221MKAAEIMechanical Engineer560 14TH ST. SUITE 300OAKLAND, CA 94612510.473.0300IPD-----300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3706300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3759Parking Garage3/32" = 1'-0"1/4/2024 3:23:18 PM Autodesk Docs://22316 Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Avenue/22316_Vigilant_SmartLabs 439 Eccles_R23_Arch.rvtSOUTH ELEVATIONVIGILANT HOLDINGSVIGILANT HOLDINGS 439 ECCLESLAB/OFFICE BUILDING439 ECCLES AVE. SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CA 9408022316AE-11PLANNING SUBMISSION 06.09.2023PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 08.11.2023PLANNING EXHIBIT B01.05.2024400 LEVEL 1100' -0"LEVEL 2120' -0"ROOF222' -0"T.O. SCREEN246' -0"LEVEL 3137' -0"LEVEL 4154' -0"LEVEL 5171' -0"LEVEL 6188' -0"LEVEL 7205' -0"163948812135123421. CURTAINWALL SYSTEM WITH HIGH PERFORMANCE INSULATED TINTED GLAZING UNITS. INCLUDE BIRD FRIT UP TO 60' FROM GROUND LEVEL2. COMPOSITE PANEL RAINSCREEN SYSTEM (DARK GREY)3. CURTAINWALL SYSTEM WITH HIGH PERFORMANCE INSULATED SPANDREL GLAZING UNITS4. FLUTED METAL PANEL BALCONY BASE5. PREFINISHED METAL PANEL COLUMN SURROUNDS6. ROOF SCREEN SYSTEM WITH PREFINISHED FLUTED METAL PANELS OR LOUVERS7. PREFINISHED ALUMINUM FINS8. COMPOSITE PANEL RAINSCREEN SYSTEM (MEDIUM GREY)9. TEMPERED GLASS GUARDRAIL AND WINDSCREEN. INCLUDE BIRD FRIT UP TO 60' FROM GROUND LEVEL.10.LOUVERS AT GENERATOR ROOMS11.ROLL-UP METAL DOORS AT TRUCK DOCKS12.HIGH DENSITY EXTERIOR PANEL WITH WOOD LIKE APPEARANCE13.PROFILED HORIZONTAL METAL REVEALMATERIAL LEGEND:STAMPKEY PLANCLIENTPROJECTADDRESSPROJECT NO.SCALETITLEDGA planning | architecture | interiors2022DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.CONSULTANTSCivil EngineerLandscape Architect255 SHORELINE DR. STE. 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065650.482.6306BKF ENGINEERSPlumbing Engineer25 SAN ANSELMO AVENUESAN ANSELMO, CA 94960415.524.8517 x101STUDIO FIVE DESIGN300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3753AEIElectrical EngineerAEIStructural Engineer1301 FIFTH AVENUE STE 3200SEATTLE, WA 98101206.215.8221MKAAEIMechanical Engineer560 14TH ST. SUITE 300OAKLAND, CA 94612510.473.0300IPD-----300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3706300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3759Parking Garage3/32" = 1'-0"1/4/2024 3:24:27 PM Autodesk Docs://22316 Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Avenue/22316_Vigilant_SmartLabs 439 Eccles_R23_Arch.rvtWEST ELEVATIONVIGILANT HOLDINGSVIGILANT HOLDINGS 439 ECCLESLAB/OFFICE BUILDING439 ECCLES AVE. SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CA 9408022316AE-12PLANNING SUBMISSION 06.09.2023PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 08.11.2023PLANNING EXHIBIT B01.05.2024401 LEVEL 1100' -0"LEVEL 2120' -0"ROOF222' -0"T.O. SCREEN246' -0"LEVEL 3137' -0"LEVEL 4154' -0"LEVEL 5171' -0"LEVEL 6188' -0"LEVEL 7205' -0"1638485PARKING GARAGE20' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"24' - 0"2713101. CURTAINWALL SYSTEM WITH HIGH PERFORMANCE INSULATED TINTED GLAZING UNITS. INCLUDE BIRD FRIT UP TO 60' FROM GROUND LEVEL2. COMPOSITE PANEL RAINSCREEN SYSTEM (DARK GREY)3. CURTAINWALL SYSTEM WITH HIGH PERFORMANCE INSULATED SPANDREL GLAZING UNITS4. FLUTED METAL PANEL BALCONY BASE5. PREFINISHED METAL PANEL COLUMN SURROUNDS6. ROOF SCREEN SYSTEM WITH PREFINISHED FLUTED METAL PANELS OR LOUVERS7. PREFINISHED ALUMINUM FINS8. COMPOSITE PANEL RAINSCREEN SYSTEM (MEDIUM GREY)9. TEMPERED GLASS GUARDRAIL AND WINDSCREEN. INCLUDE BIRD FRIT UP TO 60' FROM GROUND LEVEL.10.LOUVERS AT GENERATOR ROOMS11.ROLL-UP METAL DOORS AT TRUCK DOCKS12.HIGH DENSITY EXTERIOR PANEL WITH WOOD LIKE APPEARANCE13.PROFILED HORIZONTAL METAL REVEALMATERIAL LEGEND:STAMPKEY PLANCLIENTPROJECTADDRESSPROJECT NO.SCALETITLEDGA planning | architecture | interiors2022DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.CONSULTANTSCivil EngineerLandscape Architect255 SHORELINE DR. STE. 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065650.482.6306BKF ENGINEERSPlumbing Engineer25 SAN ANSELMO AVENUESAN ANSELMO, CA 94960415.524.8517 x101STUDIO FIVE DESIGN300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3753AEIElectrical EngineerAEIStructural Engineer1301 FIFTH AVENUE STE 3200SEATTLE, WA 98101206.215.8221MKAAEIMechanical Engineer560 14TH ST. SUITE 300OAKLAND, CA 94612510.473.0300IPD-----300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3706300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3759Parking Garage3/32" = 1'-0"1/4/2024 3:25:36 PM Autodesk Docs://22316 Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Avenue/22316_Vigilant_SmartLabs 439 Eccles_R23_Arch.rvtNORTH ELEVATIONVIGILANT HOLDINGSVIGILANT HOLDINGS 439 ECCLESLAB/OFFICE BUILDING439 ECCLES AVE. SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CA 9408022316AE-13PLANNING SUBMISSION 06.09.2023PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 08.11.2023PLANNING EXHIBIT B01.05.2024402 LEVEL 1100' -0"LEVEL 2120' -0"ROOF222' -0"T.O. SCREEN246' -0"LEVEL 3137' -0"LEVEL 4154' -0"LEVEL 5171' -0"LEVEL 6188' -0"LEVEL 7205' -0"B183' -0"1234FUTURE TENANTFUTURE TENANT1AE-15_________17' - 0"20' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"24' - 0"T.O. FOUNDATION80' -0"FUTURE TENANTSTAIR 2TRASHSTAMPKEY PLANCLIENTPROJECTADDRESSPROJECT NO.SCALETITLEDGA planning | architecture | interiors2022DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.CONSULTANTSCivil EngineerLandscape Architect255 SHORELINE DR. STE. 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065650.482.6306BKF ENGINEERSPlumbing Engineer25 SAN ANSELMO AVENUESAN ANSELMO, CA 94960415.524.8517 x101STUDIO FIVE DESIGN300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3753AEIElectrical EngineerAEIStructural Engineer1301 FIFTH AVENUE STE 3200SEATTLE, WA 98101206.215.8221MKAAEIMechanical Engineer560 14TH ST. SUITE 300OAKLAND, CA 94612510.473.0300IPD-----300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3706300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3759Parking Garage3/32" = 1'-0"1/4/2024 3:25:39 PM Autodesk Docs://22316 Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Avenue/22316_Vigilant_SmartLabs 439 Eccles_R23_Arch.rvtBUILDING SECTIONVIGILANT HOLDINGSVIGILANT HOLDINGS 439 ECCLESLAB/OFFICE BUILDING439 ECCLES AVE. SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CA 9408022316AE-14SCALE:3/32" = 1'-0"1BUILDING SECTION N/SPLANNING SUBMISSION 06.09.2023PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 08.11.2023PLANNING EXHIBIT B01.05.2024403 LEVEL 1100' -0"LEVEL 2120' -0"ROOF222' -0"T.O. SCREEN246' -0"LEVEL 3137' -0"LEVEL 4154' -0"LEVEL 5171' -0"LEVEL 6188' -0"LEVEL 7205' -0"B183' -0"ABCDEFGHKLJ1AE-14_________FUTURE TENANTMT.O. FOUNDATION80' -0"STAMPKEY PLANCLIENTPROJECTADDRESSPROJECT NO.SCALETITLEDGA planning | architecture | interiors2022DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.CONSULTANTSCivil EngineerLandscape Architect255 SHORELINE DR. STE. 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065650.482.6306BKF ENGINEERSPlumbing Engineer25 SAN ANSELMO AVENUESAN ANSELMO, CA 94960415.524.8517 x101STUDIO FIVE DESIGN300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3753AEIElectrical EngineerAEIStructural Engineer1301 FIFTH AVENUE STE 3200SEATTLE, WA 98101206.215.8221MKAAEIMechanical Engineer560 14TH ST. SUITE 300OAKLAND, CA 94612510.473.0300IPD-----300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3706300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3759Parking Garage3/32" = 1'-0"1/4/2024 3:25:45 PM Autodesk Docs://22316 Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Avenue/22316_Vigilant_SmartLabs 439 Eccles_R23_Arch.rvtBUILDING SECTIONVIGILANT HOLDINGSVIGILANT HOLDINGS 439 ECCLESLAB/OFFICE BUILDING439 ECCLES AVE. SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CA 9408022316AE-15SCALE:3/32" = 1'-0"1BUILDING SECTION E/WPLANNING SUBMISSION 06.09.2023PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 08.11.2023PLANNING EXHIBIT B01.05.2024404 363636363636COCOUP UP FD 1 A3.01 1 1 A3.10 1 A3.10 A3.01 2 A3.02 1 A4.03 1 2 3 4 AA BB CC B.3B.3 A.6A.6 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ELECTRICAL ROOM BIKE ROOM A.2 B.8 A.3 A.4 A.9 B.6 2 A3.10 2 A3.10 2 A3.11 2 A3.11 1 A3.11 1 A3.11 SLOPE DOWN @ 1.5% RAMP UP AT 6.50% 15' - 0"15' - 0"15' - 0"19' - 0"19' - 0"19' - 0"19' - 0"19' - 0"19' - 0"19' - 0"15' - 0"15' - 0"15' - 0"23' - 3"22' - 9"15' - 0"15' - 0"32' - 9"13' - 3"17' - 2"57' - 4"21' - 11"14' - 11" RAMP UP @4.0% RAMP UP @5.87% ELEV 1 ELEV 2 SP A3.02 2 A3.04 1 A3.03 2 A3.03 1 A3.04 2 SP STAIR 1 STAIR 2 TD TD 18' - 0"28' - 0"15' - 0"4' - 3"10' - 9"8' - 3"19' - 3"18' - 6"122' - 0"3' - 0" FDFD 3' - 0" FD 10' - 0"RAMP DN AT 2.88%RAMP UP AT 4.33%223' - 0" F.E.C. F.E.C.F.E.C. F.E.C. F.E.C. A4.04 1 A4.04 2 A4.01 1 A8.01 1 SP FD FD 10' - 0"1 A6.02 UTILITY ROOM 1 A6.03 4 A6.02 3 A6.02 2 A6.02 1 A6.01 41' - 7"9' - 6"A3.02 3 2 A6.01 3' - 0"3' - 0"3' - 0" C8-2 C8-2C8-2 C8-2 C8C8 C8 C8 C8 C8 C8-2 C8-2 C12-2 C12 C8-2 64 66 62 65 68 ECR FCC FD FD 1. FLOOR ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE TO THE TOP OF STRUCTURAL SLAB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. SEE SHEET A10.01 THROUGH A10.06 FOR STRIPING, SIGNS AND GRAPHIC INFORMATION. 3. PROVIDE MEDIUM BROOM FINISH OVER CONCRETE WHERE ELASTOMERIC COATING OCCURS. 4. CONCRETE FLOOR FINISH: PROVIDE SWIRL FINISH FOR PARKING AREA, BROOM FINISH FOR CIRCULATION PATH AND TRUNCATED DOME, LIGHT BROOM FINISH FOR STAIRS AND TROWL FINISH FOR UTILITY ROOMS. TRAFFIC COATING TO BE APPLIED TO DELAYED OUR STRIPS AT SUN EXPOSED FLOOR WITH A MINIMUM OF 1FT BEYOND THE EXTENTS ON EACH SIDE. 5. SEE SHEET A5.01 FOR DOOR SCHEDULE AND DETAILS. 6. SEE SHEET A5.03 FOR WALL TYPE SCHEDULE. 7. OPEN SPACE UNDER THE EXTRIOR STAIRWAYS SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY PURPOSE, AND NOTE ON PLANS THAT THE GATES ARE PROVIDED FOR ACCESSING THE DRAINS LOCATED UNDER THE STAIRS FOR MAINTENANCE AND CLEANING. 8. CONCRETE WASH TO BE PROVIDED AT EDGE OF SLAB/RAMP PER PLANS. 9. ACCESSIBLE ROUTES TO COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING. I) EXTERIOR ACCESSIBLE ROUTES ARE NOT LESS THAN 48 WIDE PER CBC 11B-403.5.1 II) INTERIOR ACCESSIBLE ROUTES ARE NOT LESS THAN 36 INCHES WIDE PER CBC 11B-403.5.1 III) CHANGES IN ELEVATION SHALL COMPLY WITH CBC 11B-403.4. IV) MAXIMUM RUNNING SLOPES OF 5% AND CROSS SLOPES OF 2% PER CBC 11B-403.3. 10. AT ALL EXTERIOR DOORS/GATES SPECIFY THE SURFACE SLOPE OF EXERIOR PAVING NOT EXCEEDING 1/4 INCH PER FOOT(2%) UP TO DOOR'S THRESHOLD FOR A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 5 FEET OUT FROM THE EXTEROR DOOR/GATE OPENINGS. 11. AT THE PARKING GARAGE AREA, THE MINIMUM VERTICAL CLEARANCE SHALL BE 8'-2" AT THE GARAGE ENTRANCES, ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPCAES, ACCESS AISLES AND VEHICULAR ROUTES LEADING TO THE ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES. 12. MULTI-PURPOSE EXTINGUISHERS (ABC) IN PARKING AREAS WITH THE RATING: 2A-10BC OR 4A-20BC TO BE PROVIDED. SHEET NOTES STAMP KEY PLAN CLIENT PROJECT ADDRESS PROJECT NO. SCALE TITLE DATEDESCRIPTIONNO. CONSULTANTS CIVIL ENGINEER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 255 SHORELINE DR. STE. 200 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065 650.482.6306 BKF ENGINEERS PARKING STRUCTURE ARCHITECTURE 25 SAN ANSELMO AVENUE SAN ANSELMO, CA 94960 415.524.8517 x101 STUDIO FIVE DESIGN 560 14TH ST. SUITE 300 OAKLAND, CA 94612 510.473.0300 IPD STRUCTURAL ENGINEER CULP AND TANNER PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL ENGINEER 5017 MURCHIO DR, CONCORD, CA 94521 925.685.1963 PDC, INC.WKM ELECTRICAL ENGINEER 55 INDEPENDENCE CIRCLE, SUITE 201 CHICO, CA 95926 530.895.3518 3397 MT. DIABLO BLVD., SUITE C LAFAYETTE, CA 94549 925.385.0649 Design Professional's electronic seal or signature is effective only as to that version of this document as originally published by Design Professional. Design Professional is not responsible for any subsequent modification, corruption or unauthorize use of such docment. To verify the validity or applicability of the seal or signature, contact Design Professional. 1/8" = 1'-0"11/6/2023 3:43:48 PM Autodesk Docs://22316 Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Avenue/439 Eccles Parking Structure_Arch.rvt GROUND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Parking Structure 439 Eccles Ave, South San Francisco, CA 94080 23468 A2.01SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0"1 GROUND LEVEL PLAN N NORTH 50% SCHEMATIC DESIGN 09.06.2023 100% SCHEMATIC DESIGN 11.06.2023 DGA planning | architecture | interiors 2022 PKA2.1AE-16 PARKING SPACE & AREA SUMMARY PLANNING EXHIBIT B 01.05.2024 405 UP DN UP DN 1 A3.01 1 1 A3.10 1 A3.10 A3.01 2 A3.02 1 2 3 4 AA BB CC B.3B.3 A.6A.6 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 A.2 B.8 A.3 A.4 A.9 B.6 2 A3.10 2 A3.10 2 A3.11 2 A3.11 1 A3.11 1 A3.11 ELEV 1 ELEV 2 F.E.C. SP A3.02 2 A3.04 1 A3.03 2 A3.03 1 A3.04 2 STAIR 1 STAIR 2 18' - 0"28' - 0"15' - 0"4' - 3"10' - 9"8' - 3"19' - 3"18' - 6"122' - 0"15' - 0"15' - 0"15' - 0"19' - 0"19' - 0"19' - 0"19' - 0"19' - 0"19' - 0"19' - 0"15' - 0"15' - 0"15' - 0"23' - 3"22' - 9"15' - 0"15' - 0"32' - 9"13' - 3"SP SP FD 223' - 0" 8' - 0"4' - 0"5' - 0"4' - 0"5' - 0"EV TRANSFORMER AND PANEL BOARDS WITH 4" CONCRETE PAD, SEE ELECTRICAL DWGS FOR ADDTIONAL INFO. RAMP UP AT 6.20%RAMP DN AT 6.20%RAMP DN AT 6.20% F.E.C. F.E.C. F.E.C. F.E.C. A4.02 1 A4.03 4 FD FD 1 A6.02 FD 1 A6.03 2 A6.03 4 A6.02 3 A6.02 2 A6.02 1 A6.01 A3.02 3 2 A6.01 H4-2 J4-1 J4-1 J4 1. FLOOR ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE TO THE TOP OF STRUCTURAL SLAB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. SEE SHEET A10.01 THROUGH A10.06 FOR STRIPING, SIGNS AND GRAPHIC INFORMATION. 3. PROVIDE MEDIUM BROOM FINISH OVER CONCRETE WHERE ELASTOMERIC COATING OCCURS. 4. CONCRETE FLOOR FINISH: PROVIDE SWIRL FINISH FOR PARKING AREA, BROOM FINISH FOR CIRCULATION PATH AND TRUNCATED DOME, LIGHT BROOM FINISH FOR STAIRS AND TROWL FINISH FOR UTILITY ROOMS. TRAFFIC COATING TO BE APPLIED TO DELAYED OUR STRIPS AT SUN EXPOSED FLOOR WITH A MINIMUM OF 1FT BEYOND THE EXTENTS ON EACH SIDE. 5. SEE SHEET A5.01 FOR DOOR SCHEDULE AND DETAILS. 6. SEE SHEET A5.03 FOR WALL TYPE SCHEDULE. 7. OPEN SPACE UNDER THE EXTRIOR STAIRWAYS SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY PURPOSE, AND NOTE ON PLANS THAT THE GATES ARE PROVIDED FOR ACCESSING THE DRAINS LOCATED UNDER THE STAIRS FOR MAINTENANCE AND CLEANING. 8. CONCRETE WASH TO BE PROVIDED AT EDGE OF SLAB/RAMP PER PLANS. 9. ACCESSIBLE ROUTES TO COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING. I) EXTERIOR ACCESSIBLE ROUTES ARE NOT LESS THAN 48 WIDE PER CBC 11B-403.5.1 II) INTERIOR ACCESSIBLE ROUTES ARE NOT LESS THAN 36 INCHES WIDE PER CBC 11B-403.5.1 III) CHANGES IN ELEVATION SHALL COMPLY WITH CBC 11B-403.4. IV) MAXIMUM RUNNING SLOPES OF 5% AND CROSS SLOPES OF 2% PER CBC 11B-403.3. 10. AT ALL EXTERIOR DOORS/GATES SPECIFY THE SURFACE SLOPE OF EXERIOR PAVING NOT EXCEEDING 1/4 INCH PER FOOT(2%) UP TO DOOR'S THRESHOLD FOR A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 5 FEET OUT FROM THE EXTEROR DOOR/GATE OPENINGS. 11. AT THE PARKING GARAGE AREA, THE MINIMUM VERTICAL CLEARANCE SHALL BE 8'-2" AT THE GARAGE ENTRANCES, ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPCAES, ACCESS AISLES AND VEHICULAR ROUTES LEADING TO THE ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES. 12. MULTI-PURPOSE EXTINGUISHERS (ABC) IN PARKING AREAS WITH THE RATING: 2A-10BC OR 4A-20BC TO BE PROVIDED. SHEET NOTES STAMP KEY PLAN CLIENT PROJECT ADDRESS PROJECT NO. SCALE TITLE DATEDESCRIPTIONNO. CONSULTANTS CIVIL ENGINEER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 255 SHORELINE DR. STE. 200 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065 650.482.6306 BKF ENGINEERS PARKING STRUCTURE ARCHITECTURE 25 SAN ANSELMO AVENUE SAN ANSELMO, CA 94960 415.524.8517 x101 STUDIO FIVE DESIGN 560 14TH ST. SUITE 300 OAKLAND, CA 94612 510.473.0300 IPD STRUCTURAL ENGINEER CULP AND TANNER PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL ENGINEER 5017 MURCHIO DR, CONCORD, CA 94521 925.685.1963 PDC, INC.WKM ELECTRICAL ENGINEER 55 INDEPENDENCE CIRCLE, SUITE 201 CHICO, CA 95926 530.895.3518 3397 MT. DIABLO BLVD., SUITE C LAFAYETTE, CA 94549 925.385.0649 Design Professional's electronic seal or signature is effective only as to that version of this document as originally published by Design Professional. Design Professional is not responsible for any subsequent modification, corruption or unauthorize use of such docment. To verify the validity or applicability of the seal or signature, contact Design Professional. 1/8" = 1'-0"11/6/2023 3:43:54 PM Autodesk Docs://22316 Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Avenue/439 Eccles Parking Structure_Arch.rvt FOURTH LEVEL FLOOR PLAN Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Parking Structure 439 Eccles Ave, South San Francisco, CA 94080 23468 A2.04SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0"1 FOURTH LEVEL N NORTH 50% SCHEMATIC DESIGN 09.06.2023 100% SCHEMATIC DESIGN 11.06.2023 DGA planning | architecture | interiors 2022 PKA2.2AE-17 PARKING SPACE & AREA SUMMARY PLANNING EXHIBIT B 01.05.2024 406 DN 1 A3.01 1 1 A3.10 1 A3.10 A3.01 2 A3.02 1 2 3 4 AA BB CC B.3B.3 A.6A.6 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 A.2 B.8 A.3 A.4 A.9 B.6 2 A3.10 2 A3.10 2 A3.11 2 A3.11 A3.02 2 A3.04 1 A3.03 2 A3.03 1 A3.04 2 PV CANOPY 18' - 0"28' - 0"15' - 0"4' - 3"10' - 9"8' - 3"19' - 3"18' - 6"122' - 0"15' - 0"15' - 0"15' - 0"19' - 0"19' - 0"19' - 0"19' - 0"19' - 0"19' - 0"19' - 0"15' - 0"15' - 0"15' - 0"23' - 3"22' - 9"15' - 0"15' - 0"32' - 9"13' - 3"F.E.C. A3.02 3 A4.02 3 1. FLOOR ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE TO THE TOP OF STRUCTURAL SLAB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. SEE SHEET A10.01 THROUGH A10.06 FOR STRIPING, SIGNS AND GRAPHIC INFORMATION. 3. PROVIDE MEDIUM BROOM FINISH OVER CONCRETE WHERE ELASTOMERIC COATING OCCURS. 4. CONCRETE FLOOR FINISH: PROVIDE SWIRL FINISH FOR PARKING AREA, BROOM FINISH FOR CIRCULATION PATH AND TRUNCATED DOME, LIGHT BROOM FINISH FOR STAIRS AND TROWL FINISH FOR UTILITY ROOMS. TRAFFIC COATING TO BE APPLIED TO DELAYED OUR STRIPS AT SUN EXPOSED FLOOR WITH A MINIMUM OF 1FT BEYOND THE EXTENTS ON EACH SIDE. 5. SEE SHEET A5.01 FOR DOOR SCHEDULE AND DETAILS. 6. SEE SHEET A5.03 FOR WALL TYPE SCHEDULE. 7. OPEN SPACE UNDER THE EXTRIOR STAIRWAYS SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY PURPOSE, AND NOTE ON PLANS THAT THE GATES ARE PROVIDED FOR ACCESSING THE DRAINS LOCATED UNDER THE STAIRS FOR MAINTENANCE AND CLEANING. 8. CONCRETE WASH TO BE PROVIDED AT EDGE OF SLAB/RAMP PER PLANS. 9. ACCESSIBLE ROUTES TO COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING. I) EXTERIOR ACCESSIBLE ROUTES ARE NOT LESS THAN 48 WIDE PER CBC 11B-403.5.1 II) INTERIOR ACCESSIBLE ROUTES ARE NOT LESS THAN 36 INCHES WIDE PER CBC 11B-403.5.1 III) CHANGES IN ELEVATION SHALL COMPLY WITH CBC 11B-403.4. IV) MAXIMUM RUNNING SLOPES OF 5% AND CROSS SLOPES OF 2% PER CBC 11B-403.3. 10. AT ALL EXTERIOR DOORS/GATES SPECIFY THE SURFACE SLOPE OF EXERIOR PAVING NOT EXCEEDING 1/4 INCH PER FOOT(2%) UP TO DOOR'S THRESHOLD FOR A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 5 FEET OUT FROM THE EXTEROR DOOR/GATE OPENINGS. 11. AT THE PARKING GARAGE AREA, THE MINIMUM VERTICAL CLEARANCE SHALL BE 8'-2" AT THE GARAGE ENTRANCES, ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPCAES, ACCESS AISLES AND VEHICULAR ROUTES LEADING TO THE ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES. 12. MULTI-PURPOSE EXTINGUISHERS (ABC) IN PARKING AREAS WITH THE RATING: 2A-10BC OR 4A-20BC TO BE PROVIDED. SHEET NOTES STAMP KEY PLAN CLIENT PROJECT ADDRESS PROJECT NO. SCALE TITLE DATEDESCRIPTIONNO. CONSULTANTS CIVIL ENGINEER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 255 SHORELINE DR. STE. 200 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065 650.482.6306 BKF ENGINEERS PARKING STRUCTURE ARCHITECTURE 25 SAN ANSELMO AVENUE SAN ANSELMO, CA 94960 415.524.8517 x101 STUDIO FIVE DESIGN 560 14TH ST. SUITE 300 OAKLAND, CA 94612 510.473.0300 IPD STRUCTURAL ENGINEER CULP AND TANNER PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL ENGINEER 5017 MURCHIO DR, CONCORD, CA 94521 925.685.1963 PDC, INC.WKM ELECTRICAL ENGINEER 55 INDEPENDENCE CIRCLE, SUITE 201 CHICO, CA 95926 530.895.3518 3397 MT. DIABLO BLVD., SUITE C LAFAYETTE, CA 94549 925.385.0649 Design Professional's electronic seal or signature is effective only as to that version of this document as originally published by Design Professional. Design Professional is not responsible for any subsequent modification, corruption or unauthorize use of such docment. To verify the validity or applicability of the seal or signature, contact Design Professional. 1/8" = 1'-0"11/6/2023 3:43:59 PM Autodesk Docs://22316 Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Avenue/439 Eccles Parking Structure_Arch.rvt CANOPY LEVEL Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Parking Structure 439 Eccles Ave, South San Francisco, CA 94080 23468 A2.07SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0"1 PV CANOPY PLAN N NORTH 50% SCHEMATIC DESIGN 09.06.2023 100% SCHEMATIC DESIGN 11.06.2023 DGA planning | architecture | interiors 2022 PKA2.3AE-18 PARKING SPACE & AREA SUMMARY PLANNING EXHIBIT B 01.05.2024 407 123462310GROUND LEVEL98.00'SECOND LEVEL109.33'THIRD LEVEL119.50'FOURTH LEVEL129.67'FIFTH LEVEL139.83'SIXTH (ROOF) LEVEL150.00'4578962GROUND LEVEL98.00'SECOND LEVEL109.33'THIRD LEVEL119.50'FOURTH LEVEL129.67'FIFTH LEVEL139.83'SIXTH (ROOF) LEVEL150.00'32111GROUND LEVEL98.00'SECOND LEVEL109.33'THIRD LEVEL119.50'FOURTH LEVEL129.67'FIFTH LEVEL139.83'SIXTH (ROOF) LEVEL150.00'3118GROUND LEVEL98.00'SECOND LEVEL109.33'THIRD LEVEL119.50'FOURTH LEVEL129.67'FIFTH LEVEL139.83'SIXTH (ROOF) LEVEL150.00'STAMPKEY PLANCLIENTPROJECTADDRESSPROJECT NO.SCALETITLEDGA planning | architecture | interiors2022DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.CONSULTANTSCivil EngineerLandscape Architect255 SHORELINE DR. STE. 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065650.482.6306BKF ENGINEERSPlumbing Engineer25 SAN ANSELMO AVENUESAN ANSELMO, CA 94960415.524.8517 x101STUDIO FIVE DESIGN300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3753AEIElectrical EngineerAEIStructural Engineer1301 FIFTH AVENUE STE 3200SEATTLE, WA 98101206.215.8221MKAAEIMechanical Engineer560 14TH ST. SUITE 300OAKLAND, CA 94612510.473.0300IPD-----300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3706300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3759Parking Garage3/32" = 1'-0"1/4/2024 3:26:42 PM Autodesk Docs://22316 Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Avenue/22316_Vigilant_SmartLabs 439 Eccles_R23_Arch.rvtGARAGE ELEVATIONSVIGILANT HOLDINGSVIGILANT HOLDINGS 439 ECCLESLAB/OFFICE BUILDING439 ECCLES AVE. SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CA 9408022316AE-19SCALE:3/32" = 1'-0"1GARAGE EAST ELEVATIONSCALE:3/32" = 1'-0"2GARAGE SOUTH ELEVATIONSCALE:3/32" = 1'-0"3GARAGE NORTH ELEVATIONSCALE:3/32" = 1'-0"4GARAGE WEST ELEVATIONKEYNOES:1POURED IN PLACE UNPAINTED CONCRETE GARAGE STRUCTURE TYP.2PAINTED EXTERIOR METAL STAIRS WITH WATERPROOFED STAIR RUNS AND LANDINGS. LANDINGS TO HAVE DRAINS CONNECTED TO STORM SEWER.4POURED IN PLACE UNPAINTED CONCRETE GARAGE ELEVATOR TOWER, ENCLOSED AT TOP LEVEL.5COMPLETE ACCESS CONTROL SYSTEM, INCLUDING ROLL-UP GRILLES, RAMP ARMS, CARD PEDESTALS, ETC.6SECURITY CONTROL MESH WITH CONTROLED ACCESS GATES AT ENTIRE FIRST LEVEL OF GARAGE TYP. (NOT SHOWN)7ANGLED COMPOSITE PANEL FIN SYSTEM AT ECCELS SIDE OF PARKING GARAGE. COLOR TO MATCH BUILDING WOOD-LIKE FINISH.8PHOTOVOLTAIC ARRAY AT ROOF LEVEL OF PARKING GARAGE9COMPOSITE PANEL SYSTEM AT ECCLES SIDE OF PARKING GARAGE10CAST-IN-PLACE, INTERNALLY IRRIGATED PLANTERS WITH HANGING VEGETATION AT VARIOUS INTERVALS ON PARKING GARAGE FACADE FACING PASEO.3CAST-IN-PLACE, FIRE RATED WALL AT FIRST LEVEL WITH NO FENESTRATION11FIRE-RATED WALL WITH CEMENT PLASTER FINISH SYSTEM WITH 20% MIN AND 25% MAX FENESTRATIONPLANNING SUBMISSION 06.09.2023PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 08.11.2023PLANNING EXHIBIT B01.05.2024408 FCCPROPOSED BUILDING(7 LEVELS)PROPOSED PARKING GARAGE(6 LEVELS)ECCLES AVENUEFCCPROPOSED BUILDING(7 LEVELS)PROPOSED PARKING GARAGE(6 LEVELS)ECCLES AVENUEFCCPROPOSED BUILDING(7 LEVELS)PROPOSED PARKING GARAGE(6 LEVELS)ECCLES AVENUEPROPOSED BUILDING(8 LEVELS)FCCPROPOSED BUILDING(7 LEVELS)PROPOSED PARKING GARAGE(6 LEVELS)ECCLES AVENUEFCCPROPOSED BUILDING(7 LEVELS)PROPOSED PARKING GARAGE(6 LEVELS)ECCLES AVENUEFCCPROPOSED BUILDING(7 LEVELS)PROPOSED PARKING GARAGE(6 LEVELS)ECCLES AVENUEFCCPROPOSED BUILDING(7 LEVELS)PROPOSED PARKING GARAGE(6 LEVELS)ECCLES AVENUEFCCPROPOSED BUILDING(7 LEVELS)PROPOSED PARKING GARAGE(6 LEVELS)ECCLES AVENUEECCLES AVENUEFCCPROPOSED BUILDING(7 LEVELS)PROPOSED PARKING GARAGE(6 LEVELS)STAMPKEY PLANCLIENTPROJECTADDRESSPROJECT NO.SCALETITLEDGA planning | architecture | interiors2022DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.CONSULTANTSCivil EngineerLandscape Architect255 SHORELINE DR. STE. 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065650.482.6306BKF ENGINEERSPlumbing Engineer25 SAN ANSELMO AVENUESAN ANSELMO, CA 94960415.524.8517 x101STUDIO FIVE DESIGN300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3753AEIElectrical EngineerAEIStructural Engineer1301 FIFTH AVENUE STE 3200SEATTLE, WA 98101206.215.8221MKAAEIMechanical Engineer560 14TH ST. SUITE 300OAKLAND, CA 94612510.473.0300IPD-----300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3706300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3759Parking Garage1/64" = 1'-0"1/4/2024 3:27:13 PM Autodesk Docs://22316 Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Avenue/22316_Vigilant_SmartLabs 439 Eccles_R23_Arch.rvtSHADOW STUDIESVIGILANT HOLDINGSVIGILANT HOLDINGS 439 ECCLESLAB/OFFICE BUILDING439 ECCLES AVE. SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CA 9408022316AE-20JUNE 21 | 9:00AMMAR. 21 SEPT. 21| 9:00AMDECEMBER 21 | 9:00AM DECEMBER 21 | 12:00PM DECEMBER 21 | 3:00PMMAR. 21 SEPT. 21| 12:00PM MAR. 21 SEPT. 21| 3:00PMJUNE 21 | 12:00PMJUNE 21 | 3:00PMPLANNING SUBMISSION 06.09.2023PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 08.11.2023PLANNING EXHIBIT B01.05.2024409 STAMPKEY PLANCLIENTPROJECTADDRESSPROJECT NO.SCALETITLEDGA planning | architecture | interiors2022DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.CONSULTANTSCivil EngineerLandscape Architect255 SHORELINE DR. STE. 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065650.482.6306BKF ENGINEERSPlumbing Engineer25 SAN ANSELMO AVENUESAN ANSELMO, CA 94960415.524.8517 x101STUDIO FIVE DESIGN300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3753AEIElectrical EngineerAEIStructural Engineer1301 FIFTH AVENUE STE 3200SEATTLE, WA 98101206.215.8221MKAAEIMechanical Engineer560 14TH ST. SUITE 300OAKLAND, CA 94612510.473.0300IPD-----300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3706300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3759Parking Garage1/4/2024 3:27:13 PM Autodesk Docs://22316 Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Avenue/22316_Vigilant_SmartLabs 439 Eccles_R23_Arch.rvtPERSPECTIVE VIEWVIGILANT HOLDINGSVIGILANT HOLDINGS 439 ECCLESLAB/OFFICE BUILDING439 ECCLES AVE. SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CA 9408022316AE-21PLANNING SUBMISSION 06.09.2023PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 08.11.2023PLANNING EXHIBIT B01.05.2024410 STAMPKEY PLANCLIENTPROJECTADDRESSPROJECT NO.SCALETITLEDGA planning | architecture | interiors2022DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.CONSULTANTSCivil EngineerLandscape Architect255 SHORELINE DR. STE. 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065650.482.6306BKF ENGINEERSPlumbing Engineer25 SAN ANSELMO AVENUESAN ANSELMO, CA 94960415.524.8517 x101STUDIO FIVE DESIGN300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3753AEIElectrical EngineerAEIStructural Engineer1301 FIFTH AVENUE STE 3200SEATTLE, WA 98101206.215.8221MKAAEIMechanical Engineer560 14TH ST. SUITE 300OAKLAND, CA 94612510.473.0300IPD-----300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3706300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3759Parking Garage1/4/2024 3:27:13 PM Autodesk Docs://22316 Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Avenue/22316_Vigilant_SmartLabs 439 Eccles_R23_Arch.rvtPERSPECTIVE VIEWVIGILANT HOLDINGSVIGILANT HOLDINGS 439 ECCLESLAB/OFFICE BUILDING439 ECCLES AVE. SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CA 9408022316AE-22PLANNING SUBMISSION 06.09.2023PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 08.11.2023PLANNING EXHIBIT B01.05.2024411 STAMPKEY PLANCLIENTPROJECTADDRESSPROJECT NO.SCALETITLEDGA planning | architecture | interiors2022DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.CONSULTANTSCivil EngineerLandscape Architect255 SHORELINE DR. STE. 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065650.482.6306BKF ENGINEERSPlumbing Engineer25 SAN ANSELMO AVENUESAN ANSELMO, CA 94960415.524.8517 x101STUDIO FIVE DESIGN300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3753AEIElectrical EngineerAEIStructural Engineer1301 FIFTH AVENUE STE 3200SEATTLE, WA 98101206.215.8221MKAAEIMechanical Engineer560 14TH ST. SUITE 300OAKLAND, CA 94612510.473.0300IPD-----300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3706300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3759Parking Garage1/4/2024 3:27:14 PM Autodesk Docs://22316 Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Avenue/22316_Vigilant_SmartLabs 439 Eccles_R23_Arch.rvtPERSPECTIVE VIEWVIGILANT HOLDINGSVIGILANT HOLDINGS 439 ECCLESLAB/OFFICE BUILDING439 ECCLES AVE. SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CA 9408022316AE-23PLANNING SUBMISSION 06.09.2023PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 08.11.2023PLANNING EXHIBIT B01.05.2024412 STAMPKEY PLANCLIENTPROJECTADDRESSPROJECT NO.SCALETITLEDGA planning | architecture | interiors2022DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.CONSULTANTSCivil EngineerLandscape Architect255 SHORELINE DR. STE. 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065650.482.6306BKF ENGINEERSPlumbing Engineer25 SAN ANSELMO AVENUESAN ANSELMO, CA 94960415.524.8517 x101STUDIO FIVE DESIGN300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3753AEIElectrical EngineerAEIStructural Engineer1301 FIFTH AVENUE STE 3200SEATTLE, WA 98101206.215.8221MKAAEIMechanical Engineer560 14TH ST. SUITE 300OAKLAND, CA 94612510.473.0300IPD-----300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3706300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3759Parking Garage1/4/2024 5:20:16 PM Autodesk Docs://22316 Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Avenue/22316_Vigilant_SmartLabs 439 Eccles_R23_Arch.rvtPERSPECTIVE VIEWVIGILANT HOLDINGSVIGILANT HOLDINGS 439 ECCLESLAB/OFFICE BUILDING439 ECCLES AVE. SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CA 9408022316AE-24PLANNING SUBMISSION 06.09.2023PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 08.11.2023 413 STAMPKEY PLANCLIENTPROJECTADDRESSPROJECT NO.SCALETITLEDGA planning | architecture | interiors2022DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.CONSULTANTSCivil EngineerLandscape Architect255 SHORELINE DR. STE. 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065650.482.6306BKF ENGINEERSPlumbing Engineer25 SAN ANSELMO AVENUESAN ANSELMO, CA 94960415.524.8517 x101STUDIO FIVE DESIGN300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3753AEIElectrical EngineerAEIStructural Engineer1301 FIFTH AVENUE STE 3200SEATTLE, WA 98101206.215.8221MKAAEIMechanical Engineer560 14TH ST. SUITE 300OAKLAND, CA 94612510.473.0300IPD-----300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3706300 CALIFORNIA ST. 6TH FLRSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104415.764.3759Parking Garage1/4/2024 3:27:14 PM Autodesk Docs://22316 Vigilant Holdings 439 Eccles Avenue/22316_Vigilant_SmartLabs 439 Eccles_R23_Arch.rvtPROPOSED MATERIALSVIGILANT HOLDINGSVIGILANT HOLDINGS 439 ECCLESLAB/OFFICE BUILDING439 ECCLES AVE. SOUTH SANFRANCISCO, CA 9408022316AE-24PLANNING SUBMISSION 06.09.2023PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 08.11.20235PLANNING EXHIBIT B01.05.2024414 439 Eccles Transportation Demand Management Plan Prepared for: City of South San Francisco January 2024 415 Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Description ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Setting ............................................................................................................................... 4 Transit Connections ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4 BART .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Caltrain ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 WETA (San Francisco Bay Ferry) ..................................................................................................................................... 4 SamTrans ................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 East of 101 Commuter Shuttle Service ........................................................................................................................ 6 Bicycle and Pedestrian Connections ............................................................................................................................ 6 Auto Connections ......................................................................................................................................................................10 San Mateo County TDM Resources ....................................................................................................................................10 Proposed TDM Program ............................................................................................................. 11 Overview ........................................................................................................................................................................................11 Summary of Required TDM Measures ...............................................................................................................................11 50% Transit Pass Subsidies and Pre-Tax Transit Benefits ..................................................................................11 Participation in Commute.org Programs ..................................................................................................................12 Carpool/Vanpool Programs and Parking .................................................................................................................12 Bicycle Storage, Showers, and Lockers ......................................................................................................................12 Designated TDM Coordinator ......................................................................................................................................12 Bicycle and Pedestrian-Oriented Site Access..........................................................................................................12 Encourage Telecommuting & Flexible Work Schedules ....................................................................................13 Summary of Discretionary TDM Measures ......................................................................................................................13 Enhanced Shuttle Commitment ...................................................................................................................................13 Fully Subsidized Transit Fares .......................................................................................................................................13 Bicycle Repair Station .......................................................................................................................................................13 Relationship to Conditions of Approval ............................................................................................................................13 TDM Checklist ..............................................................................................................................................................................15 Monitoring and Enforcement .................................................................................................... 16 Monitoring Methods ................................................................................................................................................................16 Survey Approach ................................................................................................................................................................17 Triennial Midday Parking Occupancy Survey .........................................................................................................19 416 Enforcement & Fines ................................................................................................................................................................19 List of Figures Figure 1: Project Location.................................................................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2: Project Site Plan & Circulation Diagram ................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3: Transit Connection ............................................................................................................................................................ 5 Figure 4: Bicycle Connections .......................................................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 5. Commute.org Promotional Programs .................................................................................................................... 10 List of Tables Table 1: Tier 3 TDM Certification Checklist ............................................................................................................................. 15 417 439 Eccles Transportation Demand Management Plan January 2024 1 Introduction This report presents a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan, per City of South San Francisco Zoning Code Chapter 20.400, for the proposed office/research and development building at 439 Eccles Avenue, herein referred to as the “Project.” A description of the proposed Project is included on the following pages. The City of South San Francisco TDM Ordinance strives to accomplish the following goals: • Reduce the amount of traffic generated by new non-residential development. • Ensure that expected increases in traffic resulting from growth in employment opportunities in the City of South San Francisco will be adequately mitigated. • Reduce drive-alone commute trips during peak traffic periods by using a combination of services, incentives, and facilities. • Promote the efficient utilization of existing transportation facilities and ensure new developments are designed in ways that maximize the potential for alternative transportation usage. • Establish an ongoing monitoring and enforcement program to ensure that the desired alternative mode use percentages are achieved. The City requires the Project to enact a TDM program to achieve a maximum drive-alone commute mode share of 40 percent pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 20.400. These requirements are consistent with a Tier 3 classification (office/R&D project) under the TDM Ordinance and also meet the TDM requirements established by the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG). This TDM Plan identifies a set of strategies, measures, and incentives to encourage future tenant employees at the Project to walk, bicycle, ride transit, carpool, or telecommute when commuting to and from work. In order to accomplish this goal, this plan presents a range of proven strategies and measures used across the Bay Area. Project Description The Project is located approximately 700 feet north of the intersection of Forbes Boulevard and Eccles Avenue and presently has an unoccupied one‐story, 40,224 square-foot warehouse building. The Project would replace the existing land use with a seven-story, 298,470 square‐foot office/R&D building with one below‐grade basement level and a six-story parking garage. The proposed parking structure includes 448 proposed stalls. Figure 1 illustrates the Project location, while Figure 2 depicts the Project site plan. 418 £[101 439 Eccles Ave Project SiteGull DrDOWNTOWNDOWNTOWNDOWNTOWNDOWNTOWNDOWNTOWNDOWNTOWNDOWNTOWNDOWNTOWNDOWNTOWNDOWNTOWNDOWNTOWNDOWNTOWNDOWNTOWN EAST OFEAST OF 101 SIERRA SIERRA SIERRA POINT Oyster Point Blvd Gateway BlvdForbes Blvd Mitchell Ave Eas t G r a n d A v eAirport BlvdLinden AveGrand A v e Allerton AveSister C i t i e s B l v d Marina Blvd SouthAirportBlvdD N A WayDubuqueAveEccles Av e San Bruno Mountain State & County Park Oyster Point Channel San Bruno Channel Project Site Caltrain Station Ferry Terminal 419 439 Eccles Transportation Demand Management Plan January 2024 3 Figure 2: Project Site Plan & Circulation Diagram 420 439 Eccles Transportation Demand Management Plan January 2024 4 Project Setting Transit Connections The following transit services operate within South San Francisco near the Project site. Existing transit services are shown in Figure 3. Descriptions provided in this section reflect transit operations in Spring 2023. BART BART provides regional rail service between the East Bay, San Francisco, and San Mateo County. The South San Francisco BART Station is located approximately 2.7 miles west of the Project site. Two BART lines serve South San Francisco Station: the Yellow Line connecting Antioch with San Francisco International Airport, and the Red Line connecting Richmond and Millbrae. Both lines travel to the East Bay via San Francsico. Each BART line operates every 15 minutes throughout the day. Caltrain Caltrain provides passenger rail service on the Peninsula between San Francisco and San José, and limited service to Morgan Hill and Gilroy during weekday commute periods. The South San Francisco Caltrain Station serves local and limited trains, with approximately 30 minute headways during peak times and 60 minute headways during off-peak times. Station access to the East of 101 area is located at the intersection of East Grand Avenue/Poletti Way. The Caltrain Station is located approximately 0.5 miles to the west of the Project site. In 2024, Caltrain plans to complete its electrification Project to support the operation of faster and more frequent rail service on the Peninsula. WETA (San Francisco Bay Ferry) The Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) provides weekday commuter ferry service between the Oakland/Alameda ferry terminals and the South San Francisco Ferry Terminal. There are three morning departures from Oakland/Alameda to South San Francisco, and three evening departures from South San Francisco to Oakland/Alameda. The Ferry Terminal is located approximately 1 mile to the northeast of the Project site. SamTrans SamTrans is the regional bus provider for San Mateo County. SamTrans route 130B currently provides service through the East of 101 employment area, from the South San Francisco Ferry Terminal to downtown South San Francisco via Oyster Point Boulevard. 421 YXZ280 £[101 Existing Transit FacilitiesLittlefield AveUtah Ave Swfit Ave Hill s i d e B l v d S A i r p o r t B l v d Gull DrEAST OF101 SIERRA POINT DOWNTOWN Oyster Point Blvd Gateway Bl v d Forbes Blvd East G r a n d A v e DNA WayAirport BlvdLinden AveGrand Av e Allerton AveSister Citi e s B l v d Eccles AveMarina Blvd San Bruno Mountain State & County Park Oyster Point Channel San BrunoChannel Commute.org Shuttle Stops Caltrain Alignment and Station SamTrans Route 130B and Stops South San Francisco Ferry Terminal Oyster Point Mobility Shuttle Route and Stops SamTrans Routes Project Site Gateway BlvdCorporate Dr Commute.org Shuttles 700/701 DrivewayCaltrainFerry SamTrans 130BBARTOPMCaltrainFerryBARTOPMSamTrans 130B751 Driveway 422 439 Eccles Transportation Demand Management Plan January 2024 6 East of 101 Commuter Shuttle Service Commute.org and Oyster Point Mobility provide weekday commute period first/last mile shuttles connecting employers with BART, Caltrain, and the ferry. All shuttles operate along Gateway Boulevard, Oyster Point Boulevard, and East Grand Avenue; there are presently no shuttles with stops along Eccles Avenue or Forbes Boulevard. The following shuttles operate near the Project site: BART Service Commute.org operates the Utah-Grand BART Shuttle between the South San Francisco BART Station and East Grand Avenue corridor via Gateway Boulevard. Shuttles run every 30 minutes during peak commute periods. The nearest southbound/eastbound stop is located at 701 Gateway Boulevard, while the nearest northbound/westbound stop is located at 1000 Gateway Boulevard. A second Commute.org shuttle operates along Oyster Point Boulevard with similar frequency and service span. Oyster Point Mobility operates a shuttle service between the Glen Park BART Station to the Genentech Campus via Gateway Boulevard. Shuttles run every 15 minutes during peak commute periods and every 30 minutes during the midday period. The nearest stop is located at the intersection of Gateway Boulevard and Corporate Drive approximately one quarter-mile from the Project site. Caltrain Shuttle Service Commute.org operates the Oyster Point Caltrain Shuttle between the South San Francisco Caltrain Station and Oyster Point Boulevard corridor via Gateway Boulevard. Shuttles run every 30 minutes during peak commute periods. The nearest southbound/westbound stop is located at 701 Gateway Boulevard, while the nearest northbound/eastbound stop is located at 1000 Gateway Boulevard. Oyster Point Mobility operates a shuttle service between the Glen Park BART Station to the Genentech Campus via Gateway Boulevard. Shuttles run every 30 minutes during peak commute periods. The nearest stop for the morning peak period service is located approximately 600 feet away along Gateway Boulevard, while the nearest evening peak period shuttle stop is located at the intersection of Gateway Boulevard and Corporate Drive approximately one quarter-mile from the Project site. Ferry Shuttle Service Commute.org operates the Oyster Point Ferry Shuttle between the South San Francisco Ferry Terminal and South San Francisco Caltrain Station via Gateway Boulevard. Shuttles run hourly during peak commute periods. The nearest southbound/westbound stop is located at 701 Gateway Boulevard, while the nearest northbound/eastbound stop is located near the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard intersection. Bicycle and Pedestrian Connections Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, trails, and pedestrian signals. Pedestrian facilities near the Project site tend to serve walking trips connecting to shuttle and bus stops along with nearby offices and businesses. The following pedestrian facilities exist near the Project site: 423 439 Eccles Transportation Demand Management Plan January 2024 7 • Eccles Avenue has a sidewalk on the north side of the street that provides direct pedestrian access to the Project site. There is no sidewalk on the south side of Eccles due to the freight railroad. • On the northern frontage of the Project site, there is an under-construction multi-use trail running between Forbes Boulevard to the south and Oyster Point Boulevard to the north that will provide access to the Project Site. • Forbes Boulevard has a sidewalk on the north side of the street. There is no sidewalk on the south side of Forbes Boulevard. • Gateway Boulevard has sidewalks on both sides of the street. • Oyster Point Boulevard has sidewalks on both sides of the street Although the Project site is located only 700 to 900 feet from bus/shuttle stops at 700/701 Gateway Boulevard, no direct pedestrian connection is present (a retaining wall blocks access via the Gateway of the Pacific site). Pedestrians may divert to the north via the Gateway of the Pacific site, but this adds approximately 1,600 feet (about six minutes) of walking distance to reach the stop. Due to asymmetry in the northbound/southbound stops, the nearest northbound shuttle stop is presently located 2,200 feet to the north in front of 1000 Gateway Boulevard. Bicycle facilities consist of separated bikeways, bicycle lanes, routes, trails, and paths, as well as bicycle parking, bicycle lockers, and showers for cyclists. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) recognizes four classifications of bicycle facilities as described below. Class I – Shared-Use Pathway: Provides a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of cyclists and pedestrians with crossflow minimized (e.g., off-street bicycle paths). Class II – Bicycle Lanes: Provides a striped lane for one-way travel on a street or highway. May include a “buffer” zone consisting of a striped portion of roadway between the bicycle lane and the nearest vehicle travel lane. Class III – Bicycle Route: Provides for shared use with motor vehicle traffic; however, these facilities are often signed or include a striped bicycle lane. Class IV – Separated Bikeway: Provides a right-of-way designated exclusively for bicycle travel adjacent to a roadway and that is protected from vehicular traffic. Types of separation include, but are not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, or on-street parking. Current bicycle facilities in the Project vicinity as designated by the Active South City: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan are shown in Figure 4 and discussed below. • There are currently no bike facilities on Eccles Avenue. Class II buffered bicycle lanes are planned on Eccles Avenue from Forbes Boulevard to Oyster Point Boulevard. 424 439 Eccles Transportation Demand Management Plan January 2024 8 • The under-construction multi-use trail on the Project site’s northern frontage will provide an off-street bicycle connection between the Project site, Oyster Point Boulevard and Forbes Boulevard. The multi-use trail will connect to a planned Class I shared path along Forbes Boulevard and East Grand Avenue, allowing for a protected cycling route from the Project site to the South San Francisco Caltrain Station. • Forbes Boulevard has Class II bicycle lanes between Allerton Avenue and DNA Way. An extension of the Class II bike lanes between East Grand Avenue and Allerton Avenue is planned. A Class I shared path on Forbes Boulevard is also planned from Eccles Avenue to East Grand Avenue. • Gateway Boulevard is a Class III bicycle route from East Grand Avenue to Oyster Point Boulevard and has Class II buffered bicycle lanes from Airport Boulevard to East Grand Avenue. An extension of Class II bike lanes from East Grand Avenue to Oyster Point Boulevard is planned. • East Grand Avenue has Class II bicycle lanes from the South San Francisco Caltrain Station to the San Francisco Bay. A Class I shared path is planned on East Grand Avenue from Forbes Boulevard to the South San Francisco Caltrain Station. • Oyster Point Boulevard has Class II bicycle lanes from Gateway Boulevard to Marina Boulevard. A planned extension of Class II bicycle lanes across US 101 to Sister Cities Boulevard is planned on Oyster Point Boulevard. Bicyclists traveling from the South San Francisco Caltrain Station and other locations west of US 101 primarily access the Project site from Forbes Boulevard. A trail connection between the intersection of Forbes Boulevard/Eccles Avenue and the Caltrain station is planned via the Active South City Plan. 425 YXZ280 £[101 Bicycle FacilitiesEccles AveOyster Point Blvd Gateway BlvdForbes Blvd E Gr a n d A v e DNA WayAirport BlvdLinden AveGrand Av e Allerton AveSister Citi e s B l v d Marina Blvd Littlefield AveUtah Ave Swfit Ave Hill s i d e B l v d S A i r p o r t B l v d Gull DrMiller Ave San Bruno Mountain State & County Park Oyster Point Channel San BrunoChannel Existing Class II Bicycle Lane Existing Class I Shared Path Planned Class I Shared Path Planned Class II Bicycle Lane South San Francisco Ferry Terminal South San Francisco Caltrain StationExisting Class III Bicycle Route Planned Class III Bicycle Route Planned Class IV Separated Bikeway Project SiteExisting Class IV Separated Bikeway 0.5 mi 0.5 mi EAST OF101 SIERRA POINT DOWNTOWN 426 439 Eccles Transportation Demand Management Plan January 2024 10 Auto Connections The Project site is located on the north side of Eccles Avenue near the intersection of Eccles Avenue/Forbes Boulevard. Regional access to the Project site is provided via US 101 accessed via Oyster Point Boulevard to the north and East Grand Avenue via Forbes Boulevard to the south. Vehicular access is provided via driveways on Eccles Avenue. San Mateo County TDM Resources The Project would have access to trip reduction services offered by Commute.org. Commute.org is a public agency whose mission is to reduce the number of drive-alone vehicles traveling to, from, or through San Mateo County. The agency’s goal is to help residents and commuters find alternatives to driving alone that are less stressful, less costly, and better the environment. The agency provides information and commute planning assistance to employees, employer programs, and city transportation demand management partnerships. Commute.org provides various promotional programs for carpooling, vanpooling, bicycling, and transit use, and operates first/last mile shuttles along Oyster Point Boulevard and East Grand Avenue as previously noted. Figure 5. Commute.org Promotional Programs 427 439 Eccles Transportation Demand Management Plan January 2024 11 Proposed TDM Program Overview The City’s TDM Ordinance has two components: a points-based planning checklist and annual performance monitoring thresholds. As a Tier 3 Project, the Project is required to submit a completed TDM checklist that achieves a minimum threshold of 40 points, consistent with achieving a 60 percent drive alone mode share target (via survey). The City requires that all Projects implement seven TDM measures (adding up to 20 points) while providing flexibility to select from 15 optional measures (to achieve the remaining 20 points). The Project would implement all required measures per the City’s TDM Ordinance, including the following: • 50% Transit Pass Subsidies and Pre-Tax Transit Benefits • Participation in Commute.org Programs • Carpool/Vanpool Programs and Parking • Bicycle Storage, Showers, and Lockers • Designated TDM Coordinator • Bicycle and Pedestrian-Oriented Site Access • Encourage Telecommuting and Flexible Work Schedules The Project would implement three discretionary measures: • Enhanced shuttle commitment • Fully subsidized transit passes • Bicycle repair station A summary of each TDM measure is provided in the following section. Summary of Required TDM Measures 50% Transit Pass Subsidies and Pre-Tax Transit Benefits The Project will offer public transit passes or subsidies equivalent to at least 50 percent of the cost of a monthly two-zone Caltrain pass to incentivize transit use. This measure does not include funding/participation in the Commute.org shuttle program. This measure may be implemented through either a direct voucher program provided by the property manager, or through lease terms obligating employers at the site to provide said subsidies. In the Bay Area, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) requires that employers with 50+ employees within the Air District provide commuter benefits and annual employer registration. 428 439 Eccles Transportation Demand Management Plan January 2024 12 Participation in Commute.org Programs The Project will partner Commute.org, San Mateo County’s Transportation Management Agency, to provide connections to nearby regional rail and ferry services. To implement this measure in accordance with the City of South San Francisco’s General Plan, the Project will pursue the following measures: 1. Obtain certification of participation with Commute.org 2. Provide commute assistance and ride-matching program 3. Participate in Commute.org’s shuttle program 4. Provide Guaranteed Ride Home, offering a free ride home for future employees of the Project site in case of emergency (illness, family crisis, unscheduled overtime) 5. Supply orientation, education, and promotional programs and/or materials for tenants Carpool/Vanpool Programs and Parking The Project will include a carpooling and vanpooling program to promote and incentivize shared vehicle use. The carpool and vanpool program will include promotional incentives and ride-matching services to help facilitate these shared trips. Bicycle Storage, Showers, and Lockers The Project will provide safe and convenient bicycle parking per City code requirements. Designated TDM Coordinator The Project will provide a TDM coordinator to provide oversight and management of the TDM program. The TDM coordinator will lead implementation and promotion of the TDM program as well as monitoring efforts. Bicycle and Pedestrian-Oriented Site Access The Project site design will accommodate travel choices and give people the option to walk, ride transit, or bike to the Project site. This will include a direct connection to an under-construction multi-use path on the northern frontage of the Project site. As a condition of approval described in the TIA, the Project Sponsor shall prepare a feasibility analysis for a new direct pedestrian connection between the Project site and 700/701 Gateway stops via the 700 Gateway driveway sidewalk. This feasibility analysis shall involve coordination with adjacent property owners and a conceptual layout of a ramp and stairwell. If a new pedestrian connection is deemed feasible and mutually agreeable between the Project Sponsor and adjacent property owners, the Project sponsor shall design and construct the ramp and stairwell while also obtaining an easement for this connection. The Project Sponsor shall also coordinate the addition or relocation of a shuttle stop at 700 Gateway Boulevard with Commute.org and Oyster Point Mobility, such that all shuttle services along Gateway Boulevard stop in both directions at the 700/701 Gateway stops shared with SamTrans. If a new pedestrian connection is not deemed feasible and mutually agreeable, the 429 439 Eccles Transportation Demand Management Plan January 2024 13 Project Sponsor shall proceed with the bus and shuttle connections via the Gateway of the Pacific campus as-is. However, should these access constraints limit the Project’s ability to meet its TDM mode share targets, the Project Sponsor may need to modify its TDM program to provide a site-specific shuttle service or other measures to achieve compliance. Encourage Telecommuting & Flexible Work Schedules The Project will encourage employees to work remotely at least one day per week to reduce overall vehicle trips and when employees commute to work, encourage flexible work schedules that encourage travel outside of peak hours. Summary of Discretionary TDM Measures Enhanced Shuttle Commitment In addition to participation in Commute.org services, the Project will participate in Genentech’s Oyster Point Mobility consortium to provide first/last mile shuttle service to the Project site. Oyster Point Mobility provides shuttles to the Glen Park BART station and Millbrae Caltrain Station operating along Forbes Boulevard. Oyster Point Mobility would provide more frequent service to the Project site. The Project Sponsor will work with Genentech to consider adding stops at 700/701 Gateway Boulevard. The cost of participation in the Oyster Point Mobility consortium would be in addition to Commute.org service; consequently, this measure is classified as an enhanced shuttle commitment and would receive 10 points in the TDM Checklist. Fully Subsidized Transit Fares Project tenant employees would be eligible to receive a subsidy of 100 percent of transit fares (up to the maximum IRS benefit for pre-tax commuter benefits). This measure adds 10 points to the checklist. Bicycle Repair Station The Project will provide an on-site bicycle repair station for routine maintenance of bicycles. This measure adds one point to the checklist. Relationship to Conditions of Approval As previously noted, the Project is located approximately 700 to 900 feet away from the nearest bus/shuttle stops along Gateway Boulevard, which are served by a combination of SamTrans, Commute.org, and Oyster Point Mobility services. However, there is no direct path of access to these stops: while there is a driveway present along the southwestern edge of Gateway of the Pacific (700 Gateway), a retaining wall prevents a connection to the Class I trail or Project site. Consequently, transit riders must divert to the north via the Gateway of the Pacific campus, but this adds approximately 1,600 feet (about six minutes) of walking 430 439 Eccles Transportation Demand Management Plan January 2024 14 distance to reach the stop. The added travel time and meandering diversion may discourage transit use and limit the Project’s ability to meet its TDM mode share targets. There is some uncertainty around potential changes to shuttle service near the site. Shuttle operations by Commute.org and Oyster Point Mobility are expected to adapt to completion of future phases of Gateway of the Pacific and nearby developments, which may result in new stops along Gateway Boulevard and possible restoration of service along Eccles Avenue and/or Forbes Boulevard. However, the Project by itself is too small to warrant a diversion of shuttle service to directly serve the site, as such a diversion would delay other passengers. Therefore, the Project’s approach to shuttle service should be adaptable to different potential conditions that may include indirect access provided via Gateway of the Pacific as well as direct access via a site-specific shuttle stop. Consequently, the Transportation Impact Analysis recommends that as condition of approval, the Project Sponsor shall implement the following measures to ensure adequate access to transit services can be provided: • Provide a letter of support from the owners of Gateway of the Pacific into the final TDM Plan stating that the two developments will make a good faith effort to ensure pedestrian access from 439 Eccles to bus and shuttle stops on Gateway Boulevard via the Gateway of the Pacific site. • Incorporate space for an on-street shuttle stop along the Project’s frontage on southbound Eccles Avenue to provide the ability for shuttles to serve the site (including red curb, an eight foot by five foot accessible landing pad and a pole that operators may attach signage to). 431 439 Eccles Transportation Demand Management Plan January 2024 15 TDM Checklist Based on the required and optional measures described above, the Project would meet the required 40-point threshold for Tier 3 Projects as illustrated in Table 1. Table 1: Tier 3 TDM Certification Checklist Type TDM Measure (*Description Required as Attachment) Eligible Points Proposed Project Points Required Measures (20 Points) 50% Transit Pass Subsidies and Pre-Tax Transit Benefits 7 7 Participation in Commute.org Programs 5 5 Carpool/ Vanpool Programs and Parking 3 3 Bicycle Storage, Showers, and Lockers 2 2 Designated TDM Coordinator 1 1 Bicycle and Pedestrian-Oriented site Access 1 1 Encourage Telecommuting & Flexible Work Schedules 1 1 Optional Measures Paid Parking or Parking Cash-Out 10 Enhanced Shuttle Commitment 10 10 Fully Subsidized Transit Passes 10 10 Affordable Housing 6 Active Transportation Gap Closure Up to 6 Transit Capital Improvements Up to 6 Reduced Parking Up to 5 On-site Pedestrian-Oriented Amenities 3 Bikeshare Program Participation 3 Shared Parking Approach 2 Cash Incentives 2 On-site Carshare 2 Active Transportation Subsidies 1 Increased Bicycle Parking (>50% Greater than City Code) 1 Bicycle Repair Station 1 1 Required Tier 3 Projects 40 41 432 439 Eccles Transportation Demand Management Plan January 2024 16 Monitoring and Enforcement The TDM program will be monitored based on the requirements in the South San Francisco TDM Ordinance. The Project would comply with any future changes to the City’s monitoring and enforcement practices as described in its TDM Ordinance. Monitoring Methods Survey monitoring would apply to commute trips only. The Project is expected to make a good faith effort to reduce non-commute trips, but these trips would only be monitored via vehicle trip counts. The Project has two options to administer a survey: 1. Administer a statistically valid survey sufficient to achieve a margin of error of +/- 3 percent at a 90 percent confidence interval, with documentation of the survey methods and calculations by an independent consultant to support the validity of the survey. 2. Administer an online survey with a minimum response rate of 75 percent of the employee population. Vehicle trip counts would be conducted for AM and PM peak periods (6-10 AM and 3-7 PM) on a Monday through Friday period to capture a typical week of site activity. Video counts are recommended for accuracy. In all instances, the Project must provide raw data to the City as part of their compliance package, including the following: 1. Respondent-level survey response data (deletion of columns containing emails or non-required fields is acceptable). 2. Count data as delivered by the contractor providing the counts for each location, with data separated into 15 minute increments or less. 3. Current employee population. 433 439 Eccles Transportation Demand Management Plan January 2024 17 Survey Approach The following survey language would be included in all mode share surveys based on guidance provided by the City of South San Francisco. The site’s TDM coordinator may expand upon this survey language to seek additional information as needed. 1. Which of the following best represents your employment at [location]? (check one) o Full-time Employee o Part-time Employee o Contract Employee 2. In what ZIP code is your home located? (enter 5-digit ZIP code; for example, 94901) ___[Fill in the blank]_______ o Prefer Not to Answer o If prefer not to answer: Approximately how many miles is it from your home to your office in South San Francisco? 3. In the past week, what time did you usually arrive to work (check one)? ____[Drop down in increments of 30 minutes, from 6 AM – 10AM, before 6AM, or after 10AM]_____ 4. In the past week, what time did you usually leave work (check one)? ____[Drop down in increments of 30 minutes, from 3 PM – 7PM, before 3PM, or after 7PM]_______ 5. In the past week, on which days did you use each of the following transportation modes to travel to work? If you used more than one mode, (e.g., you ride Caltrain and then bicycle), identify the mode that was the longest part of your trip. Transportation Mode Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Drove a car or motorcycle alone Rode as a carpool passenger Drove a carpool with one or more other adults Vanpooled or carpooled with six or more people Rode a bus, train, ferry, or other public transit Rode a bicycle or scooter Walked all the way Dropped off by a friend/family member 434 439 Eccles Transportation Demand Management Plan January 2024 18 Dropped off by Uber, Lyft, taxi, etc. Worked from home / telecommuted / worked offsite Did not work this day Other (please specify) 6. [Only ask if respondent answered transit] Which of the following services did you use last week? (Check all that apply) □ Caltrain □ BART □ SamTrans □ Ferry □ Shuttle (shorter distance service to/from regional transit such as BART, Caltrain, or ferry) □ Express bus (longer distance service to/from my home or a park & ride) 7. [Only ask if respondent answered carpool] If you travel by carpool, how many total people traveled with you to work (not including yourself)? o 1 other person o 2 other people o 3 other people o 4+ other people 8. [Only ask if respondent answered drive alone] What is the primary reason you choose to drive alone? ___[Fill in the blank]_______ Survey results would be provided to the City in a standardized format as specified by staff. Formatted reports would be optional but not required. In order to calculate drive-alone mode share, the TDM coordinator and City staff would sum the total number of trips completed via the following modes: • Drove a car or motorcycle alone • Dropped off by a friend/family member • Dropped off by Uber, Lyft, taxi, etc. • Non-responses if greater than 25 percent of the site’s employee population 435 439 Eccles Transportation Demand Management Plan January 2024 19 Triennial Midday Parking Occupancy Survey In addition to annual surveys and trip counts, the Project shall prepare a midday parking occupancy count every three years per City Ordinance requirements. The parking occupancy survey shall be for informational purposes and is not associated with a performance target. Enforcement & Fines If the Project does not meet the required performance targets, the following penalties shall apply per the TDM Ordinance: • First Violation: The City will direct the Project to modify its TDM program to achieve compliance. Modifications are likely to include adding or modifying TDM measures to increase mode shift. • Second Violation: The City will direct the Project to coordinate with Commute.org or retain an independent consultant to identify additional program modifications to achieve compliance. Modifications are likely to include adding or modifying TDM measures to increase mode shift. • Third Violation (and any subsequent violations): The City may assess a penalty per the City’s fee schedule. Penalties shall be assessed for each additional violation in subsequent years. The Project may appeal the decision to administer a penalty if special circumstances prevented meeting the required performance targets. 436 439 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco Tree Inventory and Assessment Report August 16, 2023 August 16, 2023 DGA 755 Sansome Street, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Summary The plans are to renovate the area and improve the landscape and adjacent structure. The inventory contains four tree comprised of the same species (London plane (Platanus x hispanica). None of the trees are considered “Heritage Species”. All four trees are in fair condition with poor suitability for preservation and will be required to be removed. Thirteen are proposed as mitigation replacements. There is no tree protection for this project since everything will be removed and replaced Assignment, Limits, Purpose and Use •Provide an arborist’s report including an assessment of the trees within the project area and those on adjacent sites the could be affected by the proposed project. The assessment is to include the species, size (trunk diameter/circumference), condition (health, structure and form), and suitability for preservation. •The information in this report is limited to the condition of the trees during my inspection on July 26, 2023. No tree risk assessments were performed. •Plans reviewed were the Landscape Plan set provided by Studio Five and DGA dated August 11, 2023. Provide a pre-development assessment of the trees on-site to help satisfy the City of South San Francisco planning requirements. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com Page of 1 9 437 439 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco Tree Inventory and Assessment Report August 16, 2023 Observations Plans The plans are to renovate the area and improve the landscape and adjacent structure. Tree Inventory City of South San Francisco ordinance 13.30.020 Definitions. “Protected tree” means: 1.Any upright, single-trunked tree of a species not considered to be a heritage tree as defined in subsection (3) below or a tree listed in subsection (2) below, with a circumference of forty-eight inches or more when measured fifty-four inches above natural grade; or 2.Any upright, single-trunked tree of the following species: Blue Gum (Eucalyptus globulus), Black Acacia (Acacia melanoxylon), Myoporum (Myoporum lactum), Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), Glossy Privet (Lingustrum lucidum), or Lombardy Poplar (Populus nigra) with a circumference of seventy-five inches or more when measured fifty- four inches above natural grade; or 3.Any upright, single-trunked tree considered to be a heritage tree species, with a circumference of thirty inches or more when measured at fifty-four inches above natural grade. A heritage tree means any of the following: California Bay (Umbellaria californica), Oak (Quercus spp.), Cedar (Cedrus spp.), California Buckeye (Aesculus californica), Catalina Ironwood (Lyonothamnus asplenifolium), Strawberry Tree (Arbutus spp.), Mayten (Maytenus boaria), or Little Gem Dwarf Southern Magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora “Little Gem”). 4.A tree or stand of trees so designated by the director based upon findings that it is unique and of importance to the public due to its unusual appearance, location, historical significance or other factor; or 5.A stand of trees in which the director has determined each tree is dependent upon the others for survival. The inventory contains four London plane (Platanus x hispanica) and are not considered “Heritage Species”. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com Page of 2 9 438 439 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco Tree Inventory and Assessment Report August 16, 2023 The image below indicates the locations of the trees included in the inventory from L.005 (Image 1) and the data summary. Table 1: Tree Inventory Tree Species I.D. # Trunk Diameter (in.) ~ Height (ft.) ~ Canopy Diameter (ft.) Condition Expected Impact Status London plane (Platanus x Hispanica) 491 31 35 30 Fair High/ Remove Non-Heritage Species London plane (Platanus x Hispanica) 492 22 35 30 Fair High/ Remove Non-Heritage Species London plane (Platanus x Hispanica) 493 22 35 30 Fair High/ Remove Non-Heritage Species London plane (Platanus x Hispanica) 494 19 35 30 Fair High/ Remove Non-Heritage Species Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com Page of 3 9 1 2 3 4 ABCB.3 A.6 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 A.3A.5B.4B.8 A.2A.4A.9B.6 1 A B C D E F G H K 2 3 4 L J M L.5 ARB MAR 36 ARB MAR 36 ARB MAR 36 GLE TRI 36 GLE TRI 36 GLE TRI 36 ARB MAR 36 ARB MAR 36 ARB MAR 36 ARB MAR 36 GLE TRI 36 GLE TRI 36 GLE TRI 36 GLE TRI 36 CHI RET 36 QUE VIR 36 QUE AGR 36 QUE AGR 36 QUE AGR 36 QUE AGR 36 QUE VIR 36 CHI RET 36 CHI RET 36 CHI RET 36 CHI RET 36 QUE VIR 36 PLA ACE 24 PLA ACE 24 PLA ACE 24 PLA ACE 24 PLA ACE 24 PLA ACE 24 PLA ACE 24 PLA ACE 24 ARB MAR 36 ARB MAR 36 ARB MAR 36 GLE TRI 36 QUE VIR 36 ARB MAR 36 ARB MAR 36 ARB MAR 36 ARB MAR 36 QUE VIR 36 QUE VIR 36 LAU NOB 24 LAU NOB 24 LAU NOB 24 LAU NOB 24 LAU NOB 24 LAU NOB 24 #1 #4#2 #3 TREE DISPOSITION PLAN 1 "PROTECTED" TREE TO BE REMOVED "NON-PROTECTED" TREE TO BE REMOVED 0 4 *NOTE:SEE SHEET L006 FOR TREE DISPOSITION DETAILS TREES TO REMAIN TREE SUMMARY 0 PROTECTED TREES TO REMAIN 0 LIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORK 1/16" = 1'-0"10'20'40'0'LIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORK CONSULTANTS STAMP KEY PLAN CLIENT PROJECT ADDRESS PROJECT NO. SCALE TITLE DGA planning | architecture | interiors 2022 Civil Engineer Landscape Architect --- - DATEDESCRIPTIONNO. AS SHOWN Plumbing Engineer --- - Electrical Engineer --- - Structural Engineer --- -- --- - Mechanical Engineer --- -- --- -5/19/2023 11:13:58 AMC:\Users\cavanzino\Documents\22316_Vigilant_SmartLabs 439 Eccles_R23_Central_cavanzino.rvtVIGILANT HOLDINGS VIGILANT HOLDINGS 439 ECCLESLAB/OFFICE BUILDING 439 ECCLES AVE. SOUTH SANFRANCISCO 22316 PLANNING SUBMISSION 06.09.2023 25 San Anselmo AvenueSan Anselmo, CA 94960415.524.8517 PLANNING SUBMISSION R1 08.11.2023 L005LIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORK ECCLES AVE BIKE TRAIL BY OTHERS SERVICE DRIVE#491 #492 #493 #494 439 439 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco Tree Inventory and Assessment Report August 16, 2023 Discussion Condition Rating A tree’s condition is a determination of its overall health, structure, and form (ISA 2018). The assessment considered all three characteristics for a combined condition rating. •100% - Exceptional = Good health and structure with significant size, location or quality. •61-80% - Good = Normal vigor, well-developed structure, function and aesthetics not compromised with good longevity for the site. •41-60 % - Fair = Reduced vigor, damage, dieback, or pest problems, at least one significant structural problem or multiple moderate defects requiring treatment. Major asymmetry or deviation from the species normal habit, function and aesthetics compromised. •21-40% - Poor = Unhealthy and declining appearance with poor vigor, abnormal foliar color, size or density with potential irreversible decline. One serious structural defect or multiple significant defects that cannot be corrected and failure may occur at any time. Significant asymmetry and compromised aesthetics and intended use. •6-20% - Very Poor = Poor vigor and dying with little foliage in irreversible decline. Severe defects with the likelihood of failure being probable or imminent. Aesthetically poor with little or no function in the landscape. •0-5% - Dead/Unstable = Dead or imminently ready to fail. All the trees are in fair condition and have suffered from various common leaf diseases such as Anthracnose (Apiognomonia veneta). and sycamore scale (Stomacoccus platani). All four trees have been and would require arbitrary crown height reduction to accommodate the overhead high voltage lines. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com Page of 4 9 440 439 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco Tree Inventory and Assessment Report August 16, 2023 Suitability for Preservation Suitability for preservation is based on a tree’s potential to be a future asset once a project is complete. Ratings are based on species, size, condition and tolerance to construction, and contribution to the site and community (Gilpin, R, Hauer, R, Matheny, N, and Smiley, E.T. 2023). Ratings are as follows and some trees may have certain good and bad characteristics and not fit neatly into the categories. •High: Good condition, desirable species, tolerant to construction impacts, longer lifespans, good aesthetics. •Medium: Trees between high and low potentially with issues that can be mitigated through cultural practices such as pruning or plant health care programs. •Low: Poor condition, undesirable species (invasive or low species ratings), intolerant of construction impacts, short life spans, poor aesthetics. Although the trees are in fair condition all four are a burden to the community because they require constant reduction by the electric utility to keep them away from the high voltage lines. Removing and replacing the trees with more power line friendly species would be appropriate in this instance when the property is to be renovated. In this circumstance the trees have poor suitability for preservation. Expected Impact Level Impact level defines how a tree may be affected by construction activity and proximity to the tree, and is described as low, moderate, or high. The following scale defines the impact rating: •Low = The construction activity will have little influence on the tree. •Moderate = The construction may cause future health or structural problems, and steps must be taken to protect the tree to reduce future problems. •High = Tree structure and health will be compromised and removal is recommended, or other actions must be taken for the tree to remain. The tree is located in the building envelope. All four trees are to be removed and replaced with thirteen additional specimens throughout the site. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com Page of 5 9 441 439 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco Tree Inventory and Assessment Report August 16, 2023 Conclusion The plans are to renovate the area and improve the landscape and adjacent structure. The inventory contains four London plane (Platanus x hispanica) and are not considered “Heritage Species”. All the trees are in fair condition and have suffered from various common leaf diseases. Although the trees are in fair condition all four are a burden to the community because they require constant reduction by the electric utility to keep them away from the high voltage lines. In this circumstance the trees have poor suitability for preservation. All four trees are to be removed and replaced with thirteen additional specimens throughout the site. Recommendations Obtain all necessary permits and remove the trees and replace them according to the ordinance or planning requirements. Bibliography American National Standard for Tree Care Operations: Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management : Standard Practices (Management of Trees and Shrubs During Site Planning, Site Development, and Construction)(Part 5). Londonderry, NH: Secretariat, Tree Care Industry Association, 2019. Print. Gilpin, R, Hauer, R, Matheny, N, and Smiley, E.T. Managing trees during construction, Third edition. Champaign, IL: International Society of Arboriculture, 2023. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com Page of 6 9 442 439 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco Tree Inventory and Assessment Report August 16, 2023 Appendix A: Photographs A1: #491 through #494 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com Page of 7 9 #491 #492 #493 #494 443 439 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco Tree Inventory and Assessment Report August 16, 2023 Qualifications, Assumptions, and Limiting Conditions Any legal description provided to the consultant is assumed to be correct. Any titles or ownership of properties are assumed to be good and marketable. All property is appraised or evaluated as though free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent management. All property is presumed to be in conformance with applicable codes, ordinances, statutes, or other regulations. Care has been taken to obtain information from reliable sources. However, the consultant cannot be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. The consultant shall not be required to give testimony or attend meetings, hearings, conferences, mediations, arbitration, or trials by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services. This report and any appraisal value expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant, and the consultant’s fee is not contingent upon the reporting of a specified appraisal value, a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event. Sketches, drawings, and photographs in this report are intended for use as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale, and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys. The reproduction of information generated by architects, engineers, or other consultants on any sketches, drawings, or photographs is only for coordination and ease of reference. Inclusion of said information with any drawings or other documents does not constitute a representation as to the sufficiency or accuracy of said information. Unless otherwise expressed: a) this report covers only examined items and their condition at the time of inspection; and b) the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that structural problems or deficiencies of plants or property may not arise in the future. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com Page of 8 9 444 439 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco Tree Inventory and Assessment Report August 16, 2023 Certification of Performance I Richard Gessner, Certify: That I have personally inspected the tree(s) and/or the property referred to in this report, and have stated my findings accurately. The extent of the evaluation and/or appraisal is stated in the attached report and Terms of Assignment; That I have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved; That the analysis, opinions and conclusions stated herein are my own; That my analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared according to commonly accepted Arboricultural practices; That no one provided significant professional assistance to the consultant, except as indicated within the report. That my compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other party, nor upon the results of the assessment, the attainment of stipulated results, or the occurrence of any other subsequent events; I further certify that I am a Registered Consulting Arborist® with the American Society of Consulting Arborists, and that I acknowledge, accept and adhere to the ASCA Standards of Professional Practice. I am an International Society of Arboriculture Board Certified Master Arborist® and Tree Risk Assessor Qualified. I have been involved with the practice of Arboriculture and the care and study of trees since 1998. Richard J. Gessner ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist® #496 ISA Board Certified Master Arborist® WE-4341B Copyright © Copyright 2023, Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC. Other than specific exception granted for copies made by the client for the express uses stated in this report, no parts of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, recording, or otherwise without the express, written permission of the author. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com Page of 9 9 445 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:24-02 Agenda Date:2/15/2024 Version:1 Item #:7. Annual Reorganization of the Chair and Vice Chair of the South San Francisco Planning Commission (Adena Friedman, Chief Planner) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commissioners nominate and appoint a Chair and Vice Chair by motion for the Planning Commission BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The Planning Commission elects a Chair and Vice Chair at the first regular meeting held in the year.As such, staff is requesting that the Commissioners nominate and appoint a Chair and Vice Chair.Traditionally,the Vice Chair is nominated for the Chair role and a Vice Chair is nominated from the remaining Commissioners that did not serve during the previous calendar year in either the Chair or Vice Chair role. CONCLUSION Under Chair Tzang’s leadership,the Planning Commission public hearings were efficient,inclusive,and remarkably effective for public comment. Staff congratulates Chair Tzang for his effort. As stated above, staff recommends the nomination and appointment of a new Chair and Vice Chair for the Planning Commission. City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/6/2024Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™446