The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC Meeting 02-15-24 (Reso 2940-2024) - 439 Eccles Ave CEQA (P23-0076)City of South San Francisco Resolution 2940-2024 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™1 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™2 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™3 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™4 * * * * * * * City of South San Francisco Page 4 of 4 Attest:__________________________________ Adena Friedman Secretary to the Planning Commission I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on then 15th day of February 2024 by the following: vote:AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: Chair Tzang, Vice Chair Faria, Baker, Evans, Funes-Ozturk, Pamukcu _____________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ _Shihadeh ______________________________________________ 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 5 439 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 6 439 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 7 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 8 439 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. 9 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. 10 439 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. 11 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; 12 439 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 13 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. 14 439 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. 15 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. 16 439 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. 17 Page 10 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Figure 1: Project Location Source: Fehr & Peers 18 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page 11 Figure 2: Existing Conditions Source: Google Earth, modified to show project site Project Site N 19 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 20 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist Page 13 Figure 4: Visual Model Source: DGA Architects, Project Plan Set, dated 1/5/24 21 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. 22 439 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. 23 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. 24 439 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 25 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. 26 439 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). 27 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 28 439 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. 29 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. 30 439 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 31 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/ 32 439 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 33 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 34 439 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. 35 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. 36 439 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. 37 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. 38 439 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 39 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: 40 439 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. 41 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 42 439 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. 43 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. 44 439 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 45 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 46 439 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 47 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. 48 439 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. 49 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. 50 439 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. 51 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 52 439 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. 53 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 54 439 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. 55 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. 56 439 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 57 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. 58 439 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. 59 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 60 439 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 61 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. 62 439 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 63 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 64 439 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. 65 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 66 439 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. 67 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”) 68 439 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. 69 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. 70 439 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. 71 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. 72 439 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/. 73 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. 74 439 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. 75 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. 76 439 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. 77 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. 78 439 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 79 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. 80 439 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 81 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. 82 439 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. 83 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 84 439 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. 85 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 86 439 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. 87 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. 88 439 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. 89 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. 90 439 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 91 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 92 439 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. 93 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. 94 439 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 95 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. 96 STANDARD CONDITIONS AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ATTACHMENT 1 to the 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist 97 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 98 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 99 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. 100 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 101 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 102 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 103 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. 104 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 105 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 106 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 107 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). 108 AIR QUALITY CALCULATIONS ATTACHMENT 2 to the 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist 109 439 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 1 110 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 2 111 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 3 112 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 4 113 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 5 114 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 6 115 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 7 116 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 8 117 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 9 118 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 10 119 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 11 120 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 12 121 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 13 122 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 14 123 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 15 124 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 16 125 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 17 126 HISTORIC RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, CULTURAL RECORDS SEARCH, NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION RESPONSE ATTACHMENT 3 to the 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist 127 446 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 128 439 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 129 439 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. 130 439 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. 131 439 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. 132 439 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. 133 439 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.) 134 439 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 135 439 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) 136 439 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) 137 439 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) 138 439 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 139 439 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 140 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 141 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 142 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 143 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. 144 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 145 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 146 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 147 ENERGY CALCULATIONS ATTACHMENT 4 to the 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist 148 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 3 149 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 3 150 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 3 151 TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS ATTACHMENT 5 to the 439 Eccles Avenue Project Environmental Checklist 152 439 Eccles Transportation Impact Analysis Prepared for: Vigilant Holdings and City of South San Francisco January 2024 153 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 ...........................................................................................................................................25 154 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 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 24 155 439 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. 156 £[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 157 439 Eccles Transportation Impact Analysis January 2024 3 Figure 2. Project Site Plan & Circulation Diagram 158 439 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. 159 439 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. 160 439 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 30 161 439 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 ✓ ✓ 162 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 163 439 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 164 439 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. 165 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 166 439 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. 167 439 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. 168 439 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. 169 439 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. 170 439 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. 171 439 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. 172 439 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 173 439 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. 174 439 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. 175 439 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). 176 439 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. 177 439 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. 178 439 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. 179 439 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). 180