HomeMy WebLinkAbout04.29.2025@630 SP CC MSBTuesday, April 29, 2025
6:30 PM
City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
Library Parks & Recreation Building, Council Chambers
901 Civic Campus Way, South San Francisco, CA
Special City Council
EDDIE FLORES, Mayor (District 5)
MARK ADDIEGO, Vice Mayor (District 1)
JAMES COLEMAN, Councilmember (District 4)
MARK NAGALES, Councilmember (District 2)
BUENAFLOR NICOLAS, Councilmember (District 3)
ROSA GOVEA ACOSTA, City Clerk
FRANK RISSO, City Treasurer
SHARON RANALS, City Manager
SKY WOODRUFF, City Attorney
Special Meeting Agenda
1
April 29, 2025Special City Council Special Meeting Agenda
Zoom Link Below - No Registration Required
Join Zoom meeting: https://ssf-net.zoom.us/j/81194559924 (Enter your email and name)
Webinar ID: 811 9455 9924
Join by Telephone: + 1 669 444 9171
How to provide Public Comment during the City Council Meeting:
1. By Zoom: When the Clerk calls for public comments, click on "raise hand." Speakers will be notified shortly
before they are called to speak.
2. By Phone: Enter the conference ID fund on the agenda. When the Clerk calls for public comment, Click *9
to raise a hand to speak. Click *6 to unmute when called.
3. In Person: Complete a Digital Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Council Chamber ’s. When your
name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address (optional) for the Minutes.
How to submit written Public Comment before the City Council Meeting:
Members of the public are encouraged to submit public comments in writing in advance of the meeting via the
eComment tab by 4:30 p.m. on the meeting date. Use the eComment portal by clicking on the following link :
https://ci-ssf-ca.granicusideas.com/meetings or by visiting the City Council meeting's agenda page. eComments
are also directly sent to the iLegislate application used by City Council and staff.
American Disability Act:
The City Clerk will provide materials in appropriate alternative formats to comply with the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Please send a written request to Office of the City Clerk at 400 Grand Avenue, South San
Francisco, CA 94080, or email at all-cc@ssf.net. Include your name, address, phone number, a brief
description of the requested materials, and preferred alternative format service at least 24-hours before the
meeting.
Accommodations: Individuals who require special assistance of a disability -related modification or
accommodation to participate in the meeting, including Interpretation Services, should contact the Office of the
City Clerk by email at all-cc@ssf.net, 24-hours before the meeting.
Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/30/2025
2
April 29, 2025Special City Council Special Meeting Agenda
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
AGENDA REVIEW
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Report regarding a facility condition assessment, seismic study, operating cost analysis,
environmental analysis, and Housing Element opportunity sites analysis for the
Municipal Services Building, and options for how to proceed with reopening or
redeveloping the site (Sharon Ranals, City Manager; Eunejune Kim, Public Works
Director; Greg Mediati, Director of Parks and Recreation; Jake Gilchrist, Director of
Capital Projects; Nell Selander, Director of Economic and Community Development)
1.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/30/2025
3
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:25-481 Agenda Date:4/29/2025
Version:1 Item #:1.
Report regarding a facility condition assessment,seismic study,operating cost analysis,environmental analysis,
and Housing Element opportunity sites analysis for the Municipal Services Building,and options for how to
proceed with reopening or redeveloping the site (Sharon Ranals,City Manager;Eunejune Kim,Public Works
Director;Greg Mediati,Director of Parks and Recreation;Jake Gilchrist,Director of Capital Projects;Nell
Selander, Director of Economic and Community Development)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council receive a report from staff regarding a facility condition
assessment and seismic study conducted for the Municipal Services Building (MSB),as well as an update
on environmental site assessment data collected on the property,operating cost analysis,and evaluation
of alternative Housing Element opportunity sites.The report also includes options for how to proceed
with reopening or redeveloping the MSB site.Staff recommends Council receive this information and
provide direction on whether to proceed with reopening or redeveloping the MSB,or alternatively to
take no action for a period of time while the City’s budget position is stabilized.
BACKGROUND
The Municipal Services Building (MSB),located at 33 Arroyo Drive,is a concrete tilt-up building constructed
in 1969 as a retail store.In the late 1970s,the City purchased the property to convert it into a public facility to
house the Parks and Recreation Department,Police Department,and Fire Department,which it did until the
Police Department relocated in 2022 to 1 Chestnut Avenue,and the Parks and Recreation Department followed
suit in 2023 with the opening of the new Library | Parks and Recreation Center at 901 Civic Campus Way.
In 2018,as part of the overall Community Civic Campus planning,staff completed a design development
package for Fire Station 63 and then paused the project to develop a funding strategy for construction.At the
time,the site for Station 63 was imagined to be the northwest corner of the MSB property at Camaritas Avenue
and Arroyo Drive.In late 2020,staff learned that the property across the street at 71 Camaritas Avenue was on
the market.While Economic and Community Development staff negotiated with the property owner,the
Capital Projects team worked with the Fire Station architects to confirm that the 71 Camaritas site was an
appropriate location,including an Engineering Review with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission,
which holds an easement on the back side of the property.City Council approved the purchase of 71 Camaritas
Avenue at the July 28, 2021 City Council meeting.
Currently,planning and design for Fire Station 63 is in progress.The project is expected to cost more than $36
million due to inflation and current market volatility created by the recent implementation of new trade tariffs.
Assuming that full funding can be secured,staff expects to advertise the construction project for bid in Summer
2026 and construction will take approximately 2 years,with the move into the new Station 63 at 71 Camaritas
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/25/2025Page 1 of 14
powered by Legistar™4
File #:25-481 Agenda Date:4/29/2025
Version:1 Item #:1.
2026 and construction will take approximately 2 years,with the move into the new Station 63 at 71 Camaritas
Avenue to be completed by the end of 2028.For more information on the history of Fire Station 63 and the
scope of the redesign, see Attachment 1).
Because of the City’s intended vacation of the MSB and use of the L|PR site for community uses rather than
housing,the City included the MSB site as a Housing Opportunity Site in the City’s 2015-2023 and 2023-2031
Housing Elements.While inclusion of the MSB as a Housing Opportunity Site does not require its
redevelopment for housing and the City has taken no action to solicit a developer or pursue its redevelopment,
the City Council has nonetheless received significant public comment regarding preserving the MSB and
reopening it as a senior or community center.
Considering this community interest in the MSB site and City Council direction to engage the public in a
dialogue regarding its future use,staff prepared a staff report on the MSB and West Orange Library,which was
presented to Council on June 26,2024.That report included a recommendation to proceed with engaging a
consultant to facilitate community conversations to inform future use of these sites.On August 28,2024,staff
returned to City Council with a professional services contract with a highly qualified firm to facilitate these
community conversations.At that meeting,Council chose not to take action on the contract and instead directed
staff to return to Council with a facility needs assessment and cost estimates for reopening the MSB,as well as
potential alternative sites should Council desire to remove the MSB from the City’s list of Housing Element
opportunity sites.
The preparation of this information -facility condition assessment,seismic study,environmental site
assessment,and Housing Element opportunity site alternatives -is in response to Council feedback and
direction provided in August 2024.This Background section includes the results of these various analyses,
while the Discussion session of this report provides a more concise description of the City’s options to
proceed, or not, with reuse or redevelopment of the MSB site.
Seismic Study
To accurately assess the costs of potentially reopening or repurposing the MSB and to augment the facility
condition assessment,which does not take into account seismic retrofitting or ADA accessibility,staff engaged
Biggs Cardosa Associates,Inc.to provide a preliminary seismic evaluation of the lateral load-resisting system
of the MSB and determine how it complies with the seismic performance requirements of California Building
Code Seismic Risk Categories.The report,included as Attachment 2,concluded that the MSB does not meet
current earthquake safety standards.While this may be an alarming statement,it is true of many buildings
across the Bay Area,especially concrete tilt-up buildings like the MSB.The seismic stability only needs to be
addressed if the city voluntarily decides to increase seismic resilience,or if significant walls are altered,there is
a significant change in use, or additional weight is added to the building.
Although the Municipal Services Building (MSB)met all applicable building codes at the time of its original
construction and subsequent occupancy,it does not meet current seismic performance standards under the
California Building Code.Importantly,there is no legal requirement to seismically retrofit the MSB unless the
City initiates a substantial renovation,change of use,or structural alteration that would trigger mandatory
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/25/2025Page 2 of 14
powered by Legistar™5
File #:25-481 Agenda Date:4/29/2025
Version:1 Item #:1.
City initiates a substantial renovation,change of use,or structural alteration that would trigger mandatory
upgrades.However,given the MSB's concrete tilt-up construction and known deficiencies in its lateral load-
resisting system,the City determined that continued long-term investment in the facility would not represent a
prudent use of public funds.Rather than risk ongoing maintenance and potential life safety concerns in a
facility that fails to meet modern resilience standards,the City opted to invest in new,state-of-the-art public
facilities-such as the new Police Department,Library |Parks and Recreation Center,and upcoming Fire Station
63-which are designed to meet or exceed current seismic safety and accessibility requirements.This approach
ensures greater long-term value, safety, and service continuity for South San Francisco residents.
The report identified the following key issues regarding the MSB’s seismic resilience:
·Weak connections between the walls and floors and roof
·Gaps or breaks in walls that should help stabilize the building
·Concrete walls that are not strong enough to resist shaking
·Seismic upgrades done in the past warrant further attention
The California Building Code identifies various risk categories to evaluate seismic safety.Because of the issues
identified above,the MSB does not meet current safety standards for any of the Risk Categories most relevant
to its current and former uses:Risk Category II for offices,Risk Category III for assembly and essential
community services,and Risk Category IV for critical buildings like emergency centers or fire stations.The
report then identified the cost associated with bringing the MSB into compliance with safety standards to
comply with the various risk categories:
·Risk Category II, office buildings, estimated upgrade cost is $5.6 million.
·Risk Category III, assembly and essential community services, estimated upgrade cost is $6.5 million.
·Risk Category IV, critical buildings like emergency centers, estimated upgrade cost is $7.6 million.
Even at the lowest level of seismic safety (“Collapse Prevention”),the building fails for Categories II and III.
This means that in a strong earthquake,the building could suffer major damage or collapse,posing serious risk
to occupants.
Voluntary versus Mandatory Seismic Upgrades
Seismic upgrades can be either voluntary or mandatory.Voluntary upgrades are chosen by owners to improve
safety and protect their building.Mandatory upgrades are legally required by the California Building Code and
are triggered by changes that significantly change the building's weight,lateral load resisting system,or by
changes in use that result in a higher Seismic Risk Category.If building improvements do not significantly
affect these factors, seismic upgrades are not required.
Past Seismic Upgrades at the MSB
In 2010,as part of the Federally funded remodel project for Fire Station 63,critical seismic upgrades to the Fire
Station’s ceiling,exterior walls,and apparatus bay were performed.Based on the MSB’s age,it was
recommended,through a seismic study,to further expand the seismic retrofit work to capture a much larger
portion of the MSB,as it would provide additional protection for the station and surrounding areas.Due to the
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/25/2025Page 3 of 14
powered by Legistar™6
File #:25-481 Agenda Date:4/29/2025
Version:1 Item #:1.
portion of the MSB,as it would provide additional protection for the station and surrounding areas.Due to the
grant’s restrictions,this was not possible,as work outside of the station’s footprint was not allowable.The work
that was performed strengthened the apparatus bay and provided a much higher level of protection with the
intent of accessing the engine and ambulance post-earthquake.The work also allowed for a raised apparatus
bay ceiling,providing access for any of the Fire Department’s engines and ambulances.Additionally,work was
done to secure the exterior walls to both the roof and the second floor.This was done to reduce the chance of a
wall failure that could prevent access and/or egress to the Station.While this work provided a significant
benefit to the resiliency of Fire Station 63’s apparatus bay area and exterior walls,the 2010 seismic evaluation
of the building indicated that the existing building has major lateral-force resisting deficiencies,which was also
confirmed in the 2025 seismic evaluation.
Facility Condition Assessment
In 2015,the City conducted a Facility Condition Assessment (FCA)with a consultant team from EMG
Corporation of most City-owned facilities to determine the growing deferred maintenance backlog.At that
time,there was a perception that the backlog had grown,in large part due to austerity policies enacted during
the Great Recession of 2008.The deferred maintenance assessment determined that there was a $7.5 million
dollar deferred maintenance backlog for the MSB building for the next 10 years,and the facility had a $25
million replacement cost.At the time,staff believed both figures were low,and did not account for the cost of
new construction in the area and seismic upgrades,nor costs borne by municipal projects,such as prevailing
wage requirements.This FCA also did not consider building code upgrades necessary with a change in building
use. (When a building substantially remodels or the use changes, building code upgrades are often triggered.)
Understanding the inventory of deferred maintenance items had grown in the ten years since the 2015 report,
which only looked at a term of 10 years out from the report date,and the construction market is immeasurably
disparate than it was in 2015,a new Facility Condition Assessment was completed in 2025,included as
Attachment 3.The City contracted with Group4 Architecture and Planning (Group4)to lead this effort.Group4
subcontracted with Bureau Veritas,a facility inspection and certification services consultant,and TBD
Consultants, a professional cost estimating firm to provide a third-party assessment of the MSB.
In September 2024,the consultant team visited the MSB to conduct a visual assessment of the facility.No
destructive testing or opening of walls or other facility components was conducted.Preliminary cost estimates
produced by Bureau Veritas were then vetted by TBD Consultants,and adjusted for local construction,labor,
and material costs.
While Facility Condition Assessments provide a reasonably accurate cost estimate,it is possible unforeseen
conditions may be experienced during design,construction,and bidding.For this reason,they are considered
estimates and may vary from actual expenses.
Summary of Findings
With their visual assessment complete,Bureau Veritas consultants studied architectural,mechanical,plumbing,
and fire/life safety building systems.Not included in the report were costs associated with updated furnishings,
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/25/2025Page 4 of 14
powered by Legistar™7
File #:25-481 Agenda Date:4/29/2025
Version:1 Item #:1.
fixtures, technology, and loose equipment (FF&E), nor study of seismic or ADA code deficiencies.
Based on approximate current construction costs of $1,200 per square foot of new floor area,and a building
area of approximately 120,000 square feet (including subgrade parking,mechanical,electrical,and plumbing
(MEP)and storage),consultants estimated that the facility has a current replacement value of $142 million if
reconstructed as a like-sized modern replacement facility.
Additionally,near-to mid-term deferred maintenance and capital needs to operate the facility for the next 10
years was valued at $41.4 million.For the next 20 years,this sum grows to $44.5 million.It should be noted
this estimate did not include soft costs (design,permits,testing,commissioning,or other fees),contingency,or
any seismic upgrades,as the seismic evaluation was not completed in time for their report.Generally,it is
recommended to include an allowance of 30%of the construction budget for soft costs and contingency.In this
case,it would escalate the full project cost by an additional $12.4 -$13.3 million,resulting in a total budget of:
$53.8 million for years 0 -10,or $57.8 million for the next 20 years.As noted earlier,seismic work,if
warranted, would add another $5.6 - $7.6 million, totaling conservatively $65.4 million over 20 years.
According to Bureau Veritas’Facility Condition Index or FCI -a generally accepted formula to assess building
condition based on the cost of deferred maintenance divided by the facility’s replacement value,the facility is
indexed at near end of life.This is,as mentioned above,not including seismic or certain accessibility related
deficiencies not included in their analysis,which would only increase the FCI.It should also be noted that in
the report,the “current”time period is 2024,as this is when inspections took place,and many items considered
for replacement in the three-year period are due in the current year, 2025.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/25/2025Page 5 of 14
powered by Legistar™8
File #:25-481 Agenda Date:4/29/2025
Version:1 Item #:1.
Source:
Municipal Services Building Facility Condition Assessment, Bureau Veritas, 2025.
In addition to the Bureau Veritas report,in order to have another data point to reduce the possibility of an
outlying cost estimate,a peer cost estimate was conducted by Group4 and TBD Consultants based on per
square foot cost estimates.Coupled with information from the seismic study,escalating cost estimates from the
City’s ADA Transition Plan,and including typical allowances for FF&E,soft costs,and contingencies,Group4
created two cost estimates:one for updating and opening the entire MSB for public use,and another for
opening the portion of the facility formerly operated by the Parks and Recreation Department (Recreation
wing) only for public use. These cost models are detailed in Attachments 4 and 5 and summarized below.
As noted above,seismic upgrades would be a voluntary effort.It should be noted that as part of this analysis,
the most stringent seismic risk category was selected for the full renovation cost,as the intended use following
a full renovation is unknown and the seismic risk category may change.By contrast,the model focused on
repurposing the Recreation Wing anticipated no seismic work, as that assumed no change of use.
Per the Group4 estimates,the full renovation cost with structural updates (assuming Risk Category IV seismic
upgrades)would be $73,037,000.While the partial renovation cost of the Recreation Wing only without
structural upgrades would cost between $29,380,000 and $35,100,000.
In summary,comparing the two estimates,one could reasonably expect an investment of $65 million to $73
million in the next 20 years for the entire facility.In comparison,the new Library |Parks and Recreation
Center, which also houses the Library and a new park, and was funded by Measure W, cost $101 million.
Operating Cost Analysis
City staff performed a cursory cost analysis to approximate what additional costs could be expected if the MSB
was to be reopened as a community center site. Some of the assumptions used for this analysis are noted below:
·The City would only operate the former Recreation wing of the facility.Additional costs would be
incurred if the former Police Department portion was occupied by City programs,offices,or if leased to
a tenant.
·The facility would conservatively operate Monday through Friday,9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.with classes,
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/25/2025Page 6 of 14
powered by Legistar™9
File #:25-481 Agenda Date:4/29/2025
Version:1 Item #:1.
·The facility would conservatively operate Monday through Friday,9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.with classes,
for 20 hours of programming per day throughout various rooms.
·Facility rentals, such as community gatherings, birthdays, and dances would occur on weekends.
·Some fees for classes may be necessary to sustain programs.
·The following staff would be required to deliver programs at a comparable level as other recreation
programs:
o Recreation and Community Services Program Coordinator: 1 FTE
o Administrative Assistant: 1 FTE
o Recreation Instructor (hourly): 2.5 FTE
o Recreation Leader III - Classes / Class Aide (hourly): 2.0 FTE
o Recreation Leader III - Rentals (hourly): 0.80 FTE
o Building Maintenance Custodian (day shift): 1 FTE
o Building Maintenance Custodian (swing shift): 1 FTE
o Senior Building Maintenance Custodian: As needed
·Materials would be needed for programs and maintenance.
·No additional landscape maintenance personnel would be required for the site’s grounds,as the
building’s landscape is currently being maintained by the Parks Division as it was prior to closure.
Based on these assumptions,staff anticipates,at a minimum,annual operation and maintenance costs to be
approximately $1.1 million per year, based on the following:
·On-going Supplies and Services: $253,425 per year
·On-going Personnel Costs: $884,537 per year
These ongoing operating costs would be in addition to one-time supplies and services startup costs of $90,000.
In this scenario,staff anticipates approximately $170,000 to $300,000 in annual revenues,depending on service
models and desired level of subsidy.
Environmental Investigation
As part of planning for the future of the MSB,in 2021,City staff commissioned a Phase I environmental site
assessment (ESA),which is a standard method of assessing the environmental condition of property.The City
had information at the time about a City-owned underground diesel fuel tank that had been removed from the
property and a chemical plume nearby from the former My Cleaner site at 1053 El Camino Real.Additionally,
the relocation of the Police Department to the new station at 1 Chestnut included the decommissioning of the
firing range at the MSB.State regulatory requirements for decommissioned firing ranges include testing for
lead contamination and subsequent remediation and closure,which was completed by a qualified firm and
documented with the County of San Mateo Office of Environmental Health.
The initial Phase I ESA recommended an additional Phase II ESA to sample soil and soil vapor below the
foundation slab.Subsequently,soil vapor probes were installed under the foundation slab and have been
monitored routinely over the past two years to evaluate potential seasonal and temporal variability to confirm
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/25/2025Page 7 of 14
powered by Legistar™10
File #:25-481 Agenda Date:4/29/2025
Version:1 Item #:1.
monitored routinely over the past two years to evaluate potential seasonal and temporal variability to confirm
consistency in the results.Results from these soil vapor probes have identified volatile organic compounds
(VOCs)consistent with prior petroleum uses on the site associated with the automotive repair in the former
department store at the Camaritas side of the MSB,as well as chemicals associated with the former My
Cleaners abutting the MSB.Monitoring of the soil vapor probes in December 2023,May 2024,and November
2024 found levels of Tetrachloroethene (PCE)above acceptable residential thresholds,but generally below
acceptable commercial thresholds with some exceptions.The most recently completed report (November 2024)
is included as Attachment 6 and provides a summary of the previous investigations and monitoring.
Throughout this testing and monitoring process,the City’s consultant,Ninyo &Moore,has continually assured
staff that operating the MSB with its current uses is appropriate while site monitoring continues roughly every
six months.While the acceptable limits of certain chemicals including Benzene and PCE exceed the residential
threshold and at certain soil vapor probes the commercial thresholds,the reporting limits are extremely
conservative and not the same as the levels at which a VOC presents a health threat.They are levels for
reporting and screening and are used in the field to identify the presence of VOCs at concentrations that would
justify further testing and reporting.Second,the chemicals at issue are in soil below the slab in the underground
garage,and that is where the testing occurs.The slab itself acts as a barrier that VOCs would have to get
through to interact with people.Put differently,the presence of VOCs in the MSB garage should be even lower
than in the sampling areas,if they are present at all.Third,because the MSB garage is open on one end to the
outside,there is airflow that would further dilute the concentrations of any VOCs present in the garage itself.
Ultimately,the findings do not change whether or not the MSB can be reopened and used consistently with how
it has been operated in the past.However,if the site is redeveloped,mitigation and further monitoring will need
to occur.
Notably,Ninyo &Moore recommends the City share its testing data with County Environmental Health in
order to inform the remediation and closure plan for My Cleaners.The City expects to share this data with the
County in the days that follow.
Alternate Housing Element Opportunity Sites
The MSB has been identified as an opportunity site for future housing in the current (and previous version)of
the City’s Housing Element.While this does not require that the site is actually developed within the 2023-2031
timeline,it does require permissive zoning standards.The State requires cities to show a yield analysis for each
opportunity site -particularly,the number of very-low-,low-,and moderate-income units that are possible.
Under this Housing Element’s assumptions,the MSB is nearly two acres and identified as a workforce housing
project.With a zoning density of 80 units per acre,this could result in up to 150 units with 56 very-low,56 low
and 38 moderate income units.
Numerous public comments have recently requested that the City Council consider removing this property from
the opportunity sites list.Commenters have suggested this would serve as confirmation that the City is not
prioritizing 33 Arroyo Drive for development,which the City Council has indeed stated over the last year of
public inquiry.It is possible to remove the site if the City can show the State’s Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD)that an adequate site exists to replace it.Staff has identified a few
alternatives,and indicated a potential yield analysis,positive and negative site traits,and any costs associated
with amending the City’s General Plan or Zoning to allow high-density residential on the sites.This matrix of
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/25/2025Page 8 of 14
powered by Legistar™11
File #:25-481 Agenda Date:4/29/2025
Version:1 Item #:1.
with amending the City’s General Plan or Zoning to allow high-density residential on the sites.This matrix of
sites is provided in Attachment 7.
None of the alternative sites are ideal due to zoning deficiencies,location,or ownership.The City has greater
control over a site it owns,and this fact is prioritized by HCD reviewers when they consider a Housing Element
plan amendment.The best option would be the shuttered West Orange Library as a development site.But it
would likely require a higher density than the immediately surrounding area to match unit yields on the MSB
site.That upzoning and related environmental study could be expensive and cause outcry transference -the
change may satisfy Serra Highlands neighbors and upset Avalon residents.
Other options include encouraging development on the San Mateo County Courthouse complex,the Bay Area
Rapid Transit (BART)parking lots,the closed South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD)
Foxridge site,or open space parcels along Skyline Boulevard.All of these identified sites are roughly in the
same high resource area of the City,which is also prioritized by HCD reviewers.Put another way,HCD would
likely reject a proposal that replaces the MSB with a site in Lindenville or East of US-101,which already has
identified opportunity sites and is not considered as highly resourced.
DISCUSSION
Via this staff report and associated presentation,staff has provided Council with the data requested to inform a
decision to reopen and reoccupy the MSB,pursue its redevelopment,or neither.At this point,Council is faced
with a substantial decision -should the City pause discussion of the MSB until the City’s budget situation
stabilizes (perhaps two to three years)or move forward with either reuse or redevelopment.Reuse,as discussed
above,will require substantial financial commitment of the City.Redevelopment will require substantial public
subsidy should Council desire the predominant use to be affordable rental or affordable for-sale housing.Given
these potential paths forward,staff has three scenarios for Council to consider if it wishes to move forward
immediately with expending funds on the MSB site:1)rehabilitate the Recreation Wing and operate as a City
facility,2)rehabilitate the Recreation Wing and lease it to a similar user,and 2)redevelop with affordable for-
sale or rental housing.
Staff does not recommend a full rehabilitation of the MSB including structural upgrades due to the
extraordinary cost to improve and operate the facility and therefore that option is not more fully described
below.
Rehabilitate the Recreation Wing and Operate as a City Facility
The most common request staff has heard from the community regarding the MSB,is that the City reopen the
building and include programming for seniors.As described above,staff has analyzed what this may cost on an
upfront and ongoing basis.To make this scenario a reality,the City would need to invest at minimum $29
million in the building over the next 10 years to operate it at the City’s current standard -clean,safe,and
reliable.Ongoing annual operating expenses would total roughly $1.1 million.Staff recommends this level of
investment because it would 1)extend the life of the building and 2)deliver a space and program that is
consistent with other City facilities and programs.Staff does not recommend short-cutting improvements at the
building that could result in hazards to the public,such as leaks from a roof that has exceeded its useful life,
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/25/2025Page 9 of 14
powered by Legistar™12
File #:25-481 Agenda Date:4/29/2025
Version:1 Item #:1.
building that could result in hazards to the public,such as leaks from a roof that has exceeded its useful life,
improper ventilation,an unreliable elevator,and lack of accessibility modifications for disabled community
members.
Since the decision was made in 2015 to proceed with the development of the new Police Station,the Library |
Parks &Recreation Center,and the new Fire Station 63 to replace the functions at the MSB,the City has not
invested substantially in maintaining,updating,or replacing buildings systems such as the roof,HVAC,
technology,and fixtures at the MSB.Instead,the City focused resources on bringing online new state-of-the-art
facilities.Because of this lack of investment in the MSB over the past decade,the deferred maintenance is
substantial. This explains the substantial cost to reopen even just a portion of the building.
Assessing Demand for Services
Over the past year,the City has expanded senior and multi-generational program offerings at existing Parks and
Recreation sites,with additional fee-based programs at various sites,and no-cost programs specifically for
seniors at the Teglia Center and Bulos Center,and future increased programming at the universally accessible
new pool at Orange Memorial Park opening later this year.Additionally,when the preschool classrooms at the
Bulos Center are relocated to a dedicated preschool facility at Westborough Park in Fiscal Year 2027-28,senior
programs can continue to expand at the Bulos Center.Given these expansions in senior and multi-generational
programming,staff would recommend further investigating how much demand exists for additional senior and
multi-generational services and programming prior to investing substantially to reopening the MSB for this
purpose.
Next Steps
Should Council direct staff to proceed with further evaluating reopening the Recreation Wing of the MSB and
program it with typical City programs,staff would next identify potential funding sources and begin engaging
design and engineering professionals to refine scope and cost proposals for building rehabilitation and
modifications.The costs needed to undertake this effort would be borne by those same funding sources that are
anticipated to contribute to other new parks and recreation facilities throughout South San Francisco,as well as
the new Fire Station 63.These funding sources may include impact fees,General Fund reserve,Measure W
revenue,or additional bond issuances supported by Measure W revenue.It is unlikely that a project like this
one would be competitive for substantial grant funding.
Rehabilitate the Recreation Wing and Lease the MSB to a Similar User
Similar to the scenario above,staff anticipates the City would need to invest nearly $29 million in rehabilitating
the Recreation Wing sufficiently to lease.While the City could market the property for lease and provide a
tenant allowance so that the lessee could complete some of the rehabilitation work,the likely lease revenue
would not offset the cost of the necessary repairs and upgrades.Below is a table illustrating three potential lease
rates -$2 per square foot per month,which would be near market rent for this space,$1 per square foot per
month,which would be a solid below market rent,and $0.50 per square foot,which may be closer to what a
likely tenant would be willing to pay for such a large space.At 30,000 square feet,even a $0.50 lease rate
would cost $15,000 per month. The calculations in the table assume a 3% escalation year over year.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/25/2025Page 10 of 14
powered by Legistar™13
File #:25-481 Agenda Date:4/29/2025
Version:1 Item #:1.
At these rent rates,the maximum tenant improvement allowance the City could approve over a five-year lease
is $3.8 million.That means of the $29 million budget to reoccupy the Recreation Wing,$26 million of that
would still need to be borne by the City.
Additionally,in order to avoid having to upgrade the seismic infrastructure of the building,the lessee would
need to propose a use similar to how the Recreation Wing was previously used -as office space,
classrooms/studios, and gathering spaces. This would limit the pool of potential lessees.
Assessing Interest in Leasing the MSB
Last year,the City released a Request for Proposals for use of the West Orange Library space.It was limited to
organizations providing childcare or community services,but it did not elicit a single response.Additionally,
there is a glut of office space currently available in South San Francisco given current economic conditions.
The City would need to engage a broker to market the site broadly and encourage offers.A typical City
solicitation process would be unlikely to yield a paying tenant that could offset some of the rehabilitation costs.
Redevelop the MSB Site for Housing
The final option staff would like to present to Council is redeveloping the site for housing,which could be fully
affordable or market rate with inclusionary affordable housing and include ground floor community serving
uses -such as a senior center,community meeting spaces,or similar.As is typical for City solicitations for
developers of City-owned properties,the City can prescribe exactly what type of development it is looking for.
That might include for-sale housing,rental housing,community space,childcare,open space,or other uses
needed by the South San Francisco community.Other deal points that can be prescribed in the solicitation is
payment of prevailing wage or using union labor,local hire requirements,or other financial,but not physical
requirements of the development.For example,a Request for Qualifications for this site might include a
requirement that the property be ground leased and that the selected development team construct a senior center
on the ground floor,with senior affordable housing above,paying prevailing wage during the course of
construction, and including a local hire provision for the general contractor and larger subcontractors.
Several years ago,the City prepared financial analyses for different development scenarios at the MSB.Those
were presented to Council on November 2,2021 and July 13,2022 and are included as Attachments 8 and 9.
Ultimately,Council did not direct staff to move forward with soliciting a developer for the property or pursuing
any of the development types discussed.These analyses,though,are useful in estimating the developmentCity of South San Francisco Printed on 4/25/2025Page 11 of 14
powered by Legistar™14
File #:25-481 Agenda Date:4/29/2025
Version:1 Item #:1.
any of the development types discussed.These analyses,though,are useful in estimating the development
capacity of the site as well as the land value and potential development costs.The estimated land value
identified in 2021 and 2022 was between $5.5 and $10 million,and the total development cost of a 150 unit
building on the site roughly $100 million.
Staff anticipates that if Council directs staff to proceed with soliciting a market rate developer for the MSB site,
with the City’s standard 15%inclusionary housing requirement and only modest community uses on the ground
floor,the City would be able to generate a sale price or ground lease payments from the transaction.While
economic conditions have changed substantially since 2021/2022,staff believe that the property could
reasonably generate a roughly $5 million purchase price or equivalent ground lease terms.However,should
Council direct staff to pursue a fully affordable housing development on the site,public subsidy will be
required to catalyze that development.This subsidy could come in the form of a discounted or $1 sale or lease
price for the land,as well as a predevelopment loan or permanent financing for the project.Staff anticipates the
loan would need to be between $5 and $10 million, which can be allocated from dedicated housing funds.
Ultimately,given the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation and the need to make substantial progress
toward providing lower income housing in the eight-year planning period from 2023 through 2031,staff
recommends pursuing primarily affordable housing at this site should Council direct staff to pursue its
redevelopment.
Next Steps
Should Council direct staff to pursue housing development on the site,staff would engage an economic
consultant to test out new development scenarios to best inform a Council decision as to what housing type and
community serving uses the City would like to require as part of a future solicitation.Once this is complete,
staff would return to Council to share the results of that analysis and provide a recommendation for how to
proceed.Between conducting this additional analysis,returning to Council for additional feedback,and issuing
a Request for Qualifications for the site,Council should expect it to take roughly a year to select a development
team.Once selected,the development team would move forward with designing and financing the project,and
engaging with an environmental consultant to plan for any remediation and ongoing monitoring associated with
the detected contamination beneath the MSB.
Consideration of Replacing the MSB as a Housing Element Opportunity Site
Regardless of whether or not Council directs staff to move forward with the reopening or redevelopment of the
MSB,or take no action for a period of time,there is still the matter of whether or not to replace the MSB site as
a Housing Element opportunity site.Removing the MSB from the opportunity site list would be a largely
symbolic action and is somewhat fraught -the property remains under City Council control and at any point
Council could restart operation of the public building with a new community use or direct staff to seek a
development partner.Excluding it from the Housing Element does not change what Council can decide to use
the property for next and removing it from the Housing Element would raise attention at the State level,where
the City is considered a good actor.If a new community use is preferred,the Council should prioritize reuse
instead of development,or alternatively direct staff to move forward with a new development that has required
ground floor community space to replace the aging MSB.This would not require removing it from the Housing
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/25/2025Page 12 of 14
powered by Legistar™15
File #:25-481 Agenda Date:4/29/2025
Version:1 Item #:1.
ground floor community space to replace the aging MSB.This would not require removing it from the Housing
Element opportunity sites list.
Ultimately,staff does not recommend removing the MSB as a Housing Element opportunity site because of the
cost,staff time,and unfavorable attention it would draw from the State.Because removing it from the
opportunity sites list does not change what the site can be used for,staff does not believe the symbolic gesture
is worth the cost financially or to the City’s reputation as a Prohousing jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION
The information presented with this report reflects the efforts of several departments and divisions,including
Capital Projects,Engineering,Facilities,Fire,Planning,and Economic Development,and the engagement of
highly specialized consultants.Further professional study would be required to refine cost and potential
revenue values;however,staff believe that the level of analysis provided is sufficient to provide preliminary
estimates of the immediate,short term,and long-range investment that would be required to keep the MSB in
the City’s portfolio of active civic assets.
As the City Council is aware,like many other cities in the Bay Area,South San Francisco is experiencing a
structural budget deficit in which expenditures are escalating more rapidly than revenues,and the State of
California will likely withhold significant property tax in-lieu of Vehicle License Fees (VLF).The Finance
Department is working diligently to prepare the City’s budget for FY 2025-26,which will include the staffing
and operation of the new Aquatics Center at Orange Memorial Park beginning in 2026.A draft budget will be
presented to the Budget Subcommittee in May,and although not yet finalized,there will be a significant
shortfall.
Continuing to provide the current level of services to the community,plus the added cost of operating the new
Aquatics Center,will require a combination of expenditure savings and the use of the City’s limited reserves to
close the shortfall.If the decision is made to reopen the MSB,there would need to be reductions in other
services to cover the anticipated costs.Such budget trade-offs would warrant public input from residents
potentially impacted by proposed service reductions.At this juncture,staff seeks Council direction on whether
or not to pause discussion of the MSB until the City’s budget position improves or pursue its reopening or
redevelopment.
Attachments:
1)Memorandum Regarding Replacement of Fire Station 63
2)Seismic Study
3)Facility Condition Assessment
4)Cost Estimate for Full Rehabilitation and Seismic Upgrade
5)Cost Estimate for Recreation Wing Rehabilitation
6)Environmental Monitoring Report
7)Alternative Housing Element Opportunity Sites
8)November 2, 2021 Staff Report Regarding Development Scenarios for the MSB
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/25/2025Page 13 of 14
powered by Legistar™16
File #:25-481 Agenda Date:4/29/2025
Version:1 Item #:1.
9)July 13, 2022 Staff Report Regarding Social Housing Development Scenarios for the MSB
10)August 28, 2024 Staff Report Regarding Consulting Services for Public Input for MSB
11)Presentation
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/25/2025Page 14 of 14
powered by Legistar™17
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 29, 2025
TO: Mayor Eddie, Vice Mayor Addiego, and Councilmembers
FROM: Jake Gilchrist, Director of Capital Projects and Matt Samson, Fire Chief
SUBJECT: Memorandum Regarding Replacement of Fire Station 63
BACKGROUND
The original Fire Station 63 opened in 1950 in response to the growth and development westwardly as the
City increased its residential housing stock, creating the neighborhoods of Buri Buri, Sierra Highlands, and
Brentwood. The City’s third fire station opened as a substation at 1165 El Camino Real and housed two
firefighters until 1957 when daily station staffing was increased to three firefighters to meet an increasing
call volume due to residential development. The building served as Fire Station 63 until the late 1970s when
it moved, along with Fire Administration, into the newly purchased Municipal Services Building (MSB). It
remains standing and functioning today as a preschool, retaining its flagpole and traditional red lights on
either side of its garage (shown below).
Prior to the MSB move, space constraints were quickly identified with the addition of the third firefighter
and need to store reserve apparatus, additional tools, equipment, and disaster supplies. This same space
constraint was also occurring at Central Fire Station - 201 Baden Avenue. To address the Fire Department’s
need for additional space, as well as the Police Department’s need for a more suitable facility than 315
Maple Avenue, a public safety bond measure was placed on the June 1974 ballot to finance the construction
of an 81,000 square foot public safety complex at Grand Avenue and Chestnut Avenue. The proposed
complex would have housed Fire Station 63, Fire Administration, and the Police Department. The bond
measure narrowly failed, and City Council then attempted to move forward with a bond sale to finance the
project. This effort was immediately met with a lawsuit and the bond sale was rescinded.
In response to the need for additional space for the City’s Public Safety Departments, Fire Station 63, Fire
Administration, and the Police Department were relocated to the newly acquired Value Giant Department
Store that quickly became the MSB. While the office space for Fire Administration provided an adequate
18
Memo to Council – FS 63
April 29, 2025
Page 2 of 9
working environment, the repurposed vehicle service shop where Station 63 was relocated to presented
significant operational constraints, including apparatus height restrictions. This location was presented as
temporary while a permanent and more adequately sized location could be identified. Initially, storage was
not an issue, but this changed in 1997 with the addition of a second paramedic ambulance placed into
service. This ambulance is assigned to Station 63 and is staffed with two paramedic firefighters, increasing
the staffing for Station 63 from three to five.
As the building was not designed as a fire station, efforts were made to provide the functionality needed for
continuous occupancy. With space at a premium, areas of the building were undersized, including the
office, bathrooms, and equipment storage. The apparatus bay height was much lower than other fire stations,
as it was not designed for large commercial vehicles. Fire engines were modified to avoid colliding with
the station’s exterior when backing into the apparatus bay. Even as the station’s space was maximized, it
was not able to support future needs, such as:
• Gender specific restrooms
• Individual sleeping rooms
• Specialized washing machines to launder firefighting coats and pants
• Dedicated storage for personnel protective equipment
• Adequately sized in-station exercise area
• Storage for medical and firefighting equipment
• Modern (and taller) fire engines
• Drive-through apparatus bays
• Publicly accessible bathroom
The new location did provide an operational benefit by remaining in the same general location as the
original fire station. Fire station locations in South San Francisco remain strategically located to provide
equitable coverage city-wide. This is measured by response times and maintaining Fire Station 63 in its
general location allows for appropriate coverage in the Buri Buri, Sierra Highlands, and Winston Manor
neighborhoods, as well as the areas adjacent to both El Camino and Baden High Schools.
Fire Station 63’s operational constraints were identified in the early 1990s and attempts to address them
had fallen short due to financial constraints and the need to perform a complete remodel of the building to
modernize the facility to a level that supported current and future functionality. The operational constraints
fell into four general categories:
1. Seismic stability of the fire station and adjoining components of the MSB
2. Size/Space/Functionality
3. Support Systems (HVAC, Water, Emergency Generator)
4. Health of living space
The fire station was susceptible to damage and possible collapse after a seismic event based on its age and
building construction type. Structural engineers identified the risk of ceiling collapse and exterior wall
collapse resulting from a significant seismic event. The vulnerability focused on the building’s exterior wall
design, specifically at the attachment points of the walls to the roof, and the design of the ceiling throughout
the fire station. Damage to these areas could have prevented personnel from moving the engine and
ambulance out of the apparatus bay and potentially trapping firefighters inside the living quarters.
19
Memo to Council – FS 63
April 29, 2025
Page 3 of 9
The limited station footprint does not meet the needs and requirements of a modern fire station. The
station’s garage consists of two single deep bays that can only house two vehicles (one engine and one
ambulance). This limitation prohibits the storage of additional apparatus at Fire Station 63, requiring other
fire stations to house all reserve and support vehicles. With finite storage at the other four fire stations,
numerous (2 engines, 2 ambulances, 3 support vehicles) vehicles are stored outside a nd deteriorate at a
faster rate due to weather exposure. The apparatus bay design requires both assigned units to back into the
station in an area that is constrained by access and a narrow alley dock.
With the addition of two paramedic firefighters daily, space at the station became more limited. This
constraint was compounded by the need for a dedicated classroom style space to provide department
training. Fire Station 63 had a room that could facilitate classroom training but was in use as the exercise
area. The exercise area was removed to create a dedicated training space and Fire Department staff partnered
with Police Department staff to share their exercise facility in the police station.
The original bathroom design created an open space without the ability to maintain privacy. The two
showers were directly across from each other and one common locker room was adjacent. This design did
not provide for gender specific areas and could not support cohabitation of female and male firefighters.
The station’s sleeping area was also common with six-foot dividers between the beds, without doors and
the ability to maintain privacy while sleeping or changing clothing. Office space was also limited and only
provided workspace for two of the five crew members. With the increase in reporting requirements and
online training, two workspaces impacted the ability of crews to complete assignments and reports in a
timely manner.
Like the space limitations for storage of reserve apparatus and support vehicles, the ability to store
additional medical and firefighting equipment, including specialized support equipment, was minimal at
best. Medical supplies and personal protective equipment were stored in the apparatus bay, continuously
exposed to vehicle exhaust and the outdoor environment. No additional equipment, such as reserve fire
hose, reserve ladders, and power tools could be stored at Fire Station 63 due to lack of space. This further
stressed our other four stations’ storage capacity, already taxed with supporting equipment such as
specialized personal protective equipment washing machines and dryers and refilling systems for self -
contained breathing apparatus bottles.
As part of the MSB, Fire Station 63 was completely dependent on the building’s mechanical systems to
operate. This includes Heating and Ventilation (HVAC), hot water, and emergency generator power supply.
As critical infrastructure, the Fire Station must be able to maintain these services during a disaster that has
resulted in interruption of utilities. Maintaining an MSB-wide mechanical system is more complicated than
a system(s) specific to the fire station. When upgrades or replacements are needed, the cost and
complication are further compounded.
The station has remained in operation at its current location since 1979, closing twice for unhealthy living
conditions and a third time for both unhealthy living conditions and to facilitate its remodel in 2010. The
living quarters experienced chronic water intrusion from the exterior planter boxes along Arroyo Drive, the
lexan windows lining the front of the fire station, and in 2005 from a faulty holding cell toilet located above
the classroom. The water leak from the toilet caused the ceiling and ventilation system in the rear classroom
to fall in. The station was uninhabitable for four months to facilitate water damage repairs, carpet
replacement, repaint walls, drywall damage, and equipment damage. Mold was also identified and
20
Memo to Council – FS 63
April 29, 2025
Page 4 of 9
remediation work was completed prior to reoccupying the station. Both assigned units were relocated to
fire stations 64 and 65 while the station was closed.
An additional chronic health issue, that resulted in a prolonged station closure in 2007, was the intrusion of
carbon monoxide from the police parking area into the fire station at numerous locations. Mold concerns
were also brought up, but numerous professional tests were completed by third party consultants that did
not identify hazardous levels in the living spaces. Both assigned units were again dispersed to fire stations
64 and 65 while repair work was completed to prohibit carbon monoxide infiltration into the station. When
these units were relocated, response times into the core coverage areas of Fire Station were increased up to
three minutes. The relocation also negatively impacted station 61 and 65’s reliability as Engine 63 was out
of position to support those two districts. As an added layer of safety, multiple commercial grade air filters
were installed in the station’s living areas that operated continuously to lower carbon monoxide levels and
filter any potential air contaminants.
In late 2009, the station was again vacated due to health concerns regarding air quality from both mold and
carbon monoxide. At the same time, the department was notified of a grant award to rehabilitate the fire
station and construction would begin in 2010. The decision was made to vacate the station in advance of
the construction work and crews returned in November of 2012 once the remodel work was complete.
GRANT FUNDED REMODEL 2010
As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) awarded fire station remodel and construction grants to fire departments
throughout the United States. Approximately 150 departments were awarded with South San Francisco
receiving one of them. The grant parameters were specific for remodel projects and did not allow for work
to be performed outside of the original building’s footprint. This restriction prohibited us from using funding
to rehabilitate other areas of the MSB, including seismic work outside of the fire station’s footprint.
The ARRA grant provided critical funding needed to rehabilitate, modernize, seismically stabilize, and
remediate the building to allow for continuous use as a fire station. Without this funding, the life span of
Fire Station 63 was unclear due to the frequency of recent closures for health reasons. This is in addition to
a seismic event that could have caused significant damage to the building and harmed firefighters and their
apparatus. The intention of submitting an application was to secure funding to ad dress these concerns, as
well as provide funding to address modernization challenges prohibiting us from providing a female -
friendly working environment. This was done to maintain a functional firehouse, capable of operating for
the foreseeable future, while an appropriate and permanent replacement could be identified and
constructed.
The ARRA grant funded critical seismic upgrades to the fire station’s ceiling, exterior walls, and apparatus
bay. Based on the MSB’s age, it was recommended, through a seismic study, to further expand the seismic
retrofit work to capture a much larger portion of the MSB as it would provide additional protection for the
station and surrounding areas. Due to the grant’s restrictions, this was not possible, as work outside of the
station’s footprint was not allowable. The work performed did strengthen the apparatus bay and provided a
much higher level of protection with the intent of accessing the engine and ambulance post-earthquake. The
work also allowed for a raised apparatus bay ceiling, providing access for any of our department’s engines
and ambulances.
21
Memo to Council – FS 63
April 29, 2025
Page 5 of 9
Working within the constrained building footprint, the remodel efforts were able to address some of the fire
station’s significant operational challenges. In addition to the seismic work and apparatus bay height work,
benefits from the grant included:
• The carbon monoxide intrusion was addressed through the repair work performed on the station
wall separating the MSB underground parking garage.
• The lexan windows were replaced with glass, eliminating the water intrusion into the living space
during rainstorms.
• Five individual bedrooms were created.
• Two full bathrooms replaced the one large, or common, bathroom.
• A second office was created to allow for three additional workspaces as well as a dedicated captain’s
office.
• Dedicated personal protective equipment storage with adequate air circulation and protection from
apparatus bay exhaust.
• Dedicated medical equipment storage with adequate air circulation and protection from apparatus
bay exhaust.
• Dedicated, publicly accessible bathroom.
• Space for specialized washing equipment to launder personal protective equipment.
• Dedicated area to clean medical equipment exposed to biohazards.
These additions provided an immediate benefit and allowed the department to reoccupy the station and
support a modern workforce. The remodel work provided for a healthy work environment but did not
address many of the underlying operational constraints needed to meet current and future demands. The
ARRA funding essentially bought the department time, allowing us to continue operating Fire Station 63
in its current location, while an appropriate and permanent replacement could be identified and
constructed. Critical items that were unable to be addressed with the grant funding, and continue to restrict
us today, include:
• Adequate apparatus storage to allow for in-station parking of two reserve apparatus.
• Creation of a decontamination corridor that greatly reduces hazardous materials from entering into
the fire station’s living area.
• Storage to support additional firefighting equipment, disaster supplies, and surplus food and water.
• Drive-through apparatus bays to eliminate backing vehicles into a tight alley dock and then into a
station.
• Dedicated in-station exercise area.
• Support for additional firefighters as the station supports paramedic trainees, newly hired firefighter
paramedics who are under evaluation, and upstaffing during periods of high call volume or large-
scale disasters.
• Sleeping quarters with two exit options (remodeled station, due to size constraints, does not allow
for windows in the dorms).
• Space for SCBA filling equipment.
• Future regulatory requirements for equipment, standards, and practices.
With the grant restriction for funds limited to the building’s footprint, we were also unable to address the
need to separate the supporting systems from the MSB. The station remains dependent on the MSB’s
HVAC and water heater systems as well as its emergency generator. The later item will need to be replaced
soon due to its age, failure rate, and difficulty in sourcing parts when needed for repair.
22
Memo to Council – FS 63
April 29, 2025
Page 6 of 9
FIRE STATION COMPARISON – South San Francisco and Recent Local Fire Station Builds
Fire Station 63 is one of five fire stations in South San Francisco. A map identifying all five fire stations in
South San Francisco is shown below with Station 63 circled in red:
While each station operates somewhat independently on emergency responses, they all provide support for
the department’s overall operations. Each of the five, less Fire Station 63, is able to support various aspects
of the department’s mission. An example of this is the housing of our Urban Search and Rescue Vehicle at
Fire Station 65. That station is responsible for the vehicle, its equipment, and response. Due to its size and
storage constraints, Fire Station 63 is unable to support in the same way as the other four stations, adding
additional stress to them. For comparison, square footage per assigned personnel for each of the
department’s five fire stations shows the constraints we experience with Fire Station 63:
23
Memo to Council – FS 63
April 29, 2025
Page 7 of 9
For further comparison, recently constructed fire stations throughout the Bay Area were evaluated to
determine if the current size of Fire Station 63 was adequate based on other fire agencies’
specifications. These fire stations house three firefighters and the chart has not been altered to show square
footage by personnel, just total overall size:
OPERATIONAL IMPACT – FIRE STATION 63
Fire Station 63 provides first due response to the Northern El Camino Real Corridor from the Colma/Daly
City border down to South Spruce Avenue. Its full primary response area is shown below in green:
24
Memo to Council – FS 63
April 29, 2025
Page 8 of 9
This station is regularly the busiest in South San Francisco. This trend has not changed, even with the
growth occurring along the Eastern side of the City. Call volume regularly exceeds 3,000 incidents between
the units assigned, Engine 63 and Rescue 63. This level of call volume places additional stress on the
station, something that can be reduced with a facility that can adequately support this level of demand. The
map below shows 12 months (from calendar year 2024) of call data and location in South San Francisco as
displayed in a “heat-map” format. The two areas of high call concentration along the Westborough and El
Camino Real corridors drive the demand for Fire Station 63:
CURRENT STATUS - Fire Station 63 Replacement
The need to identify a more appropriate Fire Station 63 has been studied numerous times beginning in 1991
as the current location was never intended as a long-term solution for the facility. Geographically, the
station is well positioned as its current location is located on the Westside of El Camino Real. A majority
of the calls occurring in Fire Station 63’s district are West of El Camino Real, significantly reducing the
number of occurrences when responding apparatus cross one of the busiest streets and intersections in South
San Francisco. This reduces response times into the Buri Buri, Sierra Highlands, and Winston Manor
neighborhoods.
From these efforts, a viable new location was identified, directly across from the current fire station’s
driveway. The property at 71 Camaritas Avenue provides ample size to house an adequate fire station. While
it does come with some site restrictions, due diligence was performed, including architecturally generated
conceptual drawings, to confirm that the site is able to offer ample programmatic space to meet the
department’s current and future needs. The property was purchased by the City and remains available when
funding is allocated to start construction of the replacement fire station. Monies allocated from a developer
agreement have also been set aside to offset construction costs. Currently, nine million dollars has been
collected from a developer with the possibility of additional funding should additional development occur.
An additional benefit of constructing Fire Station 63’s replacement at 71 Camaritas Avenue includes the
ability to maintain the current fire station while the new facility is built. As call volume has increased,
25
Memo to Council – FS 63
April 29, 2025
Page 9 of 9
relocating both the engine and ambulance assigned to Fire Station 63 would have a negative impact on
response times for an extended amount of time due to construction timelines. We would anticipate an
increase in response times of three minutes within the core of Fire Station 63’s primary response area. To
address the increase in response times, it would be prudent to provide temporary quarters for the station in
close proximity to its current location. Temporary quarters would add additional costs to the project and
would be required for one to two years based on the amount of work need to rehabilitate, modernize, and
expand the station in its current location. Rehabilitation work would still not be able to address the
apparatus storage issues.
In 2018, as part of the overall Community Civic Campus planning, staff completed a design development
package for Fire Station 63 and then paused the project to develop a funding strategy for construction. At
the time, the site for Station 63 was imagined to be the northwest corner of the MSB property at Camaritas
Avenue and Arroyo Drive. In late 2020, staff learned that the property across the street at 71 Camaritas
Avenue was on the market. While Economic and Community Development staff negotiated with th e
property owner, the Capital Projects team worked with the Fire Station architects to confirm that the 71
Camaritas site was an appropriate location, including an Engineering Review with the SF Public Utilities
Commission, which holds an easement on the back side of the property. City Council approved the purchase
of 71 Camaritas Avenue at the July 28, 2021 meeting.
Currently, planning and design for Fire Station 63 is poised to restart this Spring. The project is expected
to cost in excess of $36 million due to inflation and current market volatility created by the recent
implementation of new trade tariffs. Staff expects to advertise the construction project for bid in Summer
2026 and construction will take approximately 2 years, with the move into the new Station 63 at 71
Camaritas Avenue to be completed by the end of 2028.
Attachment 2 Seismic Study: Biggs Cardosa Associates Structural Engineers Report dated 4.29.10
26
ASCE 41 Tier 1 Seismic Evaluation
Municipal Services Building
South San Francisco, California
FINAL REPORT
Prepared For:
City of South San Francisco
315 Maple Ave
South San Francisco, California
Prepared By:
Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc.
865 The Alameda
San Jose, California
April 23, 2025
BCA Job No. 2020264H
27
City of South San Francisco
Final Report
April 23, 2025
Tier 1 Seismic Evaluation
Municipal Services Building
Page ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................1
PROJECT OVERVIEW............................................................................................................5
AVAILABLE DOCUMENTS...................................................................................................6
BUILDING DESCRIPTION.....................................................................................................6
FIELD OBSERVATION...........................................................................................................8
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND FINDINGS...........................................................................9
Evaluation Basis ....................................................................................................................9
Seismic Evaluation Results..................................................................................................12
SEISMIC RETROFIT RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................14
COST ESTIMATE ..................................................................................................................15
RECOMMENDED FURTHER ACTIONS ............................................................................16
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Conceptual Seismic Retrofit Plans
Appendix 2 ASCE 41 Tier 1 Checklists
28
City of South San Francisco
Final Report
April 23, 2025
Tier 1 Seismic Evaluation
Risk Category II, III, and IV
Municipal Services Building
Page 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of the preliminary seismic evaluation described in this report is to determine
whether the lateral load-resisting system of the Municipal Services Building (MSB) complies
with the seismic performance requirements for CBC Seismic Risk Categories II, III, and IV,
and if not, determine which lateral system elements are potentially deficient, provide
qualitative recommendations for the required seismic strengthening and develop a rough-
order-of-magnitude (ROM) conceptual-level construction cost estimate. The method used to
evaluate the building for the three Risk Categories was the Tier 1 procedure per ASCE 41-17.
The MSB is a 2-story concrete tilt-up wall structure with a wood-framed roof, a cast-in-
place/precast concrete-framed second floor, a slab-on-grade first floor, and a shallow spread-
footing foundation system. It has concrete walls at its perimeter and numerous plywood-
sheathed, wood-framed walls at the second floor. The overall plan dimensions are
approximately 169’ x 363’ at its footprint and 158’ x 363’ at the second floor.
The building was originally designed and constructed in 1969 as a retail store. It was
subsequently purchased by the City. In 1979, the building was upgraded and remodeled to
serve as the Municipal Services Building. The 1979 seismic upgrade was designed per the
Uniform Building Code (UBC) using seismic loads based on Seismic Zone 4 and an
Importance Factor, I = 1.5, which is applicable to buildings that are Essential Facilities. A
voluntary, partial seismic retrofit was completed for the small fire station area of the building
in 2011 to achieve compliance with the then-current seismic codes/standards.
Horizontal elements of the building’s lateral load-resisting system comprise of the plywood
roof diaphragm and second floor concrete-slab diaphragm. Vertical elements of the lateral
system consist of shear walls: a combination of interior plywood-sheathed walls and the
exterior concrete walls at perimeter of the building at the second story and exterior concrete
walls and one interior concrete wall at the first story. The roof and second floor diaphragms
deliver the lateral loads to the shear walls, which transfer then to the underlying/surrounding
soil via the foundation system.
Per ASCE 41, the Tier 1 procedure is intended to quickly identify potential deficiencies in a
building’s lateral load-resisting system via use of a series of Checklists. Based on the results
of the Tier 1 evaluation and our experience with buildings of similar size, age and
construction type, it is our opinion that the existing Municipal Services Building has
significant potential deficiencies in its lateral force-resisting system, and therefore, does not
meet the seismic performance requirements for any of the three Risk Categories based on the
ASCE 41-17 seismic design criteria.
Based on the findings of this preliminary seismic evaluation, the following structural/seismic
elements are potentially deficient:
29
City of South San Francisco
Final Report
April 23, 2025
Tier 1 Seismic Evaluation
Risk Category II, III, and IV
Municipal Services Building
Page 2
1. Concrete wall anchorage system to the roof and second floor diaphragms (anchors,
crossties, and sub-diaphragms) to resist out-of-plane wall loads.
2. In-plane shear capacity of the roof and second floor diaphragms.
3. Connections for in-plane shear transfer from roof and second floor diaphragms to the
exterior concrete walls.
4. Plywood shear walls between the roof and second floor are discontinuous below the
second floor. The walls are potentially deficient in their in-plane shear and uplift
capacities. The threaded holdown rods do not have washers/bearing plates at the
concrete beams below the second floor, a condition that potentially limits their
effectiveness for resisting overturning loads.
5. The west (Arroyo, Gridline B) concrete wall below the roof and the south (Fire
Station, Gridline 12) concrete wall below the roof are not continuous below the
second floor (out-of-plane horizontal offset).
6. Precast concrete wall panels are attached to the foundation via welded embed plates
(vs. embedded rebar dowels).
7. The exterior concrete wall panels do not have adequate out-of-plane flexural strength.
8. The exterior concrete wall panels do not have adequate in-plane shear strength.
The proposed seismic retrofit work to remedy the potential deficiencies outlined above is
depicted conceptually in the sketches included in Appendix 1.
The ROM conceptual-level construction costs, determined using historical construction cost
data for similar buildings, to strengthen the existing MSB to the current seismic
code/standards based on this preliminary evaluation are as below:
Risk Category II $5,575,000
Risk Category III $6,500,000
Risk Category IV $7,575,000
It should be noted that these estimated costs are preliminary and have been developed based
on limited structural information and preliminary analytical work as required by the ASCE
41 Tier 1 methodology; the actual construction cost could vary substantially.
Recommended Further Actions
The findings of our preliminary seismic evaluation based on the ASCE 41-17 Tier 1
procedure indicate that the Municipal Services Building has significant potential seismic
deficiencies and does not comply with its seismic resistance requirements. We recommend
that the City select one of the following two options for the building.
30
City of South San Francisco
Final Report
April 23, 2025
Tier 1 Seismic Evaluation
Risk Category II, III, and IV
Municipal Services Building
Page 3
Option 1 – Perform Voluntary Seismic Upgrade to Comply with Current Building Code
If the City elects to upgrade the MSB to the current seismic code/standards in order to
improve its potential performance during a major seismic event, we recommend the
following further steps to implement a voluntary seismic retrofit program for the building.
These steps will help define fully the scope of required seismic retrofit work and the
associated construction costs:
1. Perform a more detailed ASCE 41 Tier 2 Deficiency-Based Seismic Evaluation of the
building, based on the Risk Category selected by the City, to fully define the
building’s seismic retrofit needs.
2. Using the seismic deficiencies identified and verified via the Tier 2 evaluation,
develop at least one conceptual seismic retrofit scheme to remedy those deficiencies.
3. Prepare sketches for the proposed seismic retrofit scheme(s) to indicate the nature and
extent of required seismic retrofit work.
4. Prepare a more detailed estimate of the probable construction costs. This estimate
should be prepared by a third-party professional cost estimating firm.
After approval of the proposed seismic retrofit work and its anticipated costs by the City, the
project would then proceed to the final design phase in order to prepare the construction
documents.
Option 2 – Use MSB for Any Permissible Occupancy without Seismic Retrofit
The as-built structural drawings for the seismic upgrade work performed in 1979 indicate
that the entire Municipal Services Building was retrofitted to comply with the Essential
Facility requirements of the Uniform Building Code in effect at that time. Given this, it is our
opinion that the City may choose to use the MSB for any permissible occupancy type without
any requirement to seismically retrofit the overall building per the current building code as
long as any structural modifications or non-structural renovations that may be undertaken for
the selected building use/occupancy do not exceed the various thresholds in the building code
or adopted by the City of South San Francisco Building Department (SSFBD). In the event at
least one of these thresholds is exceeded, a mandatory seismic evaluation and retrofit (if
required) of the overall building, per the current building code, is triggered.
If the City elects to use the MSB essentially “as is” with only minor structural modifications
and/or limited non-structural renovation required for the selected use/occupancy that do not
trigger a mandatory seismic evaluation/retrofit of the overall building, we recommend
undertaking the following further steps:
31
City of South San Francisco
Final Report
April 23, 2025
Tier 1 Seismic Evaluation
Risk Category II, III, and IV
Municipal Services Building
Page 4
1. Confirm with SSFBD that the 1979 seismic retrofit work was indeed permitted to
upgrade the building to an Essential Facility and that the work was fully implemented
during construction.
2. Consult with SSFBD to determine the thresholds for all applicable triggers (structural
modifications, non-structural renovation, etc.) that, if exceeded, would require
seismic evaluation and, possibly, retrofit of the overall building per the current
building code.
3. Modify/renovate the building per requirements of the selected use/occupancy while
ensuring that none of the applicable trigger thresholds is exceeded.
32
City of South San Francisco
Final Report
April 23, 2025
Tier 1 Seismic Evaluation
Risk Category II, III, and IV
Municipal Services Building
Page 5
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Biggs Cardosa Associates has been retained by the City of South San Francisco to provide a
Tier 1 seismic assessment and conceptual seismic retrofit recommendations for the
Municipal Services Building (MSB) located at 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco,
California. The seismic assessment was performed for Risk Categories II, III and IV using
the Tier 1 methodology in ASCE 41-17. The Tier 1 methodology in ASCE 41 is used to
quickly identify potential lateral system deficiencies based on a series of Checklists. The
procedure is intended to screen a large number of buildings quickly in order to identify
potential seismic risk to each structure, prioritize the structures based on potential seismic
risk, and select potentially high-risk structures for further, more-detailed evaluation and
upgrade them, as required, to comply with the current seismic codes and standards, if desired.
This report contains the structural/seismic findings based on our Tier 1 assessment, our
limited field observation of the existing structural conditions, and our experience with
buildings of similar size, age and construction type. Potential seismic deficiencies are
identified and conceptual recommendations are outlined for remedial work. A rough-order-
of-magnitude (ROM) conceptual-level cost estimate is provided for the seismic retrofit work
anticipated for each Rick Category.
The findings and recommendations outlined in this report pertain only to the existing
building’s lateral load-resisting system. The assessment does not cover seismic anchorage
and/or bracing of non-structural items such as electrical/mechanical equipment, ceilings,
partitions, or other architectural elements. Further, an assessment of other building
systems/features such as mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire protection, accessibility,
egress, drainage, waterproofing, etc. is beyond the scope of this report.
The scope of our services for the structural/seismic assessment described in this report is
summarized below:
1. Review available as-built structural drawings and calculations for original design and
subsequent additions/modifications, previous seismic assessment reports,
geotechnical reports, etc. for the building.
2. Perform a site visit to observe the general physical condition of the building and to
verify general conformance of in-place construction with as-built structural drawings.
Building finishes will not be disturbed during the site visit and our observation will be
limited to the readily visible structural elements.
3. Prepare calculations necessary for completing the structural checklists required by the
ASCE 41 Tier 1 seismic evaluation methodology.
4. Complete applicable structural checklists for ASCE 41 Tier 1 seismic evaluation.
33
City of South San Francisco
Final Report
April 23, 2025
Tier 1 Seismic Evaluation
Risk Category II, III, and IV
Municipal Services Building
Page 6
5. Identify potential structural/seismic deficiencies in the building’s lateral system based
on our field observations and the Tier 1 seismic assessment.
6. Prepare qualitative recommendations for the retrofit work required to alleviate the
identified potential seismic deficiencies.
7. Prepare a ROM conceptual-level cost estimate for the proposed seismic retrofit work
based on historical seismic retrofit cost data for similar buildings.
8. Prepare a brief report describing the findings of structural/seismic assessment and a
conceptual construction cost estimate to remedy the identified seismic deficiencies.
AVAILABLE DOCUMENTS
The following documents were available for our review for this seismic assessment:
•Original building structural drawings, “Department Store for U.S.E. South San
Francisco” by David Alan Welisch, dated November 4, 1968.
•Seismic upgrade and tenant improvement structural drawings of “South San
Francisco Municipal Services Building” by Robinson Meier Juilly and Associates,
dated January 21, 1980.
•Structural drawings for City of South San Francisco Fire Station #63 voluntary partial
seismic retrofit, by Biggs Cardosa Associates, dated April 8, 2011.
•Soils report titled “Foundation Investigation-Proposed Department Store Building:
Arroyo Drive and El Camino Real, South San Franscico, CA for U.S.E. Stores” by
Dames & Moore, Consulting Engineers, dated September 4, 1968.
•Letter and site notes regarding additional soils information for the same site by
Dames & Moore, dated February 14, 1980.
•Structural calculations (32 pages) for the U.S.E. Store, by David Alan Welisch-
Structural Engineers, dated 1969.
•Structural calculations for S.S.F. Muni Services Building, by Robinson.Meier.Juilly
& Associates-Structural Engineers, dated 1979.
BUILDING DESCRIPTION
The Municipal Services Building (MSB) is located at 33 Arroyo Drive in South San
Francisco, California. Until recently, the building was used as the South San Francisco City
Hall. The second floor (located at Arroyo Drive street-level) housed the City government
offices, including the Police Department, while the first floor served as a parking garage and
housed the Fire Department in a small area (30’ x 123’) at the building’s south end. Except
for the Fire Department, all building functions were recently moved to the new City
34
City of South San Francisco
Final Report
April 23, 2025
Tier 1 Seismic Evaluation
Risk Category II, III, and IV
Municipal Services Building
Page 7
government complex nearby, located on northside of El Camino Real; the Fire Department is
expected to be relocated in the near future. The MSB is therefore currently vacant, except for
the small area used by the Fire Department.
The MSB is a 2-story concrete tilt-up wall structure with a wood-framed roof, a cast-in-
place/precast concrete-framed second floor, a slab-on-grade first floor, and a shallow spread-
footing foundation system. The overall plan dimensions at its footprint (the lower level) are
approximately 169’ x 363’ while the upper level dimensions are approximately 158’ x 363’.
Until the building was vacated recently, the lower level was used as a parking garage and the
upper floor housed offices, community rooms, and restrooms. An out-of-use firing range is
also located in the former police department area of the garage.
The building was originally designed and constructed in 1969 as a retail store. It was
subsequently purchased by the City (purchase date unknown). In 1979, the building was
upgraded and remodeled to serve as the Municipal Services Building. The 1979 seismic
upgrade was designed for seismic loads based on Seismic Zone 4 and an Importance Factor, I
= 1.5. Per the 1979 UBC, Seismic Zone 4 was a seismic zone for coastal California and I =
1.5 was the Importance Factor for an Essential Facility. A voluntary, partial seismic retrofit
was completed for the small fire station area of the building in 2011 to achieve compliance
with the then-current seismic codes/standards, with the understanding and City’s expectation
that the overall building would also be voluntarily upgraded per the current seismic
codes/standards in the near future in order to ensure improved building performance during a
seismic event.
It should be noted that while the building was seismically upgraded in 1979 to the then-
applicable seismic standards for Essential Facilities, it is highly improbable that the building
in its current configuration would meet current code requirements for a Risk Category IV
structure (equivalent to Essential Facility) or for Risk Categories II and III. This is because
seismic requirements in the building codes have changed significantly since 1979, with the
current building codes being significantly more stringent.
For reference purposes, this report uses the following conventions when discussing the
building orientation:
Direction Street Building Gridline
North side El Camino Real Gridline 1
South side Camaritas Ave (Fire Station) Gridline 12
West side Arroyo Drive (Front/Main Entrance) Gridline A
East side Rear side Gridline F
See building plans in Appendix 1 for gridline numbering.
35
City of South San Francisco
Final Report
April 23, 2025
Tier 1 Seismic Evaluation
Risk Category II, III, and IV
Municipal Services Building
Page 8
Vertical (Gravity) Load-Resisting System
The roof level framing consists of plywood sheathing over sawn lumber joists (east-west
direction) supported by glulam beams (north-south direction) and glulam girders (east-west
direction). The glulam girders are supported on interior steel pipe columns and the west and
east exterior concrete walls.
The second floor (the upper level) consists of a concrete topping slab over precast concrete
joists (east-west direction) which span between precast concrete girders (north-south
direction). The girders are supported by interior concrete columns and the exterior concrete
walls. The interior columns are supported by isolated spread footings while the concrete
walls are supported by continuous spread footings. The ground floor slab of the parking
garage is a concrete slab-on-grade. It should be noted that at the south (Fire Station) side of
the building, the exterior concrete wall between the roof and second floor is offset
approximately 30 feet south of the concrete wall which occurs at the second to first floor.
Because of the site grading, the concrete wall (on gridline A) at the parking garage level at
the front (west side) of the building is a retaining wall and is offset horizontally by 11’-6”
from the concrete wall above (on gridline B). The upper level exterior concrete wall (on
gridline B) on this side of the building is supported on a line of precast concrete girders and
concrete columns below, a condition that creates a discontinuous shear wall system at
gridline B. A cast-in-place concrete slab spans between the precast girders and the front
basement (lower level) retaining wall. This exterior slab supports the landscaping located at
the front (Arroyo Drive side) ground level of the building.
Lateral Load-Resisting System
The roof diaphragm consists of 1/2” plywood sheathing while the second floor (the upper
level) diaphragm consists of the 3.5” concrete floor slab. Vertical elements of the building’s
lateral load-resisting system consist of shear walls: a combination of interior wood-framed,
plywood-sheathed, walls and the exterior concrete walls at perimeter of the building at the
second (upper) story and exterior concrete walls and one interior concrete wall at the first
(lower) story. The roof and second floor diaphragms deliver the lateral loads to the shear
walls, which transfer then to the underlying/surrounding soil via the foundation system.
FIELD OBSERVATION
On March 10, 2025, engineers from Biggs Cardosa Associates performed a limited site visit
to observe physical condition of the readily visible structural elements of the building and to
verify general conformance of the in-place construction with the available structural
drawings. Existing building finishes were not disturbed during this field observation.
36
City of South San Francisco
Final Report
April 23, 2025
Tier 1 Seismic Evaluation
Risk Category II, III, and IV
Municipal Services Building
Page 9
In general, the building was observed to be in relatively good condition and appears to have
been maintained reasonably well. No signs of water intrusion or significant structural distress
(such as large cracks or spalls in concrete elements) were visible in the building areas
observed. Observation of the roof framing was not possible as it was concealed by ceilings in
nearly all areas of the upper level.
The interior plywood shear walls at the second floor (constructed as part of the 1979 seismic
upgrade) have threaded holdown rods that extend through the concrete beams added below
the second floor slab. Some of the rods have missing washers and some of the nuts appear
not have been properly installed at the bottom face of concrete beams. This condition may
adversely impact the overturning capacity of the plywood shear walls above.
A previous report for this building (prepared by Biggs Cardosa Associates in 2009) noted
signs of water damage in the former police station area of the parking garage. The report also
noted that some repair work appeared to have been done in that area, including installation of
steel beams and columns, and epoxy injection in cracks. Based on photos from 2009, the
installed structural steel framing appeared to have been covered by the building finishes.
Therefore, we were unable to confirm those conditions during the site visit for this report but
we assume that the framing is still in place.
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND FINDINGS
Evaluation Basis
Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings is typically performed either on a voluntary basis
or is mandated by the building code under certain conditions. The scope for a voluntary
upgrade can be for a complete or partial seismic retrofit, or no retrofit at all – all at the
building owner’s discretion.
The 2022 California Existing Building Code (CEBC) includes the following criteria that
trigger mandatory seismic evaluation of a building and, if found deficient, a mandatory
seismic upgrade:
1. Modifications to the building that increase its seismic weight by more than 10%.
2. Modifications to the building that decrease strength of any element of the lateral load-
resisting system by more than 10%.
3. Any change in use of the building that results in a change to a higher Seismic Risk
Category.
4. Any combination of the above triggers.
In addition to the above CEBC triggers for a mandatory seismic evaluation/retrofit, each
City/jurisdiction typically has other local requirements (such as extents of structural or non-
37
City of South San Francisco
Final Report
April 23, 2025
Tier 1 Seismic Evaluation
Risk Category II, III, and IV
Municipal Services Building
Page 10
structural modifications or renovation and the percentage of total building area they
encompass, cost of renovation as percentage of the building replacement cost, etc.) that if
exceeded usually trigger a mandatory seismic evaluation and retrofit (if required). These
triggers vary from City/jurisdiction to City/jurisdiction.
After a seismic evaluation is complete, any elements found to be deficient require seismic
upgrade to the current code level for a mandatory seismic retrofit.
At the City’s request, this report includes evaluation of the Municipal Services Building’s
lateral load-resisting system for three California Building Code (CBC) Risk Categories
(seismic performance levels):
•Risk Category II
•Risk Category III
•Risk Category IV
In general, these three Risk Categories can be described as follows:
Risk Category II
Most common category that includes residential, office, and commercial buildings other than
those in Risk Category III or IV.
Risk Category III
Buildings and other structures used for public assembly, schools and education facilities,
structures with limited quantities of toxic or hazardous substances and other structures where
failure poses a substantial threat to human life and/or substantial economic impact.
Risk Category IV
Buildings and other structures designated (per code, by the jurisdiction, or the owner) as
essential facilities and/or facilities with higher quantities of toxic or hazardous substances.
The seismic evaluations for this report were performed for the above CBC performance levels
per the ASCE 41 Tier 1 procedure. ASCE 41 provides methods for determining equivalent
CBC evaluations based on two different earthquake levels (BSE-1E and BSE-2E) and varying
performance levels. Table 1 below shows the evaluations for each CBC Risk Category based
on ASCE 41 Table 2-2.
38
City of South San Francisco
Final Report
April 23, 2025
Tier 1 Seismic Evaluation
Risk Category II, III, and IV
Municipal Services Building
Page 11
Table 1: ASCE 41 Evaluation Matrix
Response AccelerationsCBC Risk
Category BSE-1E BSE-2E
II N/A CP
III N/A CP
IV IO LS
BSE - Basic safety earthquake
N/A - Not applicable
CP - Collapse Prevention
IO - Immediate Occupancy
LS - Life Safety
It should be noted that for Risk Category IV, a Life Safety evaluation is performed using the
Quick Check checklists for Collapse Prevention level but with an Ms load reduction factor
for Life Safety level applied (ASCE 41 Table 2-2, Note d).
The initial request from the City was for an evaluation of the overall MSB for Risk Category
II and III, and an evaluation of only the Fire Station portion at the first floor for Risk
Category IV. However, the Fire Station area is structurally connected to the second floor
rigid diaphragm of the overall building and also to the exterior concrete walls on three sides.
This type and configuration of structural framing does not allow for the Fire Station area to
respond independently from the rest of the building during an earthquake. So, a seismic
evaluation of a portion (i.e., the fire station area) of the building is deemed to be of limited
value. For those reasons, we considered it more appropriate to evaluate the overall building
for the Risk Category IV performance level.
The seismic analysis of the MSB has been conducted in accordance with ASCE 41 for the
performance levels (Risk Categories) described above. The ASCE 41 analysis consisted of a
Tier 1 evaluation, which represents a preliminary seismic evaluation approach to quickly
identify the potential seismic deficiencies in the building’s lateral load-resisting system.
Analyses performed as part of the ASCE 41 Tier 1 evaluation process are limited to Quick
Checks, which are mostly qualitative with some (limited) quantitative evaluations of the
various lateral system components and their configuration. The Tier 1 analysis uses seismic
forces calculated per ASCE 41 for determining whether the building complies with the
evaluation criteria. Since this evaluation is preliminary, a Linear Static Procedure (LSP)
utilizing hand calculations and spreadsheets was used to identify potential seismic
deficiencies in the building.
39
City of South San Francisco
Final Report
April 23, 2025
Tier 1 Seismic Evaluation
Risk Category II, III, and IV
Municipal Services Building
Page 12
The seismic load distribution utilizes a method similar to that prescribed in the CBC in which
the base shear is distributed vertically to each level (roof and second floor in the case of
MSB) based on each level’s weight and its height above the building base.
The MSB can be generally categorized (per ASCE 41) as a Concrete Shear Wall Type C2
(stiff diaphragms) building as well as a Concrete Shear Wall C2a (flexible diaphragms)
building. The concrete-slab diaphragm at the second floor of MSB is considered to be rigid
in-plane while the wood-framed diaphragm at the roof is considered to be flexible. Rigid
roof/floor diaphragms distribute lateral forces to the vertical elements (such as shear walls,
braced frames, etc.) based on the latter’s relative stiffness whereas flexible roof/floor
diaphragms do so based on the roof/floor area tributary to each vertical lateral load-resisting
element. The Tier 1 procedure followed for this seismic evaluation utilized combined
Checklists applicable to both Type C2 and C2a buildings.
The interior plywood shear walls at second story of the MSB do not continue down to the
first floor below. Due to these shear walls taking a significant portion of the east-west
(transverse) roof seismic loads, their presence needs to be accounted for in the evaluation.
For this evaluation, we therefore also utilized the Checklists for Wood Frame (Commercial)
Type W2 buildings in addition to the evaluation Checklists for Type C2/C2A buildings.
Seismic Evaluation Results
The following is a list of potentially deficient or otherwise non-compliant items identified in
our ASCE 41 evaluation of the MSB’s structural/lateral system. See Appendix 2 for Tier 1
Checklists. The deficiency titles below (all caps) are taken directly from ASCE 41
Checklists. The descriptions following the title use terminology similar to that used in the
Checklists.
Due to the building’s vertical lateral elements being concrete walls and its wood-framed roof,
most of the potential deficiencies for this type of building are common across Risk
Categories II, III, and IV. Further, the ASCE 41 Collapse Prevention checklists are
applicable to the evaluations for all three Risk Categories. The Immediate Occupancy
Checklists have additional checks that are not included with the Collapse Prevention
checklists. However, most of these additional items are not applicable to the MSB building.
For these reasons, most of the identified seismic deficiencies are generally common across all
three Risk Categories.
Building Types C2 and C2a:
•VERTICAL IRREGULARITIES: The concrete shear walls at Gridline 11 and
Gridline B are not continuous to the foundation.
40
City of South San Francisco
Final Report
April 23, 2025
Tier 1 Seismic Evaluation
Risk Category II, III, and IV
Municipal Services Building
Page 13
•SHEAR STRESS CHECK: The shear stress in the concrete shear walls calculated
using the Tier 1 Quick Check procedure exceeds the capacity provided in ASCE 41
for concrete shear walls.
•WALL ANCHORAGE AT FLEXIBLE DIAPHRAGMS: The exterior concrete walls
are not anchored adequately for out-of-plane forces at the (flexible) roof diaphragm
level.
•FOUNDATION DOWELS: Wall reinforcement is anchored to the foundation with
welded embed plates. ASCE 41 requires concrete walls to be doweled into the
foundation with vertical bars equal in size and spacing to the vertical wall reinforcing
directly above the foundation.
•CROSS TIES: There are not adequate continuous cross ties between diaphragm
chords at the roof level.
•TRANSFER TO SHEAR WALLS: Diaphragms are not adequately connected for
transfer of loads to the shear walls, and the connections are unable to develop the
lesser of the shear strength of the walls or diaphragms.
•MASS IRREGULARITY: The weight of the second floor is more than 60% heavier
than the roof level.
Building Type W2:
•VERTICAL IRREGULARITIES: The plywood shear walls at the second floor are
not continuous to the foundation.
•SHEAR STRESS CHECK: The shear stress in the plywood shear walls (between the
roof and second floor) calculated using the Tier 1 Quick Check procedure exceeds the
capacity provided in ASCE 41 for plywood shear walls.
•MASS IRREGULARITY: The weight of the second floor is more than 60% heavier
than the roof level.
The following deficiencies are part of Tier 2 methodology in ASCE 41, which was not within
the scope of this report. However, we believe they merit inclusion in the deficiency list due to
their impact on seismic performance of the building.
•DIAPHRAGMS (C2 and C2a): The wood diaphragm at the roof and the concrete
diaphragm at the second floor do not have adequate in-plane shear capacity.
•WALL THICKNESS AND PROPORTIONS (C2 and C2a): The exterior concrete
walls do not have adequate out-of-plane bending capacity to span between floors at
both levels.
41
City of South San Francisco
Final Report
April 23, 2025
Tier 1 Seismic Evaluation
Risk Category II, III, and IV
Municipal Services Building
Page 14
•WALL CONNECTIONS (C2 and C2a): The out-of-plane connections of the concrete
walls to the second floor concrete diaphragm do not have adequate capacity.
Based on our visual review of the structure and an evaluation of the building in accordance
with ASCE 41 Tier 1 procedure, it is our opinion that the MSB does not meet the
requirements for Risk Category II, III, or IV. Therefore, in the event of a major earthquake,
the building is anticipated to be susceptible to significant structural damage and may not
remain fully operational immediately following a major seismic event.
SEISMIC RETROFIT RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to remedy the potential seismic deficiencies identified above, the following retrofit
work would be required.
1. Increase capacity of the concrete wall anchorage system at the roof, both for shear
and out-of-plane loads, by installing wall anchors, crossties, and sub-diaphragms.
2. Increase in-plane shear capacity of the roof diaphragm by additional nailing and
second floor diaphragm by adding carbon fiber in overstressed areas or by installing
new vertical shear resisting elements (e.g., shear walls) below the second floor to
reduce shear demands on the diaphragm.
3. Increase the in-plane shear transfer capacity of the connections of the roof and second
floor diaphragms to the concrete walls.
4. Increase shear capacity of the second-story plywood shear walls by adding nailing to
existing plywood and/or adding plywood to the opposite side of the walls. Upgrades
will also include improving fastenings of the shear walls to the roof and second floor
for shear transfer and upgrades to holdowns and anchorage to the second floor. Install
longer threaded rods with nuts and bearing plates below the second floor at shear
walls.
5. Install new concrete shear walls or steel braced frames below the discontinuous
second-story concrete walls on the west (Arroyo, Gridline B) and south (Fire Station,
Gridline 12) sides of the building. Upgrade existing collectors along the wall to
transfer loads to the new shear walls or braced frames.
6. Increase capacity of exterior concrete wall anchorage to the foundations and second
floor, both for shear and out-of-plane loads.
7. Strengthen the exterior concrete walls at both stories for out-of-plane loads by adding
steel framing attached to the walls or by adding carbon fiber to both wall faces.
8. Install shotcrete or carbon fiber over selected existing exterior concrete walls to
increase their in-plane shear capacity, at both stories.
42
City of South San Francisco
Final Report
April 23, 2025
Tier 1 Seismic Evaluation
Risk Category II, III, and IV
Municipal Services Building
Page 15
The proposed seismic retrofit work outlined above is depicted conceptually in the sketches
included in Appendix 1.
COST ESTIMATE
The preliminary construction cost estimates for the retrofit work required to upgrade the
building to Risk Category II, III and IV per the current building code, as outlined above, are
shown in the table below. These amounts are rough-order-of magnitude (ROM) conceptual-
level estimates that were developed using historical cost data for buildings of this type and
our experience with similar structures. The estimates should be used for preliminary
budgeting purposes only (actual retrofit costs may vary substantially from these preliminary
estimates).
Risk Category II $5,575,000
Risk Category III $6,500,000
Risk Category IV $7,575,000
The recommended modifications noted in this report are based on our preliminary structural
evaluation, the type and condition of the existing lateral system, engineering judgment, and
experience obtained from evaluating and retrofitting similar buildings, and available
historical construction cost data. It should be noted that there could be concealed structural
deficiencies that are typically not possible to identify in this type of limited preliminary
seismic evaluation. These types of unforeseen conditions can increase the actual retrofit
construction costs substantially.
The estimates of probable construction cost provided above are intended to serve only as a
measure of cost feasibility. The estimated costs are preliminary in nature as they are based on
limited analytical work and on historical cost data and may vary significantly depending on
the final design, the condition of the structure when exposed during construction, the
construction cost and bidding climate, and future code requirements. Therefore, the estimates
should be used only for preliminary budgeting purposes and for assessing the relative
feasibility of retrofitting the building to the desired Risk Category.
The preliminary estimates include the structural work necessary to seismically retrofit the
building. Costs necessary to replace and upgrade architectural finishes and ADA upgrades, as
well as mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and data systems are not included. The cost
estimates also assume that the building is free of hazardous materials. The estimates also do
not include soft costs, such as consultant design fees and permit fees.
Since the above estimates of probable construction cost are preliminary and are based on
limited structural information, the actual construction cost as stated above could vary
substantially. In order to develop a more realistic construction cost estimate, we recommend
that a more complete seismic evaluation, such as ASCE 41 Tier 2, be performed. Such an
43
City of South San Francisco
Final Report
April 23, 2025
Tier 1 Seismic Evaluation
Risk Category II, III, and IV
Municipal Services Building
Page 16
evaluation would confirm some of the potential deficiencies indicated by the Tier 1
methodology while eliminate others and develop one or more conceptual seismic retrofit
schemes to remedy the confirmed deficiencies in the building’s lateral system. The work will
include performing a detailed evaluation of the existing structural framing, exposing and
inspecting selected concealed structural elements and their connections, conducting material
testing (if required), performing more detailed analysis, preparing conceptual sketches
depicting the nature and extent of retrofit work for each conceptual seismic retrofit scheme,
and developing a detailed cost estimate (prepared by a professional cost estimating firm).
After a conceptual seismic retrofit scheme and its anticipated construction costs for
strengthening the Municipal Services Building are approved by the City, the project then
could move forward to the development of final construction documents. As is the case for
nearly all seismic upgrade projects, the construction documents phase of the project would
require a multi-disciplinary team of consultants that can address architectural, structural,
mechanical, electrical, plumbing and cost estimating aspects of the project.
RECOMMENDED FURTHER ACTIONS
The findings of our preliminary seismic evaluation based on the ASCE 41-17 Tier 1
procedure indicate that the Municipal Services Building has significant potential seismic
deficiencies and is susceptible to substantial damage during a major seismic event. We
recommend that the City select one of the following two options for the building.
Option 1 – Perform Voluntary Seismic Upgrade to Comply with Current Building Code
If the City elects to upgrade the MSB to the current seismic code/standards in order to
improve its potential performance during a major seismic event, we recommend the
following further steps to implement a voluntary seismic retrofit program for the building.
These steps will help define fully the scope of required seismic retrofit work and the
associated construction costs:
1. Perform a more detailed ASCE 41 Tier 2 Deficiency-Based Seismic Evaluation of the
building, based on the Risk Category selected by the City, to fully define the
building’s seismic retrofit needs.
2. Using the seismic deficiencies identified and verified via the Tier 2 evaluation,
develop at least one conceptual seismic retrofit scheme to remedy those deficiencies.
3. Prepare sketches for the proposed seismic retrofit scheme(s) to indicate the nature and
extent of required seismic retrofit work.
4. Prepare a more detailed estimate of the probable construction costs. This estimate
should be prepared by a third-party professional cost estimating firm.
44
City of South San Francisco
Final Report
April 23, 2025
Tier 1 Seismic Evaluation
Risk Category II, III, and IV
Municipal Services Building
Page 17
The implementation of these actions will help determine the full extent of structural/seismic
upgrade required in order for the building to comply with the current building code
requirements and its expected construction costs. After approval by the City, the project
would then proceed to the final design phase in order to prepare the construction documents.
Option 2 – Use MSB for Any Permissible Occupancy without Seismic Retrofit
The as-built structural drawings for the seismic upgrade work performed in 1979 indicate
that the entire Municipal Services Building was retrofitted to comply with the Essential
Facility requirements of the Uniform Building Code in effect at that time. Given this, it is our
opinion that the City may choose to use the MSB for any permissible occupancy type without
any requirement to seismically retrofit the overall building per the current building code as
long as any structural modifications or non-structural renovations that may be undertaken for
the selected building use/occupancy do not exceed the various thresholds in the building code
or adopted by the City of South San Francisco Building Department (SSFBD). In the event at
least one of these thresholds is exceeded, a mandatory seismic evaluation and retrofit (if
required) of the overall building, per the current building code, is triggered.
If the City elects to use the MSB essentially “as is” with only minor structural modifications
and/or limited non-structural renovation required for the selected use/occupancy that do not
trigger a mandatory seismic evaluation/retrofit of the overall building, we recommend
undertaking the following further steps:
1. Confirm with SSFBD that the 1979 seismic retrofit work was indeed permitted to
upgrade the building to an Essential Facility and that the work was fully implemented
during construction.
2. Consult with SSFBD to determine the thresholds for all applicable triggers (structural
modifications, non-structural renovation, etc.) that, if exceeded, would require
seismic evaluation and, possibly, retrofit of the overall building per the current
building code.
3. Modify/renovate the building per requirements of the selected use/occupancy while
ensuring that none of the applicable trigger thresholds is exceeded.
45
City of South San Francisco
Final Report
April 23, 2025
Tier 1 Seismic Evaluation
Risk Category II, III, and IV
Municipal Services Building
Page 18
LIMITATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS
The evaluation, findings, conclusions and recommendations outlined in this report were
based on limited information and preliminary analytical work per requirements of the ASCE
41 Tier 1 methodology. This report has been prepared using the same degree of care and skill
ordinarily exercised for this type of professional service by structural engineers practicing in
this area at this time. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional
advice in this report.
This report has been prepared for exclusive use of the City of South San Francisco and may
not be used by any other individual or entity without the express written approval of Biggs
Cardosa Associates, Inc.
46
City of South San Francisco
Final Report
April 23, 2025
Tier 1 Seismic Evaluation
Risk Category II, III, and IV
Municipal Services Building
Appendix 1
Conceptual Seismic Retrofit Plans
47
INSTALL SHOTCRETE ATSELECT EXISTING CONCRETEWALLS TO INCREASE IN-PLANESHEAR CAPACITYSTRENGTHENALL PERIMETERCONC WALLSFOR OUT-OF-PLANELOADS BETWEENFOUNDATION ANDSECOND FLOOR,INCLUDINGCONNECTIONSINSTALL NEW CONCSHEAR WALLS ORBRACED FRAMES BELOWDISCONTINUOUS SHEARWALLS ABOVEINCREASE IN-PLANE SHEARCAPACITY OF CONC PANELANCHORAGE TO THEFOUNDATION, TYP ALLEXTERIOR CONC WALLSCONCEPTUAL SEISMIC RETROFITBIGGS CARDOSA ASSOCIATES, INC.04-23-202548
INSTALL SHOTCRETE ATSELECT EXISTING CONCRETEWALLS TO INCREASE IN-PLANESHEAR CAPACITYINSTALL NEWANCHORAGE ATALL PERIMETERCONC WALLS TO(E) SECOND FLOORSLABSECOND FLOOR FRAMING PLANSTRENGTHENALL PERIMETERCONC WALLSFOR OUT-OF-PLANELOADS FROM SECONDFLOOR TO ROOFINCREASE (E) PLYWOOD SHEAR WALLCAPACITY AT THE SECOND FLOOR BY INSTALLING:- ADDITIONAL FASTENING TO THE ROOF DIAPHRAGM- ADDITIONAL PLYWOOD AT WALL FACE OPPOSITE OF (E) PLYWOOD- NEW SILL ANCHORS TO SECOND FLOOR- NEW HOLDOWNS AT WALL ENDS- NEW HD ANCHOR RODS AND HARDWARETYP AT ALL (E) SHEAR WALLS (SHOWNHIGHLIGHTED YELLOW)CONCEPTUAL SEISMIC RETROFITBIGGS CARDOSA ASSOCIATES, INC.04-23-2025INSTALL CARBON FIBEROVER 2ND FLOOR SLAB INSELECT AREAS TOENHANCE DIAPHRAGMSHEAR CAPACITY49
INSTALL NEWOUT-OF PLANEWALL ANCHORAGEAT ALL PERIMETERCONC WALLSINSTALL ADDITIONAL PLYWOODDIPAHRGAM NAILING TO INCREASECAPACITY, TYP AT ROOFINSTALL ADDITIONAL CROSSTIESAND SUBDIAPHRAGM NAILING TOINCREASE CAPACITY FOR OUT-OFPLANE WALL ANCHORAGE, TYP ATROOF DIAPHRAGMCONCEPTUAL SEISMIC RETROFITBIGGS CARDOSA ASSOCIATES, INC.04-23-202550
City of South San Francisco
Final Report
April 23, 2025
Tier 1 Seismic Evaluation
Risk Category II, III, and IV
Municipal Services Building
Appendix 2
ASCE 41 Tier 1 Checklists
51
52
53
54
Table 17-24. Collapse Prevention Structural Checklist for Building Types C2 and C2a
Status Evaluation Statement
Tier 2
Reference
Commentary
Reference
Low and Moderate Seismicity
Seismic-Force-Resisting System
C NC N/A U COMPLETE FRAMES: Steel or concrete frames classified as secondary
components form a complete vertical-load-carrying system.
5.5.2.5.1 A.3.1.6.1
C NC N/A U REDUNDANCY: The number of lines of shear walls in each principal direction is
greater than or equal to 2.
5.5.1.1 A.3.2.1.1
C NC N/A U SHEAR STRESS CHECK: The shear stress in the concrete shear walls,
calculated using the Quick Check procedure of Section 4.4.3.3, is less than the
greater of 100 lb/in.
2 (0.69 MPa) or 2
ffiffiffiffiffi
f 0c
p
.
5.5.3.1.1 A.3.2.2.1
C NC N/A U REINFORCING STEEL: The ratio of reinforcing steel area to gross concrete area
is not less than 0.0012 in the vertical direction and 0.0020 in the horizontal
direction.
5.5.3.1.3 A.3.2.2.2
Connections
C NC N/A U WALL ANCHORAGE AT FLEXIBLE DIAPHRAGMS: Exterior concrete or
masonry walls that are dependent on flexible diaphragms for lateral support
are anchored for out-of-plane forces at each diaphragm level with steel
anchors, reinforcing dowels, or straps that are developed into the diaphragm.
Connections have strength to resist the connection force calculated in the
Quick Check procedure of Section 4.4.3.7.
5.7.1.1 A.5.1.1
C NC N/A U TRANSFER TO SHEAR WALLS: Diaphragms are connected for transfer of
seismic forces to the shear walls.
5.7.2 A.5.2.1
C NC N/A U FOUNDATION DOWELS: Wall reinforcement is doweled into the foundation with
vertical bars equal in size and spacing to the vertical wall reinforcing directly
above the foundation.
5.7.3.4 A.5.3.5
High Seismicity (Complete the Following Items in Addition to the Items for Low and Moderate Seismicity)
Seismic-Force-Resisting System
C NC N/A U DEFLECTION COMPATIBILITY: Secondary components have the shear
capacity to develop the flexural strength of the components.
5.5.2.5.2 A.3.1.6.2
C NC N/A U FLAT SLABS: Flat slabs or plates not part of the seismic-force-resisting system
have continuous bottom steel through the column joints.
5.5.2.5.3 A.3.1.6.3
C NC N/A U COUPLING BEAMS: The ends of both walls to which the coupling beam is
attached are supported at each end to resist vertical loads caused by
overturning.
5.5.3.2.1 A.3.2.2.3
Diaphragms (Stiff or Flexible)
C NC N/A U DIAPHRAGM CONTINUITY: The diaphragms are not composed of split-level
floors and do not have expansion joints.
5.6.1.1 A.4.1.1
C NC N/A U OPENINGS AT SHEAR WALLS: Diaphragm openings immediately adjacent to
the shear walls are less than 25% of the wall length.
5.6.1.3 A.4.1.4
Flexible Diaphragms
C NC N/A U CROSS TIES: There are continuous cross ties between diaphragm chords. 5.6.1.2 A.4.1.2
C NC N/A U STRAIGHT SHEATHING: All straight-sheathed diaphragms have aspect ratios
less than 2-to-1 in the direction being considered.
5.6.2 A.4.2.1
C NC N/A U SPANS: All wood diaphragms with spans greater than 24 ft (7.3 m) consist of
wood structural panels or diagonal sheathing.
5.6.2 A.4.2.2
C NC N/A U DIAGONALLY SHEATHED AND UNBLOCKED DIAPHRAGMS: All diagonally
sheathed or unblocked wood structural panel diaphragms have horizontal
spans less than 40 ft (12.2 m) and aspect ratios less than or equal to 4-to-1.
5.6.2 A.4.2.3
C NC N/A U OTHER DIAPHRAGMS: Diaphragms do not consist of a system other than
wood, metal deck, concrete, or horizontal bracing.
5.6.5 A.4.7.1
Connections
C NC N/A U UPLIFT AT PILE CAPS: Pile caps have top reinforcement, and piles are
anchored to the pile caps.
5.7.3.5 A.5.3.8
Note:C =Compliant, NC =Noncompliant, N/A =Not Applicable, and U =Unknown.
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structures 299 55
Table 17-25. Immediate Occupancy Structural Checklist for Building Types C2 and C2a
Status Evaluation Statement
Tier 2
Reference
Commentary
Reference
Very Low Seismicity
Seismic-Force-Resisting System
C NC N/A U COMPLETE FRAMES: Steel or concrete frames classified as secondary
components form a complete vertical-load-carrying system.
5.5.2.5.1 A.3.1.6.1
C NC N/A U REDUNDANCY: The number of lines of shear walls in each principal direction is
greater than or equal to 2.
5.5.1.1 A.3.2.1.1
C NC N/A U SHEAR STRESS CHECK: The shear stress in the concrete shear walls,
calculated using the Quick Check procedure of Section 4.4.3.3, is less than the
greater of 100 lb/in.
2 (0.69 MPa) or 2
ffiffiffiffiffi
f 0
c
p
.
5.5.3.1.1 A.3.2.2.1
C NC N/A U REINFORCING STEEL: The ratio of reinforcing steel area to gross concrete area
is not less than 0.0012 in the vertical direction and 0.0020 in the horizontal
direction. The spacing of reinforcing steel is equal to or less than 18 in.
(457 mm).
5.5.3.1.3 A.3.2.2.2
Connections
C NC N/A U WALL ANCHORAGE AT FLEXIBLE DIAPHRAGMS: Exterior concrete or
masonry walls that are dependent on flexible diaphragms for lateral support
are anchored for out-of-plane forces at each diaphragm level with steel
anchors, reinforcing dowels, or straps that are developed into the diaphragm.
Connections have strength to resist the connection force calculated in the
Quick Check procedure of Section 4.4.3.7.
5.7.1.1 A.5.1.1
C NC N/A U TRANSFER TO SHEAR WALLS: Diaphragms are connected for transfer of
loads to the shear walls, and the connections are able to develop the lesser of
the shear strength of the walls or diaphragms.
5.7.2 A.5.2.1
C NC N/A U FOUNDATION DOWELS: Wall reinforcement is doweled into the foundation,
and the dowels are able to develop the lesser of the strength of the walls or the
uplift capacity of the foundation.
5.7.3.4 A.5.3.5
Foundation System
C NC N/A U DEEP FOUNDATIONS: Piles and piers are capable of transferring the lateral
forces between the structure and the soil.
A.6.2.3
C NC N/A U SLOPING SITES: The difference in foundation embedment depth from one side
of the building to another does not exceed one story.
A.6.2.4
Low, Moderate, and High Seismicity (Complete the Following Items in Addition to the Items for Very Low Seismicity)
Seismic-Force-Resisting System
C NC N/A U DEFLECTION COMPATIBILITY: Secondary components have the shear
capacity to develop the flexural strength of the components and are compliant
with the following items in Table 17-23: COLUMN-BAR SPLICES, BEAM-BAR
SPLICES, COLUMN-TIE SPACING, STIRRUP SPACING, and STIRRUP
AND TIE HOOKS.
5.5.2.5.2 A.3.1.6.2
C NC N/A U FLAT SLABS: Flat slabs or plates not part of seismic-force-resisting system have
continuous bottom steel through the column joints.
5.5.2.5.3 A.3.1.6.3
C NC N/A U COUPLING BEAMS: The ends of both walls to which the coupling beam is
attached are supported at each end to resist vertical loads caused by
overturning. Coupling beams have the capacity in shear to develop the uplift
capacity of the adjacent wall.
5.5.3.2.1 A.3.2.2.3
C NC N/A U OVERTURNING: All shear walls have aspect ratios less than 4-to-1. Wall piers
need not be considered.
5.5.3.1.4 A.3.2.2.4
C NC N/A U CONFINEMENT REINFORCING: For shear walls with aspect ratios greater than
2-to-1, the boundary elements are confined with spirals or ties with spacing
less than 8db.
5.5.3.2.2 A.3.2.2.5
C NC N/A U WALL REINFORCING AT OPENINGS: There is added trim reinforcement
around all wall openings with a dimension greater than three times the
thickness of the wall.
5.5.3.1.5 A.3.2.2.6
C NC N/A U WALL THICKNESS: Thicknesses of bearing walls are not less than 1/25
the unsupported height or length, whichever is shorter, nor less than
4 in. (101 mm).
5.5.3.1.2 A.3.2.2.7
continues
300 STANDARD ASCE/SEI 41-17 56
categorized as Noncompliant or Unknown. For evaluation state-
ments classified as Noncompliant or Unknown, the design
professional is permitted to choose to conduct further investiga-
tion using the corresponding Tier 2 evaluation procedure listed
next to each evaluation statement.
17.13 STRUCTURAL CHECKLISTS FOR BUILDING
TYPES C3: CONCRETE FRAMES WITH INFILL
MASONRY SHEAR WALLS AND C3A:
CONCRETE FRAMES WITH INFILL MASONRY
SHEAR WALLS AND FLEXIBLE DIAPHRAGMS
For building systems and configurations that comply with the C3
or C3a building type description in Table 3-1, the Collapse
Prevention Structural Checklist in Table 17-26 shall be com-
pleted where required by Table 4-6 for Collapse Prevention
Structural Performance, and the Immediate Occupancy Structural
Checklist in Table 17-27 shall be completed where required by
Table 4-6 for Immediate Occupancy Structural Performance.
Tier 1 screening shall include on-site investigation and condition
assessment as required by Section 4.2.1.
Where applicable, each of the evaluation statements listed in
this checklist shall be marked Compliant (C), Noncompliant (NC),
Not Applicable (N/A), or Unknown (U) for a Tier 1 screening.
Items that are deemed acceptable to the design professional in
accordance with the evaluation statement shall be categorized as
Compliant, whereas items that are determined by the design
professional to require further investigation shall be categorized
as Noncompliant or Unknown. For evaluation statements classi-
fied as Noncompliant or Unknown, the design professional is
permitted to choose to conduct further investigation using the
corresponding Tier 2 evaluation procedure listed next to each
evaluation statement.
17.14 STRUCTURAL CHECKLISTS FOR BUILDING
TYPES PC1: PRECAST OR TILT-UP CONCRETE
SHEAR WALLS WITH FLEXIBLE DIAPHRAGMS
AND PC1A: PRECAST OR TILT-UP CONCRETE
SHEAR WALLS WITH STIFF DIAPHRAGMS
For building systems and configurations that comply with
the PC1 or PC1a building type description in Table 3-1,
the Collapse Prevention Structural Checklist in Table 17-28
shall be completed where required by Table 4-6 for Collapse
Prevention Structural Performance, and the Immediate
Occupancy Structural Checklist in Table 17-29 shall be com-
pleted where required by Table 4-6 for Immediate Occupancy
Structural Performance. Tier 1 screening shall include on-
site investigation and condition assessment as required by
Section 4.2.1.
Table 17-25 (Continued). Immediate Occupancy Structural Checklist for Building Types C2 and C2a
Status Evaluation Statement
Tier 2
Reference
Commentary
Reference
Diaphragms (Stiff or Flexible)
C NC N/A U DIAPHRAGM CONTINUITY: The diaphragms are not composed of split-level
floors and do not have expansion joints.
5.6.1.1 A.4.1.1
C NC N/A U OPENINGS AT SHEAR WALLS: Diaphragm openings immediately adjacent to
the shear walls are less than 15% of the wall length.
5.6.1.3 A.4.1.4
C NC N/A U PLAN IRREGULARITIES: There is tensile capacity to develop the strength of the
diaphragm at reentrant corners or other locations of plan irregularities.
5.6.1.4 A.4.1.7
C NC N/A U DIAPHRAGM REINFORCEMENT AT OPENINGS: There is reinforcing around
all diaphragm openings larger than 50% of the building width in either major
plan dimension.
5.6.1.5 A.4.1.8
Flexible Diaphragms
C NC N/A U CROSS TIES: There are continuous cross ties between diaphragm chords. 5.6.1.2 A.4.1.2
C NC N/A U STRAIGHT SHEATHING: All straight-sheathed diaphragms have aspect ratios
less than 1-to-1 in the direction being considered.
5.6.2 A.4.2.1
C NC N/A U SPANS: All wood diaphragms with spans greater than 12 ft (3.6 m) consist of
wood structural panels or diagonal sheathing.
5.6.2 A.4.2.2
C NC N/A U DIAGONALLY SHEATHED AND UNBLOCKED DIAPHRAGMS: All diagonally
sheathed or unblocked wood structural panel diaphragms have horizontal
spans less than 30 ft (9.2 m) and aspect ratios less than or equal to 3-to-1.
5.6.2 A.4.2.3
C NC N/A U NONCONCRETE FILLED DIAPHRAGMS: Untopped metal deck diaphragms or
metal deck diaphragms with fill other than concrete consist of horizontal spans
of less than 40 ft (12.2 m) and have aspect ratios less than 4-to-1.
5.6.3 A.4.3.1
C NC N/A U OTHER DIAPHRAGMS: Diaphragms do not consist of a system other than
wood, metal deck, concrete, or horizontal bracing.
5.6.5 A.4.7.1
Connections
C NC N/A U UPLIFT AT PILE CAPS: Pile caps have top reinforcement, and piles are
anchored to the pile caps; the pile cap reinforcement and pile anchorage are
able to develop the tensile capacity of the piles.
5.7.3.5 A.5.3.8
Note:C =Compliant, NC =Noncompliant, N/A =Not Applicable, and U =Unknown.
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structures 301 57
Table 17-6. Collapse Prevention Structural Checklist for Building Type W2
Status Evaluation Statement
Tier 2
Reference
Commentary
Reference
Low and Moderate Seismicity
Seismic-Force-Resisting System
C NC N/A U REDUNDANCY: The number of lines of shear walls in each principal direction
is greater than or equal to 2.
5.5.1.1 A.3.2.1.1
C NC N/A U SHEAR STRESS CHECK: The shear stress in the shear walls, calculated using
the Quick Check procedure of Section 4.4.3.3, is less than the following
values:
Structural panel sheathing 1,000 lb/ft
Diagonal sheathing 700 lb/ft
Straight sheathing 100 lb/ft
All other conditions 100 lb/ft
5.5.3.1.1 A.3.2.7.1
C NC N/A U STUCCO (EXTERIOR PLASTER) SHEAR WALLS: Multi-story buildings do not
rely on exterior stucco walls as the primary seismic-force-resisting system.
5.5.3.6.1 A.3.2.7.2
C NC N/A U GYPSUM WALLBOARD OR PLASTER SHEAR WALLS: Interior plaster or
gypsum wallboard is not used for shear walls on buildings more than one story
high with the exception of the uppermost level of a multi-story building.
5.5.3.6.1 A.3.2.7.3
C NC N/A U NARROW WOOD SHEAR WALLS: Narrow wood shear walls with an aspect
ratio greater than 2-to-1 are not used to resist seismic forces.
5.5.3.6.1 A.3.2.7.4
C NC N/A U WALLS CONNECTED THROUGH FLOORS: Shear walls have an
interconnection between stories to transfer overturning and shear forces
through the floor.
5.5.3.6.2 A.3.2.7.5
C NC N/A U HILLSIDE SITE: For structures that are taller on at least one side by more than
one-half story because of a sloping site, all shear walls on the downhill slope
have an aspect ratio less than 1-to-1.
5.5.3.6.3 A.3.2.7.6
C NC N/A U CRIPPLE WALLS: Cripple walls below first-floor-level shear walls are braced to
the foundation with wood structural panels.
5.5.3.6.4 A.3.2.7.7
C NC N/A U OPENINGS: Walls with openings greater than 80% of the length are braced with
wood structural panel shear walls with aspect ratios of not more than 1.5-to-1
or are supported by adjacent construction through positive ties capable of
transferring the seismic forces.
5.5.3.6.5 A.3.2.7.8
Connections
C NC N/A U WOOD POSTS: There is a positive connection of wood posts to the foundation. 5.7.3.3 A.5.3.3
C NC N/A U WOOD SILLS: All wood sills are bolted to the foundation. 5.7.3.3 A.5.3.4
C NC N/A U GIRDER–COLUMN CONNECTION: There is a positive connection using plates,
connection hardware, or straps between the girder and the column support.
5.7.4.1 A.5.4.1
High Seismicity (Complete the Following Items in Addition to the Items for Low and Moderate Seismicity)
Connections
C NC N/A U WOOD SILL BOLTS: Sill bolts are spaced at 6 ft (1.8 m) or less with acceptable
edge and end distance provided for wood and concrete.
5.7.3.3 A.5.3.7
Diaphragms
C NC N/A U DIAPHRAGM CONTINUITY: The diaphragms are not composed of split-level
floors and do not have expansion joints.
5.6.1.1 A.4.1.1
C NC N/A U ROOF CHORD CONTINUITY: All chord elements are continuous, regardless of
changes in roof elevation.
5.6.1.1 A.4.1.3
C NC N/A U DIAPHRAGM REINFORCEMENT AT OPENINGS: There is reinforcing around
all diaphragm openings larger than 50% of the building width in either major
plan dimension.
5.6.1.5 A.4.1.8
C NC N/A U STRAIGHT SHEATHING: All straight-sheathed diaphragms have aspect ratios
less than 2-to-1 in the direction being considered.
5.6.2 A.4.2.1
C NC N/A U SPANS: All wood diaphragms with spans greater than 24 ft (7.3 m) consist of
wood structural panels or diagonal sheathing.
5.6.2 A.4.2.2
continues
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structures 273 58
Table 17-6 (Continued). Collapse Prevention Structural Checklist for Building Type W2
Status Evaluation Statement
Tier 2
Reference
Commentary
Reference
C NC N/A U DIAGONALLY SHEATHED AND UNBLOCKED DIAPHRAGMS: All diagonally
sheathed or unblocked wood structural panel diaphragms have horizontal
spans less than 40 ft (12.2 m) and have aspect ratios less than or equal to
4-to-1.
5.6.2 A.4.2.3
C NC N/A U OTHER DIAPHRAGMS: The diaphragms do not consist of a system other than
wood, metal deck, concrete, or horizontal bracing.
5.6.5 A.4.7.1
Note:C =Compliant, NC =Noncompliant, N/A =Not Applicable, and U =Unknown.
Table 17-7. Immediate Occupancy Checklist for Building Type W2
Status Evaluation Statement
Tier 2
Reference
Commentary
Reference
Very Low Seismicity
Seismic-Force-Resisting System
C NC N/A U REDUNDANCY: The number of lines of shear walls in each principal direction is
greater than or equal to 2.
5.5.1.1 A.3.2.1.1
C NC N/A U SHEAR STRESS CHECK: The shear stress in the shear walls, calculated using
the Quick Check procedure of Section 4.4.3.3, is less than the following
values:
Structural panel sheathing 1,000 lb/ft (14.6 kN/m)
Diagonal sheathing 700 lb/ft (10.2 kN/m)
Straight sheathing 100 lb/ft (1.5 kN/m)
All other conditions 100 lb/ft (1.5 kN/m)
5.5.3.1.1 A.3.2.7.1
C NC N/A U STUCCO (EXTERIOR PLASTER) SHEAR WALLS: Multi-story buildings do not
rely on exterior stucco walls as the primary seismic-force-resisting system.
5.5.3.6.1 A.3.2.7.2
C NC N/A U GYPSUM WALLBOARD OR PLASTER SHEAR WALLS: Interior plaster or
gypsum wallboard is not used for shear walls on buildings more than one story
high with the exception of the uppermost level of a multi-story building.
5.5.3.6.1 A.3.2.7.3
C NC N/A U NARROW WOOD SHEAR WALLS: Narrow wood shear walls with an aspect
ratio greater than 2-to-1 are not used to resist seismic forces.
5.5.3.6.1 A.3.2.7.4
C NC N/A U WALLS CONNECTED THROUGH FLOORS: Shear walls have an
interconnection between stories to transfer overturning and shear forces
through the floor.
5.5.3.6.2 A.3.2.7.5
C NC N/A U HILLSIDE SITE: For structures that are taller on at least one side by more than
one-half story because of a sloping site, all shear walls on the downhill slope
have an aspect ratio less than 1-to-2.
5.5.3.6.3 A.3.2.7.6
C NC N/A U CRIPPLE WALLS: Cripple walls below first-floor-level shear walls are braced to
the foundation with wood structural panels.
5.5.3.6.4 A.3.2.7.7
C NC N/A U OPENINGS: Walls with openings greater than 80% of the length are braced with
wood structural panel shear walls with aspect ratios of not more than 1.5-to-1
or are supported by adjacent construction through positive ties capable of
transferring the seismic forces.
5.5.3.6.5 A.3.2.7.8
C NC N/A U HOLD-DOWN ANCHORS: All shear walls have hold-down anchors attached to
the end studs constructed in accordance with acceptable construction
practices.
5.5.3.6.6 A.3.2.7.9
Connections
C NC N/A U WOOD POSTS: There is a positive connection of wood posts to the foundation. 5.7.3.3 A.5.3.3
C NC N/A U WOOD SILLS: All wood sills are bolted to the foundation. 5.7.3.3 A.5.3.4
C NC N/A U GIRDER–COLUMN CONNECTION: There is a positive connection using plates,
connection hardware, or straps between the girder and the column support.
5.7.4.1 A.5.4.1
continues
274 STANDARD ASCE/SEI 41-17 59
professional to require further investigation shall be categorized as
Noncompliant or Unknown. For evaluation statements classified
asNoncompliantorUnknown,thedesignprofessionalispermitted
to choose to conduct further investigation using the corresponding
Tier 2 evaluation procedure listed next to each evaluation
statement.
17.4 STRUCTURAL CHECKLISTS FOR BUILDING
TYPES S1: STEEL MOMENT FRAMES WITH
STIFF DIAPHRAGMS AND S1A: STEEL MOMENT
FRAMES WITH FLEXIBLE DIAPHRAGMS
For building systems and configurations that comply with the S1
or S1a building type description in Table 3-1, the Collapse
Prevention Structural Checklist in Table 17-8 shall be completed
where required by Table 4-6 for Collapse Prevention Structural
Performance, and the Immediate Occupancy Structural Checklist
in Table 17-9 shall be completed where required by Table 4-6 for
Immediate Occupancy Structural Performance. Tier 1 screening
shall include on-site investigation and condition assessment as
required by Section 4.2.1.
Where applicable, each of the evaluation statements listed in
this checklist shall be marked Compliant (C), Noncompliant
(NC), Not Applicable (N/A), or Unknown (U) for a Tier 1
screening. Items that are deemed acceptable to the design
professional in accordance with the evaluation statement shall
be categorized as Compliant, whereas items that are determined
by the design professional to require further investigation shall be
categorized as Noncompliant or Unknown. For evaluation state-
ments classified as Noncompliant or Unknown, the design
professional is permitted to choose to conduct further investiga-
tion using the corresponding Tier 2 evaluation procedure listed
next to each evaluation statement.
17.5 STRUCTURAL CHECKLIST FOR BUILDING
TYPES S2: STEEL BRACED FRAMES WITH
STIFF DIAPHRAGMS AND S2A: STEEL BRACED
FRAMES WITH FLEXIBLE DIAPHRAGMS
For building systems and configurations that comply with the S2
or S2a building type description in Table 3-1, the Collapse
Prevention Structural Checklist in Table 17-10 shall be comple-
ted where required by Table 4-6 for Collapse Prevention Struc-
tural Performance, and the Immediate Occupancy Structural
Checklist in Table 17-11 shall be completed where required
by Table 4-6 for Immediate Occupancy Structural Performance.
Table 17-7 (Continued). Immediate Occupancy Checklist for Building Type W2
Status Evaluation Statement
Tier 2
Reference
Commentary
Reference
Foundation System
C NC N/A U DEEP FOUNDATIONS: Piles and piers are capable of transferring the lateral
forces between the structure and the soil.
A.6.2.3
C NC N/A U SLOPING SITES: The difference in foundation embedment depth from one side
of the building to another does not exceed one story high.
A.6.2.4
Low, Moderate, and High Seismicity (Complete the Following Items in Addition to the Items for Very Low
Seismicity)
Seismic-Force-Resisting System
C NC N/A U NARROW WOOD SHEAR WALLS: Narrow wood shear walls with an aspect
ratio greater than 1.5-to-1 are not used to resist seismic forces.
5.5.3.6.1 A.3.2.7.4
Diaphragms
C NC N/A U DIAPHRAGM CONTINUITY: The diaphragms are not composed of split-level
floors and do not have expansion joints.
5.6.1.1 A.4.1.1
C NC N/A U ROOF CHORD CONTINUITY: All chord elements are continuous, regardless of
changes in roof elevation.
5.6.1.1 A.4.1.3
C NC N/A U DIAPHRAGM REINFORCEMENT AT OPENINGS: There is reinforcing around
all diaphragm openings larger than 50% of the building width in either major
plan dimension.
5.6.1.5 A.4.1.8
C NC N/A U STRAIGHT SHEATHING: All straight-sheathed diaphragms have aspect ratios
less than 1-to-1 in the direction being considered.
5.6.2 A.4.2.1
C NC N/A U SPANS: All wood diaphragms with spans greater than 12 ft (3.6 m) consist of
wood structural panels or diagonal sheathing.
5.6.2 A.4.2.2
C NC N/A U DIAGONALLY SHEATHED AND UNBLOCKED DIAPHRAGMS: All diagonally
sheathed or unblocked wood structural panel diaphragms have horizontal
spans less than 30 ft (9.2 m) and have aspect ratios less than or equal to
3-to-1.
5.6.2 A.4.2.3
C NC N/A U OTHER DIAPHRAGMS: The diaphragms do not consist of a system other than
wood, metal deck, concrete, or horizontal bracing.
5.6.5 A.4.7.1
Connections
C NC N/A U WOOD SILL BOLTS: Sillbolts are spacedat 4ft or less with acceptableedge and
end distance provided for wood and concrete.
5.7.3.3 A.5.3.7
Note:C =Compliant, NC =Noncompliant, N/A =Not Applicable, and U =Unknown.
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structures 275 60
FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT
Bureau Veritas
6021 University Boulevard, Suite 200 | Ellicott City, MD 21043 | www.bvna.com | p 800.733.0660
South San Francisco Municipal Building
33 Arroyo Drive
South San Francisco, CA 94080
prepared for
Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc
211 Linden Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Dawn Merkes
PREPARED BY:
Bureau Veritas
6021 University Boulevard, Suite 200
Ellicott City, MD 21043
800.733.0660
www.bvna.com
BV CONTACT:
Jason Mayes
Program Manager
800.733.0660 x7293328
Jason.Mayes@bureauveritas.com
BV PROJECT #:
162502.24R000-001.017
DATE OF REPORT:
October 29, 2024
Updated April 14,2025
ON SITE DATE:
September 17, 2024
61
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL BUILDING BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 162502.24R000-001.017
www.bvna.com | p 800.733.0660
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary ................................................................................................. 1
Property Overview and Assessment Details .............................................................. 1
Significant/Systemic Findings and Deficiencies ......................................................... 2
Facility Condition Index (FCI) ..................................................................................... 3
Immediate Needs ....................................................................................................... 4
Key Findings .............................................................................................................. 5
Plan Types ................................................................................................................. 7
2. Building Systems and Site Elements ..................................................................... 8
3. ADA Accessibility .................................................................................................. 14
4. Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................... 16
5. Opinions of Probable Costs .................................................................................. 18
Methodology ............................................................................................................ 18
Definitions ................................................................................................................ 20
6. Certification ............................................................................................................ 22
7. Appendices ............................................................................................................ 23
62
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL BUILDING BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 162502.24R000-001.017
1
www.bvna.com | p 800.733.0660
1. Executive Summary
Property Overview and Assessment Details
General Information
Property Type Community Center
Number of Buildings One
Main Address South San Francisco Municipal Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South
San Francisco, CA 94080
Site Developed 1969; Renovated 1979
Outside Occupants / Leased
Spaces
Designated spaces are being used by a general contractor that is
currently building the new Municipal Building on the other side of
El Camino Real.
Date(s) of Visit September 17, 2024
Management Point of Contact Group 4 Architecture, Research +
Ms. Dawn Merkes
650.871.0709
On-site Point of Contact (POC) John Shea - City of South San Francisco - Facilities Lead
john.shea@ssf.net
650.228.9577
Assessment & Report Prepared By Kay van der Have
Reviewed By Jason Mayes
Program Manager
800.733.0660 x7293328
Jason.Mayes@bureauveritas.com
63
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL BUILDING BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 162502.24R000-001.017
2
www.bvna.com | p 800.733.0660
Significant/Systemic Findings and Deficiencies
Historical Summary
This facility was built in 1969 as a retail store. In the late 1970's the City of South San Francisco bought the
property and converted it into a Municipal Services Building, which at the time housed the Fire Department,
Police Station, City Council Chambers and Parks Department. The Fire Department is the only current
occupants in the recently renovated (2012) section of the building. City of South San Francisco’s future for the
Municipal Building is unknown. There are no current plans or future tenants anticipated.
Architectural
This two-story building is constructed with concrete tilt-up bearing walls with wood roof deck, supported by
wood purlins. The concrete walls are supported by continuous spread concrete footings with a cast in place
concrete slab. The exterior envelope systems and components were observed to have issues with water
penetration seeping through the concrete exterior walls into the building. Efflorescence was observed on the
exterior walls and attempted remedies for re-directing the water drainage was noted in the recommended
survey. The roofing system was reported to have areas of failure with noted leaking. Interior finishes are
heavily worn and are anticipated for lifecycle replacement based on useful life and normal wear.
reflecting installation in 2014. Supplemental mechanical equipment within the building consists of split-system
units and exhaust fans. Regular maintenance was performed, and replacement of parts and systems are
completed as needed. The electrical system equipment, such as transformers, switchboards, distribution
panels, wiring, lighting systems, and other components are adequate for the facility demand requirements. The
plumbing system throughout the facility is original and in fair working order. Elevators are original and observed
to be in poor working condition. Fire alarm and fire suppression systems are present, throughout the building.
The fire protection systems are inspected and maintained as needed, however it is recommended to bring
these systems up to current codes and standards. All MEPF equipment is anticipated for lifecycle replacement.
Site
In general, the site has been moderately maintained. The asphalt parking lots are showing deterioration with
alligator cracking and areas of uplift from tree roots. Asphalt mill and overlay has been recommended and
budgeted in the cost tables provided. Most of the site contains moderate landscaping with low slope, which is
served by in-ground irrigation system. Concrete sidewalks and paved brick areas provide pedestrian access to
the building. Site lighting is provided by parking lot pole lights and exterior building lighting.
Recommended Additional Studies
See the Systems Summary tables in the latter sections of this report for recommended additional studies
associated with accessibility, moisture intrusion and site drainage.
Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing and Fire (MEPF)
The facility heating and cooling is accomplished through package rooftop units with many of the units
64
001 - SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL BUILDING BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 162502.24R000-001.017
4
www.bvna.com | p 800.733.0660
Facility Condition Index (FCI)
One of the major goals of the FCA is to calculate the Facility Condition Index (FCI), which provides a
theoretical objective indication of a facility’s overall condition. The FCI is defined as the ratio of the cost of
current needs divided by the current replacement value (CRV) of the facility. The chart below presents the
industry standard ranges and cut-off points.
FCI Ranges and Description
0 – 5% In new or well-maintained condition, with little visual evidence of wear or deficiencies.
5 – 10% Subjected to wear but is still in a serviceable and functioning condition.
10 – 30% Subjected to hard or long-term wear. Nearing the end of its useful or serviceable life.
30% and above Has reached the end of its useful or serviceable life. Renewal is now necessary.
The deficiencies and lifecycle needs identified in this assessment provide the basis for a portfolio-wide capital
improvement funding strategy. In addition to the current FCI, extended FCI’s have been developed to provide
owners the intelligence needed to plan and budget for the “keep-up costs” for their facilities. As such the 3-
year, 5-year, and 10-year FCI’s are calculated by dividing the anticipated needs of those respective time
periods by current replacement value. As a final point, the FCI’s ultimately provide more value when used to
relatively compare facilities across a portfolio instead of being over-analyzed and scrutinized as stand-alone
mathematical values. The table below presents the current, 3-year, 5-year, and 10-year FCI’s for this facility:
FCI Analysis
Replacement Value Total SF Cost/SF
$142,440,000 118,700 $1,200
Est Reserve Cost FCI
Current $135,700 0.1 %
3-Year $35,657,000 25.0 %
5-Year $36,762,700 25.8 %
10-Year $41,386,200 29.1 %
65
001 - SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL BUILDING BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 162502.24R000-001.017
5
www.bvna.com | p 800.733.0660
NEEDS OVER TIME: The vertical blue bars in the graphic below represent the year-by-year needs identified
for the facility. The orange line forecasts what would happen to the FCI (left Y axis) over time, assuming zero
capital expenditures over the next ten years. The dollar amounts allocated for each year are associated with
the values along the right Y axis.
Needs by Year with Unaddressed FCI Over Time
66
001 - SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL BUILDING BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 162502.24R000-001.017
6
www.bvna.com | p 800.733.0660
Immediate Needs
001 - South San Francisco
Municipal Building P2032 Architectural Study, Building Envelope,
Façade, Evaluate/Report NA Performance/Int
egrity $12,800
001 - South San Francisco
Municipal Building Y1031 ADA Entrances & Doors, Automatic
Opener, Install Fair Aged But
Functional $110,000
001 - South San Francisco
Municipal Building P2032 Engineering Study, Civil, Site Drainage,
Evaluate/Report NA Performance/Int
egrity $12,800
TOTAL (3 items) $135,700
Location UF Code Description Condition Plan Type Cost
67
001 - SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL BUILDING BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 162502.24R000-001.017
7
www.bvna.com | p 800.733.0660
Key Findings
Roofing in Poor condition.
Modified Bitumen
001 - South San Francisco Municipal Building
Roof
Uniformat Code: B3010
Recommendation: Replace in 2025
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $3,305,100
The roofing has active leaks, and it is showing a lot of bubbled areas - AssetCALC ID: 8180986
Elevator Controls in Poor
condition.
Automatic, 2 Car Cluster
001 - South San Francisco Municipal Building
Elevator Shafts/Utility
Uniformat Code: D1010
Recommendation: Replace in 2025
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $36,700
Very choppy ride - AssetCALC ID: 8180832
Parking Lots in Poor condition.
Pavement, Asphalt
001 - South San Francisco Municipal Building
Site
Uniformat Code: G2020
Recommendation: Seal & Stripe in 2025
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $155,700
This needs to be done after the asphalt is replaced - AssetCALC ID: 8180917
Parking Lots in Poor condition.
Pavement, Asphalt
001 - South San Francisco Municipal Building
Site
Uniformat Code: G2020
Recommendation: Mill & Overlay in 2026
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $355,800
Lots of alligator cracking and tree root damage - AssetCALC ID: 8180922
68
001 - SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL BUILDING BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 162502.24R000-001.017
8
www.bvna.com | p 800.733.0660
Casework in Poor condition.
Cabinetry, Standard
001 - South San Francisco Municipal Building
Throughout Building
Uniformat Code: E2010
Recommendation: Replace in 2026
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $371,200
Casework here is old used and abused - AssetCALC ID: 8180915
Recommended Follow-up Study:
Civil, Site Drainage
001 - South San Francisco Municipal Building
Building Exterior
Uniformat Code: P2030
Recommendation: Evaluate/Report in 2024
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $12,800
At times of heavy rain, water pours from El Camino Real into the garage and the drainage in the garage is not
adequate to prevent the garage from flooding. - AssetCALC ID: 8183379
Recommended Follow-up Study:
Building Envelope, Façade
001 - South San Francisco Municipal Building
Building Exterior
Uniformat Code: P2030
Recommendation: Evaluate/Report in 2024
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $12,800
The concrete tilt up walls, leak water into the building, the garage level and the grade level. How to stop this
from happening should be researched. - AssetCALC ID: 8183380
Fences & Gates in Poor condition.
Vehicle Gate, Chain Link Sliding Electric
001 - South San Francisco Municipal Building
Site
Uniformat Code: G2060
Recommendation: Replace in 2026
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $18,300
Very rusty - AssetCALC ID: 8180859
69
001 - SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL BUILDING BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 162502.24R000-001.017
9
www.bvna.com | p 800.733.0660
Plan Types
Each line item in the cost database is assigned a Plan Type, which is the primary reason or rationale for the
recommended replacement, repair, or other corrective action. This is the “why” part of the equation. A cost or
line item may commonly have more than one applicable Plan Type; however, only one Plan Type will be
assigned based on the “best” fit, typically the one with the greatest significance and highest on the list below.
Plan Type Descriptions & Distribution
Safety An observed or reported unsafe condition that if left unaddressed could
result in injury; a system or component that presents potential liability risk.
Performance/Integrity Component or system has failed, is almost failing, performs unreliably,
does not perform as intended, and/or poses risk to overall system stability.
Accessibility Does not meet ADA, UFAS, and/or other accessibility requirements.
Environmental Improvements to air or water quality, including removal of hazardous
materials from the building or site.
Retrofit/Adaptation Components, systems, or spaces recommended for upgrades in in order
to meet current standards, facility usage, or client/occupant needs.
Aged But Functional Any component or system that has aged past its industry-average
expected useful life (EUL) but is not currently deficient or problematic.
Lifecycle/Renewal Any component or system that is neither deficient nor aged past EUL but
for which future replacement or repair is anticipated and budgeted.
70
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL BUILDING BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 162502.24R000-001.017
8
www.bvna.com | p 800.733.0660
2. Building Systems and Site Elements
Building Systems Summary
Address 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA 94080
GPS Coordinates 37.655515, -122.436805
Constructed/Renovated 1969 Renovated 1979
Building Area 118,700 SF
Number of Stories 2 above grade with 1 below-grade basement levels
System Description Condition
Structure Concrete tilt-up bearing walls with wood roof deck supported by
wood purlins. The concrete walls are supported by continuous
spread concrete footings with a cast in place concrete slab.
Fair
Facade Primary Wall Finish: Stucco skim coat over the tilt-up concrete
walls.
Windows: Aluminum
Poor
Roof Primary: Flat construction with modified bituminous finish
Secondary: Gable construction with concrete tiles
Poor
Interiors Walls: Painted gypsum board, ceramic tile
Floors: Carpet, VCT, brick, ceramic tile, wood strip, sealed
concrete
Ceilings: Painted gypsum board, ACT, wood paneling
Fair
Elevators Passenger: Two hydraulic cars serving all floors; the main floor
and the subterranean parking garage area
Poor
71
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL BUILDING BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 162502.24R000-001.017
9
www.bvna.com | p 800.733.0660
Building Systems Summary
Plumbing Distribution: Copper supply and cast iron and PVC waste and
venting
Hot Water: Gas and Electric water heaters with integral tanks
Fixtures: Toilets, urinals, and sinks in all restrooms
Fair
HVAC Non-Central System: Packaged units
Supplemental components: Ductless split-systems
Fair
Fire Suppression Wet-pipe sprinkler system, fire extinguishers, and kitchen hood
system, dedicated computer/server room chemical system
Fair
Electrical Source & Distribution: Main switchboard with copper wiring
Interior Lighting: LED, linear fluorescent, CFL, halogen,
incandescent
Emergency Power: Diesel/Propane/Natural gas generator with
automatic transfer switch and UPS
Fair
Fire Alarm Alarm panel with smoke detectors, alarms, pull stations, back-
up emergency lights, and exit signs
Fair
Equipment/Special Commercial kitchen equipment
Fair
Accessibility Potential moderate/major issues have been identified at the
interior areas and a detailed accessibility study is
recommended. See the appendix for associated photos and
additional information.
Additional Studies Beyond the accessibility study recommended above, no
additional studies are currently recommended for the building.
The tilt-up retaining walls are in poor condition. Water
penetrates through the exterior walls causing leaks into the
building interior. Water damage has been documented and
reported. A professional engineer must be retained to analyze
the existing condition, provide recommendations and, if
necessary, estimate the scope and cost of any required repairs.
The cost of this study is included in the cost tables. Due to the
ambiguity of the required repair scope at the time of this
assessment, the cost for any possible subsequent repairs is not
included.
72
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL BUILDING BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 162502.24R000-001.017
10
www.bvna.com | p 800.733.0660
Building Systems Summary
Areas Observed Most of the interior spaces were observed to gain a clear
understanding of the facility's overall condition. Other areas
accessed and assessed included the exterior equipment and
assets directly serving the building, the exterior walls of the
facility, and the roof.
Key Spaces Not
Observed
Areas of note that were either inaccessible or not observed for
other reasons are listed here:
Server Room for 911 Communications; Secure area with no
access provided.
73
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL BUILDING BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 162502.24R000-001.017
11
www.bvna.com | p 800.733.0660
Site Information
Site Area 0.045 acres
Parking Spaces 192 total spaces; 52 spaces dedicated to Fire and Police departments, 11 in
open lots 41 in the subterranean garage. 140 public spaces, 40 in open lots
and 100 in the subterranean garage. One accessible space on the street and
one in the open-air lot.
System Description Condition
Site Pavement Asphalt lots with limited areas of concrete aprons and pavement
and adjacent concrete sidewalks, curbs and ramps.
Poor
Site Development Building-mounted signage; chain link fencing; No dumpster
enclosures
Limited trash receptacles
Fair
Landscaping &
Topography
Limited landscaping features including trees, bushes, and
planters
Irrigation present
Concrete retaining walls
Low site slopes throughout
Fair
Utilities Municipal water and sewer
Local utility-provided electric and natural gas
Fair
Site Lighting Pole-mounted: LED, Metal halide
Fair
Ancillary Structures None
n/a
Site Accessibility Presently it does not appear an accessibility study is needed for
the exterior and site areas. See the appendix for associated
photos and additional information.
Site Additional Studies The drainage at the building perimeter is in poor condition. At
times of heavy rains water floods from El Camino Real down the
slope and into the subterranean garage. the existing drainage
system is not adequate, and the garage floods. A professional
consultant must be retained to analyze the existing condition,
provide recommendations and, if necessary estimate the scope
and cost of any required repairs. The cost of this study is
included in the cost tables. Due to the ambiguity of the required
repair scope at the time of this assessment, the cost for any
possible subsequent repairs is not included.
74
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL BUILDING BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 162502.24R000-001.017
12
www.bvna.com | p 800.733.0660
Site Information
Site Areas Observed The exterior areas within the property boundaries were
observed to gain a clear understanding of the site's overall
condition.
Site Key Spaces Not
Observed
All key areas of the exterior site were accessible and observed.
75
001 - SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL BUILDING BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 162502.24R000-001.017
15
www.bvna.com | p 800.733.0660
The table below shows the anticipated costs by trade or building system over the next 20 years.
001 - South San Francisco Municipal Building: System Expenditure Forecast
System Immediate
Short Term
(1-2 yr)
Near Term
(3-5 yr)
Med Term
(6-10 yr)
Long Term
(11-20 yr)
TOTAL
Facade $0 $0 $474,096 $201,382 $1,041,224 $1,716,702
Roofing $0 $3,404,227 $0 $592,515 $0 $3,996,742
Interiors $0 $0 $4,226,526 $394,121 $4,321,250 $8,941,897
Conveying $0 $37,763 $30,047 $0 $589,470 $657,280
Plumbing $0 $0 $3,571,111 $12,318 $468,169 $4,051,598
HVAC $0 $0 $4,283,377 $923,519 $593,800 $5,800,696
Fire Protection $0 $0 $1,663,132 $26,540 $31,758 $1,721,430
Electrical $0 $0 $12,484,986 $0 $659,546 $13,144,532
Fire Alarm &
Electronic Systems
$0 $0 $4,425,588 $735,582 $1,170,711 $6,331,881
Equipment &
Furnishings
$0 $393,834 $442,906 $365,837 $716,506 $1,919,083
Sitework $0 $557,233 $632,140 $1,371,678 $1,600,582 $4,161,633
Follow-up Studies $25,664 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,664
Accessibility $109,993 $0 $0 $0 $0 $109,993
TOTALS $135,700 $4,393,100 $32,234,000 $4,623,500 $11,193,100 $52,579,400
76
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL BUILDING BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 162502.24R000-001.017
14
www.bvna.com | p 800.733.0660
3. ADA Accessibility
Generally, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination by entities to access and
use of “areas of public accommodations” and “public facilities” on the basis of disability. Regardless of their
age, these areas and facilities must be maintained and operated to comply with the Americans with Disabilities
Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG).
A public entity (i.e. city governments) shall operate each service, program, or activity so that the service,
program, or activity, when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with
disabilities.
However, this does not:
1. Necessarily require a public entity to make each of its existing facilities accessible to and usable by
individuals with disabilities;
2. Require a public entity to take any action that would threaten or destroy the historic significance of an
historic property; or
3. Require a public entity to take any action that it can demonstrate would result in a fundamental alteration in
the nature of a service, program, or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens. In those
circumstances where personnel of the public entity believe that the proposed action would fundamentally
alter the service, program, or activity or would result in undue financial and administrative burdens, a public
entity has the burden of proving that compliance with 35.150(a) of this part would result in such alteration
or burdens. The decision that compliance would result in such alteration or burdens must be made by the
head of a public entity or his or her designee after considering all resources available for use in the funding
and operation of the service, program, or activity, and must be accompanied by a written statement of the
reasons for reaching that conclusion. If an action would result in such an alteration or such burdens, a
public entity shall take any other action that would not result in such an alteration or such burdens but
would nevertheless ensure that individuals with disabilities receive the benefits or services provided by the
public entity.
Removal of barriers to accessibility should be addressed from a liability standpoint in order to comply with
federal law, but the barriers may or may not be building code violations. The Americans with Disabilities Act
Accessibility Guidelines are part of the ADA federal civil rights law pertaining to the disabled and are not a
construction code. State and local jurisdictions have adopted the ADA Guidelines or have adopted other
standards for accessibility as part of their construction codes.
During the FCA, Bureau Veritas performed a limited high-level accessibility review of the facility non-specific to
any local regulations or codes. The scope of the visual observation was limited to the same areas observed
while performing the FCA and the categories set forth in the material included in the appendix. It is understood
by the Client that the limited observations described herein do not comprise a full ADA Compliance Survey,
and that such a survey is beyond the scope of this assessment. A full measured ADA survey would be
required to identify more specific potential accessibility issues. Additional clarifications of this limited survey:
This survey was visual in nature and actual measurements were not taken to verify compliance
Only a representative sample of areas was observed
Two overview photos were taken for each subsection regardless of perceived compliance or non-compliance
Itemized costs for individual non-compliant items are not included in the dataset
For any “none” boxes checked or reference to “no issues” identified, that alone does not guarantee full
compliance
The facility was originally constructed in 1969. The facility was substantially renovated in 1979 and some
accessibility improvements appear to have been implemented at that time.
77
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL BUILDING BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 162502.24R000-001.017
15
www.bvna.com | p 800.733.0660
A prior accessibility survey was performed by the City of South San Francisco on May 2014. From BV’s
perspective and limited analysis of the documents provided in conjunction with our own site visit, it appears
that the recommendations from that study have been not yet been addressed. Reference the appendix for
specific data, photos, and tables or checklists associated with this limited accessibility survey.
A detailed follow-up accessibility study is included as a recommendation because potential moderate to major
issues were observed at the subject site. Reference the appendix for specific data, photos, and tables or
checklists associated with this limited accessibility survey.
78
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL BUILDING BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 162502.24R000-001.017
16
www.bvna.com | p 800.733.0660
4. Purpose and Scope
Purpose
Bureau Veritas was retained by the client to render an opinion as to the Property’s current general physical
condition on the day of the site visit.
Based on the observations, interviews and document review outlined below, this report identifies significant
deferred maintenance issues, existing deficiencies, and material code violations of record, which affect the
Property’s use. Opinions are rendered as to its structural integrity, building system condition and the
Property’s overall condition. The report also notes building systems or components that have realized or
exceeded their typical expected useful lives.
The physical condition of building systems and related components are typically defined as being in one of five
condition ratings. For the purposes of this report, the following definitions are used:
Condition Ratings
Excellent New or very close to new; component or system typically has been installed within
the past year, sound and performing its function. Eventual repair or replacement will
be required when the component or system either reaches the end of its useful life
or fails in service.
Good Satisfactory as-is. Component or system is sound and performing its function,
typically within the first third of its lifecycle. However, it may show minor signs of
normal wear and tear. Repair or replacement will be required when the component
or system either reaches the end of its useful life or fails in service.
Fair Showing signs of wear and use but still satisfactory as-is, typically near the median
of its estimated useful life. Component or system is performing adequately at this
time but may exhibit some signs of wear, deferred maintenance, or evidence of
previous repairs. Repair or replacement will be required due to the component or
system’s condition and/or its estimated remaining useful life.
Poor Component or system is significantly aged, flawed, functioning intermittently or
unreliably; displays obvious signs of deferred maintenance; shows evidence of
previous repair or workmanship not in compliance with commonly accepted
standards; has become obsolete; or exhibits an inherent deficiency. The present
condition could contribute to or cause the deterioration of contiguous elements or
systems. Either full component replacement is needed or repairs are required to
restore to good condition, prevent premature failure, and/or prolong useful life.
Failed Component or system has ceased functioning or performing as intended.
Replacement, repair, or other significant corrective action is recommended or
required.
Not Applicable Assigning a condition does not apply or make logical sense, most commonly due to
the item in question not being present.
79
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL BUILDING BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 162502.24R000-001.017
17
www.bvna.com | p 800.733.0660
Scope
The standard scope of the Facility Condition Assessment includes the following:
Visit the Property to evaluate the general condition of the building and site improvements, review available
construction documents in order to familiarize ourselves with, and be able to comment on, the in-place
construction systems, life safety, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems, and the general built
environment.
Identify those components that are exhibiting deferred maintenance issues and provide cost estimates for
Immediate Costs and Replacement Reserves based on observed conditions, maintenance history and
industry standard useful life estimates. This will include the review of documented capital improvements
completed within the last five-year period and work currently contracted for, if applicable.
Provide a full description of the Property with descriptions of in-place systems and commentary on observed
conditions.
Provide a high-level categorical general statement regarding the subject Property’s compliance to Title III of
the Americans with Disabilities Act. This will not constitute a full ADA survey, but will help identify exposure to
issues and the need for further review.
Obtain background and historical information about the facility from a building engineer, property manager,
maintenance staff, or other knowledgeable source. The preferred methodology is to have the client
representative or building occupant complete a Pre-Survey Questionnaire (PSQ) in advance of the site visit.
Common alternatives include a verbal interview just prior to or during the walk-through portion of the
assessment.
Review maintenance records and procedures with the in-place maintenance personnel.
Observe a representative sample of the interior spaces/units, including vacant spaces/units, to gain a clear
understanding of the property’s overall condition. Other areas to be observed include the exterior of the
property, the roofs, interior common areas, and the significant mechanical, electrical and elevator equipment
rooms.
Provide recommendations for additional studies, if required, with related budgetary information.
Provide an Executive Summary at the beginning of this report, which highlights key findings and includes a
Facility Condition Index as a basis for comparing the relative conditions of the buildings within the portfolio.
80
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL BUILDING BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 162502.24R000-001.017
18
www.bvna.com | p 800.733.0660
5. Opinions of Probable Costs
Cost estimates are embedded throughout this report, including the very detailed Replacement Reserves report
in the appendix. The cost estimates are predominantly based on construction rehabilitation costs developed
by the RSMeans data from Gordian. While the RSMeans data from Gordian is the primary reference source
for the Bureau Veritas cost library, secondary and supporting sources include but are not limited to other
industry experts work, such as Marshall & Swift and CBRE Whitestone. For improved accuracy, additional
research integrated with Bureau Veritas’s historical experience with past costs for similar properties, city cost
indexes, and assumptions regarding future economic conditions also come into play when deemed necessary.
Invoice or bid documents provided either by the owner or facility construction resources may be reviewed early
in the process or for specific projects as warranted.
Opinions of probable costs should only be construed as preliminary, order of magnitude budgets. Actual costs
most probably will vary from the consultant’s opinions of probable costs depending on such matters as type
and design of suggested remedy, quality of materials and installation, manufacturer and type of equipment or
system selected, field conditions, whether a physical deficiency is repaired or replaced in whole, phasing or
bundling of the work (if applicable), quality of contractor, quality of project management exercised, market
conditions, use of subcontractors, and whether competitive pricing is solicited, etc. Certain opinions of probable
costs cannot be developed within the scope of this guide without further study. Opinions of probable cost for
further study should be included in the FCA.
Renovation triggers modifications to improve safety, accessibility, and energy use of a structure. There are
specific requirements that need to be fulfilled to comply with their building renovation projects with state
regulations. Without knowing what the intended use of the renovated building may be some or all of these
requirements may be triggered.
Methodology
Based upon site observations, research, and judgment, along with referencing Expected Useful Life (EUL)
tables from various industry sources, Bureau Veritas opines as to when a system or component will most
probably necessitate replacement. Accurate historical replacement records, if provided, are typically the best
source of information. Exposure to the elements, initial quality and installation, extent of use, the quality and
amount of preventive maintenance exercised, etc., are all factors that impact the effective age of a system or
component. As a result, a system or component may have an effective age that is greater or less than its
actual chronological age. The Remaining Useful Life (RUL) of a component or system equals the EUL less its
effective age, whether explicitly or implicitly stated. Projections of Remaining Useful Life (RUL) are based
primarily on age and condition with the presumption of continued use and maintenance of the Property similar
to the observed and reported past use and maintenance practices, in conjunction with the professional
judgment of Bureau Veritas’s assessors. Significant changes in occupants and/or usage may affect the
service life of some systems or components.
Where quantities could not be or were not derived from an actual construction document take-off or facility
walk-through, and/or where systemic costs are more applicable or provide more intrinsic value, budgetary
square foot and gross square foot costs are used. Estimated costs are based on professional judgment and
the probable or actual extent of the observed defect, inclusive of the cost to design, procure, construct and
manage the corrections.
To account for differences in prices between locations, the base costs are modified by geographical location
factors to adjust for to market conditions, transportation costs, or other local contributors. When requested by
the client, the costs may be further adjusted by several additional factors including; labor rates (prevailing
minimum wage), general contractor fees for profit and overhead, and insurance. If desired, costs for design
and permits, and a contingency factor, may also be included in the calculations.
81
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL BUILDING BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 162502.24R000-001.017
19
www.bvna.com | p 800.733.0660
Building Code Structural Upgrade Triggers
The CBC states that an existing building will have to “conform to the seismic requirements for a new structure”
when a change of use is contemplated that intensifies the use (e.g., increase the number of occupants and/or
the amount of combustible materials stored in the building). This means that the building, as renovated, will
have to meet all current strength requirements, and depending on the age of the existing building, this can be
costly. This is due in part to the code-required strength levels that have systematically increased over several
decades as engineers have concluded that the expected demands on buildings from earthquakes in our area
are greater than previously anticipated. A structural engineer will need to complete an ASCE-41 analysis.
Accessibility Requirements
Accessibility or ‘ability to access’ is in reference to the space or design to be usable by people with disabilities.
The American Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 requires new commercial buildings to be accessible and
businesses to make accessibility upgrades during renovation projects. For example, and at a minimum, interior
improvements for accessibility may be bathroom retrofits, widening doorways, and adjusting drinking fountains,
whereas exterior remodels can be disabled parking, entry ramps, signage, and others. There are provisions for
existing buildings, but the idea is removing barriers if full compliance is not possible.
Energy Code
California energy code requires the greatest degree of compliance particularly when the property is renovated
in a way that increases the energy consumption. For example, the conversion of a warehouse to a shopping
mall would demand greater energy consumption, and hence, is subjected to energy code requirements. It is
crucial to remember that energy code compliance is also mandatory when there is a scope for renovating a
commercial building without a drastic increase in construction costs.
The California Energy Commission (CEC) has adopted the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards or
Energy Code for the application of both newly constructed and renovated buildings. This mandate will require
real estate builders to install solar panels and battery storage in all residential dwellings and commercial
structures like hotels, medical offices, retail spaces, restaurants, schools, corporate offices, etc. With a mission
to transform California into a 100% clean energy state, the CEC photovoltaic and battery storage standards
went into effect in January 2023.
Fire Code Requirements
The California Fire Code (CFC), Internation Fire Code (IFC) and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
encompasses regulations that aim to safeguard life and commercial property from the hazards of fire and
explosion, dangers of working with combustible materials, and risky conditions in the use of occupancy of
buildings. The listed Fire Codes also suggests provisions related to emergency response personnel.
Some of the topics the listed fire code provisions cover are as follows:
Sprinkler systems
Water supplies
Emergency Planning
Maintenance of fire protection equipment
Fire department access
Preventing fires and eliminating fire hazards
Fire alarm systems
Provisions for emergency responder communication
Requirements for an energy storage system (ESS) and more
*Other Codes may apply.
82
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL BUILDING BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 162502.24R000-001.017
20
www.bvna.com | p 800.733.0660
Occupancy Code Requirements
Changes in occupancy during renovation, whether it’s an increase in the number of tenants, number of
combustible materials, or accommodation of tenants who need evacuation assistance trigger the highest level
of California Building Code, International Building Code and NFPA 101 Life Safety compliance in terms of
occupancy.
Depending on the commercial project, occupancy-related modifications may include alterations to the following
components:
Existing structural system
HVAC systems
Electrical wiring
Plumbing fixtures
Fire protection systems
Interior finishes
Upgrades to the means of egress
A change in the occupancy intention is also subject to code compliance. For example, a shift of occupancy
from office use (business occupancy) to factory use (industrial occupancy) means an increase in combustible
materials and occupant load due to heavyweight manufacturing equipment.
California Green Building Standards Code
California Green Building Standards Code, also known as ‘CALGreen’ entail regulations for energy efficiency,
water conservation and efficiency, material and resource conservation, and environmental quality. CALGreen
provisions are directed to all newly developed and under renovation commercial properties.
Designers, general contractors, and project owners should take into consideration these California Building
Code provisions while undertaking a non-residential building renovation:
About 20% savings of potable water
Special standards for plumbing fixtures and fittings
Construction waste management plan (up to 50% non-hazardous construction or demolition debris should be
recycled or salvaged)
Conduction waste reduction to at least 50%
Finish material pollution control
Acoustical control for exterior noise and interior sound transmission
The purpose of this standard is to minimize negative impact of renovations on the environment as well as
promote sustainable design and construction practices.
Definitions
Immediate Needs
Immediate Needs are line items that require immediate action as a result of: (1) material existing or potential
unsafe conditions, (2) failed or imminent failure of mission critical building systems or components, or (3)
conditions that, if not addressed, have the potential to result in, or contribute to, critical element or system
failure within one year or will most probably result in a significant escalation of its remedial cost.
For database and reporting purposes the line items with RUL=0, and commonly associated with Safety or
Performance/Integrity Plan Types, are considered Immediate Needs.
83
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL BUILDING BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 162502.24R000-001.017
21
www.bvna.com | p 800.733.0660
Replacement Reserves
Cost line items traditionally called Replacement Reserves (equivalently referred to as Lifecycle/Renewals) are
for recurring probable renewals or expenditures, which are not classified as operation or maintenance
expenses. The replacement reserves should be budgeted for in advance on an annual basis. Replacement
Reserves are reasonably predictable both in terms of frequency and cost. However, Replacement Reserves
may also include components or systems that have an indeterminable life but, nonetheless, have a potential
for failure within an estimated time period.
Replacement Reserves generally exclude systems or components that are estimated to expire after the
reserve term and are not considered material to the structural and mechanical integrity of the subject property.
Furthermore, systems and components that are not deemed to have a material effect on the use of the
Property are also excluded. Costs that are caused by acts of God, accidents, or other occurrences that are
typically covered by insurance, rather than reserved for, are also excluded.
Replacement costs are solicited from ownership/property management, Bureau Veritas’s discussions with
service companies, manufacturers' representatives, and previous experience in preparing such schedules for
other similar facilities. Costs for work performed by the ownership’s or property management’s maintenance
staff are also considered.
Bureau Veritas’s reserve methodology involves identification and quantification of those systems or
components requiring capital reserve funds within the assessment period. The assessment period is defined
as the effective age plus the reserve term. Additional information concerning system or component
replacement costs (in today's dollars), typical expected useful lives, and remaining useful lives were estimated
so that a funding schedule could be prepared. The Replacement Reserves Schedule presupposes that all
required remedial work has been performed or that monies for remediation have been budgeted for items
defined as Immediate Needs.
For the purposes of ‘bucketizing’ the System Expenditure Forecasts in this report, the Replacement Reserves
have been subdivided and grouped as follows: Short Term (years 1-3), Near Term (years 4-5), Medium Term
(years 6-10), and Long Term (years 11-20).
Key Findings
In an effort to highlight the most significant cost items and not be overwhelmed by the Replacement Reserves
report in its totality, a subsection of Key Findings is included within the Executive Summary section of this
report. Key Findings typically include repairs or replacements of deficient items within the first five-year
window, as well as the most significant high-dollar line items that fall anywhere within the ten-year term. Note
that while there is some subjectivity associated with identifying the Key Findings, the Immediate Needs are
always included as a subset.
84
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL BUILDING BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 162502.24R000-001.017
22
www.bvna.com | p 800.733.0660
6. Certification
Group4 - South San Francisco Municipal Building, FCA (the Client) retained Bureau Veritas to perform this
Facility Condition Assessment in connection with its continued operation of South San Francisco Municipal
Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA 94080, the “Property”. It is our understanding that the
primary interest of the Client is to locate and evaluate materials and building system defects that might
significantly affect the value of the property and to determine if the present Property has conditions that will
have a significant impact on its continued operations.
The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the brief review of the plans and
records made available to our Project Manager during the site visit, interviews of available property
management personnel and maintenance contractors familiar with the Property, appropriate inquiry of
municipal authorities, our Project Manager’s walk-through observations during the site visit, and our experience
with similar properties.
No testing, exploratory probing, dismantling or operating of equipment or in-depth studies were performed
unless specifically required under the Purpose and Scope section of this report. This assessment did not
include engineering calculations to determine the adequacy of the Property’s original design or existing
systems. Although walk-through observations were performed, not all areas may have been observed (see
Section 1 for specific details). There may be defects in the Property, which were in areas not observed or
readily accessible, may not have been visible, or were not disclosed by management personnel when
questioned. The report describes property conditions at the time that the observations and research were
conducted.
This report has been prepared for and is exclusively for the use and benefit of the Client identified on the cover
page of this report. The purpose for which this report shall be used shall be limited to the use as stated in the
contract between the client and Bureau Veritas.
This report, or any of the information contained therein, is not for the use or benefit of, nor may it be relied
upon by any other person or entity, for any purpose without the advance written consent of Bureau Veritas.
Any reuse or distribution without such consent shall be at the client's or recipient's sole risk, without liability to
Bureau Veritas.
Prepared by: Kay van der Have
Project Assessor
Reviewed by:
Jason Mayes
Program Manager
800.733.0660 x7293328
Jason.Mayes@bureauveritas.com
85
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL BUILDING BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 162502.24R000-001.017
23
www.bvna.com | p 800.733.0660
7. Appendices
Appendix A: Photographic Record
Appendix B: Site Plan(s)
Appendix C: Pre-Survey Questionnaire(s)
Appendix D: Accessibility Review and Photos
Appendix E: Component Condition Report
Appendix F: Replacement Reserves
86
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL BUILDING BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 162502.24R000-001.017
www.bvna.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix A:
Photographic Record
87
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL BUILDING BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 162502.24R000-001.017
Photographic Overview
www.bvna.com | p 800.733.0660
1 - FRONT ELEVATION 2 - FRONT ELEVATION
3 - LEFT ELEVATION 4 - PARTIAL RIGHT ELEVATION
5 - FACADE 6 - MODIFIED BITUMEN ROOFING
88
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL BUILDING BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 162502.24R000-001.017
Photographic Overview
www.bvna.com | p 800.733.0660
7 - TILE ROOFING 8 - POLICE/FIRE DEPARTMENT GARAGE
9 - PUBLIC GARAGE 10 - FIRE DEPARTMENT
11 - FIRE DEPARTMENT 12 - INTERIOR
89
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL BUILDING BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 162502.24R000-001.017
Photographic Overview
www.bvna.com | p 800.733.0660
13 - JAIL INTERVIEW ROOM 14 - PUBLIC ENTRY
15 - RESTROOM FIXTURES 16 - WATER HEATER
17 - EMERGENCY GENERATOR 18 - HVAC EQUIPMENT
90
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL BUILDING BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 162502.24R000-001.017
www.bvna.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix B:
Site Plan (s )
91
Site Plan
Project Number Project Name
162502.24R000-001.017 South San Francisco Municipal Building
Source On-Site Date
Google September 18, 2024
92
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL BUILDING BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 162502.24R000-001.017
www.bvna.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix C:
Pre -Survey Questionnaire (s )
93
Building / Facility Name:South San Francisco Municipal Building
Name of person completing form:John Shea
Title / Association w/ property:Facilities lead
Length of time associated w/ property:16 years
Date Completed:September 18, 2024
Phone Number:650.228.9577
Year(s) constructed
Building size in SF
Major Renovation/Rehabilitation
Water heaters have been replaced, aged fire sprinklers were being replaced at the
time of the assessment visit
Unknown
Foundation leaks, roof leaks
BV FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT: PRE-SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Directions: Please answer all questions to the best of your knowledge and in good faith. Please provide additional details in the
Comments column, or backup documentation for any Yes responses.
Data Overview
1
2
3
List other significant capital
improvements (focus on recent years;
provide approximate date).
4
List any major capital expenditures
planned/requested for the next few
years. Have they been budgeted?
5
Describe any on-going extremely
problematic, historically chronic, or
immediate facility needs.
6
Response
Accessibility
81,000 SF
Additional Detail
Method of Completion:
Facade
Roof
Interiors
HVAC
Electrical
Site Pavement
Transfer switch for generator 2023
2018
1960
Constructed
1979
Renovated
Year
Fire department renovations were in 2017
(BV's review of the structural documentation leads
to a building size of118,700 SF)
94
Mark the column corresponding to the appropriate response. Please provide additional details in the Comments column, or backup
documentation for any Yes responses. (NA indicates "Not Applicable", Unk indicates "Unknown")
Are there any problems with
foundations or structures, like
excessive settlement?
Are there any wall, window,
basement or roof leaks?
Has any part of the facility ever
contained visible suspect mold
growth, or have there been any
indoor air quality complaints?
Are your elevators unreliable, with
frequent service calls?
Are there any plumbing leaks, water
pressure, or clogging/backup issues?
Have there been any leaks or
pressure problems with natural gas,
HVAC piping, or steam service?
Are any areas of the facility
inadequately heated, cooled or
ventilated? Poorly insulated areas?
Is the electrical service outdated,
undersized, or problematic?
Are there any problems or
inadequacies with exterior lighting?
Is site/parking drainage inadequate,
with excessive ponding or other
problems?
Are there any other unresolved
construction defects or significant
issues/hazards at the property that
have not yet been identified above?
ADA: Has an accessibility study been
previously performed? If so, when?
ADA: Have any ADA improvements
been made to the property since
original construction? Describe.
ADA: Has building management
reported any accessibility-based
complaints or litigation?
Leaks through the foundation/retaining wall
Roof, basement walls
Old but still ok
Problematic, if the water is turned off, turning on is a
problem - can cause leaks through the system
Outdated
Lots of water on the El Camino side, 2 sump pumps
needed and can not keep up if it is a heavy rain.
Flooding the public side of the garage
Gun range has been decommissioned, may be
problematic
Exterior ramps
Question Response Comments
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Signature of POCSignature of Assessor
Yes No Unk NA
Construction offices for work across El Camino
(loaned, not leased)Are any areas of the property leased
to outside occupants?21
95
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL BUILDING BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 162502.24R000-001.017
www.bvna.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix D:
Accessibility Review and Photos
96
Visual Survey - 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design
Major Issues
(ADA study
recommended)
Moderate Issues
(ADA study
recommended)
Minor IssuesCategory
Parking Parking area
Exterior Accessible Route
Building Entrances
Interior Accessible Route
Elevators Elevator control panelSize of cab
Public Restrooms Toilet stall
Kitchens/Kitchenettes Parks & Rec
Playgrounds and
Swimming Pools NA
Other NA
Hospitality NA
None*
*be cognizant that if the “None” box is checked that does not guarantee full compliance; this study is limited in nature
Facility History and Interview
Yes No UnkQuestion Comments
Has an accessibility study been previously
performed? If so, when?
Have any ADA improvements been made to
the property since original construction?
Describe.
Has building management reported any
accessibility-based complaints or litigation?
Exterior ramps
1
2
3
Property Name:
BV Project Number:
South San Francisco Municipal Building
162502.24R000-001.017
South San Francisco Municipal Building: Accessibility Issues
97
South San Francisco Municipal Building: Photographic Overview
OVERVIEW OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING AREA CLOSE-UP OF STALL
ACCESSIBLE RAMP CURB CUT
ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE AUTOMATIC DOOR OPENER
98
South San Francisco Municipal Building: Photographic Overview
ACCESSIBLE INTERIOR RAMP SELF-SERVICE AREA
LOBBY LOOKING AT CABS (WITH DOORS OPEN)IN-CAB CONTROLS
TOILET STALL OVERVIEW SINK, FAUCET HANDLES AND ACCESSORIES
99
South San Francisco Municipal Building: Photographic Overview
SINK CLEARANCE OVEN WITH CONTROLS
100
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL BUILDING BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 162502.24R000-001.017
www.bvna.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix E:
Component Condition Report
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL BUILDING BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 162502.24R000-001.017
www.bvna.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix F:
Replacement Reserves
116
117
118
119
4/23/2025
SSF Muncipal Service Building Reno Cost 59,000 SF
Full Renovation w/Structural Upgrade (Risk Category IV) Project Budget
Budget
Project Budget Units Cost/Unit Extended
Building
Full Reno 1st Floor 59,000 SF 600/SF$ 35,400,000$
Basement Reno 59,000 SF 70/SF$ 4,130,000$
Structural Upgrade 118,000 SF 68/SF$ 7,980,804$
Contingency 15%7,126,621$
Subtotal, Building 59,000 SF 54,637,000$
Site 2.0 Acres
Site demolition/prep 13,000 SF 10/SF$ 130,000$
Hardscape development 13,000 SF 25/SF$ 325,000$
Landscape development 13,000 SF 20/SF$ 260,000$
Parking Underbuilding (basement)0 SF 70/SF$ -$
Contingency 15%-$
Subtotal, Site 800,000$
FF&E, Signage, and Technology
Furniture/casework 59,000 SF 35/SF$ 2,065,000$
Technology 59,000 SF 20/SF$ 1,180,000$
Signage 59,000 SF 5/SF$ 295,000$
Contingency 10%354,000$
Subtotal, FF&E 3,900,000$
Construction Budget 59,337,000$
Public Art
Public Art Allowance 0% of construction -$
Soft Costs
Design and engineering 10-15% of construction 10% 5,933,700$
Special studies and misc. 3-5% of construction 5% 2,966,900$
Testing and commissioning 1-3% of construction 3% 1,780,100$
Other fees, permits, etc. 1-3% of construction 3% 1,780,100$
Contingency 10% of soft costs 1,246,080$
Subtotal, Soft Costs 13,700,000$
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET RANGE, Q2 2025 DOLLARS LOW 73,037,000$
Escalation - add for construction start date in:
2026 3-5%/year 4.0% 75,958,480$
2027 3-5%/year 4.0% 78,996,819$
2028 3-5%/year 4.0% 82,156,692$
NOTES:1) Conceptual budgets are for planning purposes only. They have been developed on a general cost per square
foot basis without detailed site or building information. Depending on project specifics, actual project costs can
vary.
2) Conceptual budgets are not necessarily comprehensive and may not include all costs, such as land purchase,
demolition of existing structures, structured parking, temporary facilities, etc.
G:\21565-03 SSF MSB FCA\O-Estimates\2025 04 21 Project Budget Options v2 120
4/23/2025
SSF Muncipal Service Building Reno Cost 30,000 SF 30,000 SF
Partial Renovation Project Budgets
LOW END HIGH END
Project Budget Units Cost/Unit Extended Extended
Building
30,000 SF 500/SF$ 15,000,000$ -$
30,000 SF 600/SF$ 18,000,000$
59,000 SF 70/SF$ 4,130,000$ $ 4,130,000
Partial Reno Low End
Partial Reno High End
Underbuilding parking
Contingency 15%2,250,000$ 2,700,000$
Subtotal, Building 30,000 SF 21,380,000$ 24,800,000$
Site 2.0 Acres
Site demolition/prep 6,500 SF 10/SF$ 65,000$ 65,000$
Hardscape development 6,500 SF 25/SF$ 162,500$ 162,500$
Landscape development 6,500 SF 20/SF$ 130,000$ 130,000$
Contingency 15%53,625$ 53,625$
Subtotal, Site 500,000$ 500,000$
FF&E, Signage, and Technology
Furniture/casework 30,000 SF 35/SF$ 1,050,000$ 1,050,000$
Technology 30,000 SF 20/SF$ 600,000$ 600,000$
Signage 30,000 SF 5/SF$ 150,000$ 150,000$
Contingency 10%180,000$ 180,000$
Subtotal, FF&E 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$
Construction Budget 23,880,000$ 27,300,000$
Public Art
Public Art Allowance 0% of construction -$ -$
Soft Costs
Design and engineering 10-15% of construction 10% 2,388,000$ 15% 4,095,000$
Special studies and misc. 3-5% of construction 5% 1,194,000$ 5% 1,365,000$
Testing and commissioning 1-3% of construction 3%716,400$ 3% 819,000$
Other fees, permits, etc. 1-3% of construction 3%716,400$ 3% 819,000$
Contingency 10% of soft costs 501,480$ 709,800$
Subtotal, Soft Costs 5,500,000$ 7,800,000$
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET RANGE, Q2 2025 DOLLARS LOW 29,380,000$ HIGH 35,100,000$
Escalation - add for construction start date in:
2026 3-5%/year 4.0% 30,555,200$ 36,504,000$
2027 3-5%/year 4.0% 31,777,408$ 37,964,160$
2028 3-5%/year 4.0% 33,048,504$ 39,482,726$
NOTES:1) Conceptual budgets are for planning purposes only. They have been developed on a general cost
per square foot basis without detailed site or building information. Depending on project specifics,
actual project costs can vary.
2) Conceptual budgets are not necessarily comprehensive and may not include all costs, such as land
purchase, demolition of existing structures, structured parking, temporary facilities, etc.
G:\21565-03 SSF MSB FCA\O-Estimates\2025 04 21 Project Budget Options v2 121
Soil Vapor Monitoring Report – Fourth Quarter 2024 City of South San Francisco
Municipal Services Building and Social Hall
33 Arroyo Drive
South San Francisco, California
City of South San Francisco
400 Grand Avenue | South San Francisco, California 94080
April 23, 2025 | Project No. 403151011
Geotechnical | Environmental | Construction Inspection & Testing | Forensic Engineering & Expert Witness
Geophysics | Engineering Geology | Laboratory Testing | Industrial Hygiene | Occupational Safety | Air Quality | GIS
122
1301 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 110 | Alameda, CA 94501| p. 510.343.3000 | www.ninyoandmoore.com
Soil Vapor Monitoring Report - Fourth Quarter 2024
City of South San Francisco
Municipal Services Building and Social Hall
33 Arroyo Drive
South San Francisco, California
Ms. Nell Selander
Director Economic & Community Development Department
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
400 Grand Avenue | South San Francisco, California 94080
April 23, 2025 | Project No. 403151011
Lev Shnaider Aubrey K. Cool, PG 7659
Staff Environmental Scientist Principal Geologist
Gregory B. Roberts
Project Environmental Scientist
LXS/GBR/AKC/gvr
123
Ninyo & Moore | 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California | 403151011 | April 23, 2025 i
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION 1
2 BACKGROUND 1
2.1 Site Description 1
2.2 Site Geology 1
2.3 Previous Work 1
3 SOIL VAPOR SAMPLING ACTIVITIES 3
3.1 Sampling Procedures 3
3.2 Laboratory Analyses 4
4 SOIL VAPOR SAMPLING RESULTS 4
4.1 Volatile Organic Compounds 4
4.2 Leak Detection Agent 5
4.3 Fixed Gases 5
5 CONCLUSIONS 5
6 RECOMMENDATIONS 6
7 LIMITATIONS 6
8 REFERENCES 8
TABLES
1 – Soil Vapor Analytical Results - VOCs
2 – Soil Vapor Analytical Results - Fixed Gases
FIGURES
1 – Site Location
2 – Site Plan
3 – Historical Select Soil Vapor Data
4 – Select Soil Vapor Data
APPENDICES
A – Soil Vapor Sampling Sheets
B – Laboratory Analytical Report
124
Ninyo & Moore | 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California | 403151011 | April 23, 2025 1
1 INTRODUCTION
Ninyo & Moore has prepared this Soil Vapor Monitoring Report for the City of South San Francisco
(City), relating to the property located at 33 Arroyo Drive, California (Site, Figure 1). In accordance
with our recommendations from the May 17, 2024 Soil Vapor Monitoring Report – Second Quarter
2024, Ninyo & Moore conducted additional soil vapor sampling using standard soil vapor sampling
procedures from the California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) guidance
document Advisory Active Soil Gas Investigations (DTSC, 2015) to assess seasonal and temporal
variability to confirm consistency in the results. The activities summarized in this report were
performed in accordance with Ninyo & Moore's September 23, 2024 Proposal for Additional Soil
Vapor Sampling and Reporting.
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 Site Description
The Site is located at 33 Arroyo Drive in South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California
(Figure 1). It is situated on one parcel totaling approximately 1.87 acres of land designated by
San Mateo County Assessor's Parcel Number 010400270. The Site is developed with the City of
South San Francisco's (SSF) Municipal Services Building, which is occupied by the SSF Fire
Department Station 63 (Figure 2). The exterior of the building consists of an asphalt parking area
on the northeastern end of the building, parking areas on the northwestern exterior of the building,
and access to the parking garage and fire department area on the southwestern end of the
building.
2.2 Site Geology
In general, the soils observed beneath the Site during the Phase II Environmental Site
Assessment (ESA) conducted on March 17, 2022 are primarily silty sand to approximately
5.5-feet below ground surface (bgs), which is the maximum depth explored. Two of the borings
were also observed to contain a 1-ft interval of clayey sand and/or sandy silt at 4 feet bgs.
2.3 Previous Work
According to a Phase I ESA conducted by Ninyo & Moore, the Site has most recently been
occupied by the South San Francisco Municipal Services Building and Social Hall (Ninyo & Moore,
2021). Available records indicated that a 2,500-gallon diesel underground storage tank (UST) was
removed in 1998 from the exterior lot on the south end of the building, and there is an existing
2,000-gallon diesel above ground storage tank (AST) on the south end of the building
125
Ninyo & Moore | 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California | 403151011 | April 23, 2025 2
(Ninyo & Moore, 2021). The Site is also adjacent to the former My Cleaners dry cleaning facility
located at 1053 El Camino Real, South San Francisco. The former My Cleaners is considered a
recognized environmental condition (REC) due to the reported release of dry-cleaning
compounds into the subsurface. Based on the findings of the Phase I ESA, Ninyo & Moore
recommended conducting a sub-slab soil vapor assessment inside the building as well as beneath
the parking garage to assess potential vapor migration issues associated with the former
southeast-adjoining My Cleaners facility.
Ninyo and Moore conducted a Phase II ESA in 2022 (Ninyo & Moore, 2022), collecting soil
samples from four soil borings, installing four soil vapor wells (SV-1 through SV-4) to 5-feet bgs
and collecting soil vapor samples. Based on the soil analytical results and visual observations
during the field sampling, shallow Site soils do not appear to be impacted with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs). Results from the soil vapor wells indicated that the concentration of
cis-1,2-dichloroethene (cis-1,2-DCE), trichloroethene (TCE) and vinyl chloride in soil vapor probe
SV-2 were above their respective San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) Tier 1 and Residential Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs; Ninyo & Moore, 2022).
SV-2 is located directly north and adjacent to the former My Cleaners dry cleaning facility. Ninyo
and Moore recommended additional soil vapor sampling to validate the exceedances.
On September 21, 2023, due to continued presence of water impacting vapor wells SV-2 and
SV-3, Ninyo & Moore oversaw the destruction of these vapor wells, performed by VTS Drilling,
LLC of Hayward, California, a C-57 licensed driller. Following the destruction of soil vapor wells
SV-2 and SV-3, sub slab Vapor Pins® (SSV-2 and SSV-3) were installed approximately 1-ft away
from the former soil vapor well locations, SV-2 and SV-3, respectively (Figure 2).
Additional soil vapor sampling was performed on September 29 and April 3, 2024 to evaluate
potential contamination to shallow soil vapor and fill data gaps from the previous soil vapor
sampling results at the Site. Results of the April 2024 soil vapor sampling, were:
• Benzene was reported at 9.3 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) in vapor probe SV-4, which
exceeds the 3.2 μg/m3 Residential ESL and is below the 14 μg/m3 Commercial ESL. The
detection is also below State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Low-Threat
Underground Storage Tank Case Closure Policy (LTCP) criteria for residential use with no
bioattenuation zone.
• Tetrachloroethene (PCE) was detected at 4.9 μg/m3 in SV-1, 7.9 μg/m3 in SSV-2, and
48 μg/m3 in SSV-3. The concentration detected in SSV-3 exceeds the Residential ESL of
15 μg/m3 but not the Commercial ESL of 67 μg/m3.
Select soil vapor data from previous sampling events are graphically presented on Figure 3.
126
Ninyo & Moore | 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California | 403151011 | April 23, 2025 3
3 SOIL VAPOR SAMPLING ACTIVITIES
To evaluate potential seasonal and temporal variability to confirm consistency in the results,
Ninyo & Moore conducted additional soil vapor sampling. On November 20, 2024, we collected
soil vapor samples from the two soil vapor wells (SV-1 and SV-4) and two sub-slab soil vapor pins
(SSV-2 and SSV-3) using laboratory-supplied sampling materials. Soil vapor sampling forms are
presented in Appendix A.
3.1 Sampling Procedures
The soil vapor wells and pins were sampled according to standard soil vapor sampling procedures
and the DTSC soil vapor investigation Advisory (DTSC, 2015), as described below.
• Vapor Sampling Equipment and Manifold: A stainless-steel sample-train was constructed,
with a 1-liter stainless-steel Summa® sample canister connected by a stainless-steel sample
manifold. For each soil vapor sample, the sample train was connected to the soil vapor probe
tubing. The manifolds, filters, gauges, flow controllers and Summa® canisters were supplied
by a state-certified laboratory. A new manifold was used for each soil vapor sampling. The
flow controller was pre-set by the laboratory to a 150-milliliters-per-minute (mL/min) flow-rate.
• Shut-In Test: After connecting the Summa® canister and sample manifolds to the Teflon
tubing, the Swagelok® ball valve was closed during shut-in test. Using a syringe to create a
vacuum and then closed to start the shut-in test. At the onset of the shut-in test the initial
vacuum and time was recorded on field notes. The shut-in test continued for approximately
2 to 5 minutes. If the vacuum pressure remained constant for the duration of the shut-in test,
the test was considered successful (leak free). If the vacuum pressure changed, the shut-in
test was discontinued, the manifold fittings were double checked and tightened, and the
shut-in test was repeated until the vacuum pressure remained constant.
• Leak Detection: Leaks in the sampling system could cause the dilution of analytical samples
with ambient air. The leak-detection compound helium was used to evaluate whether leaks
are present in the sampling equipment. With the exception of the tubing connections and
sampling port, all of the manifold connections were successfully leak tested prior to sampling;
therefore, only the tubing connections and sampling port could be possible sources of
leakage. A shroud enclosed the sample train and helium gas was pumped into the shroud for
the duration of sample collection in order to test for sample-train leaks and the well-head
integrity. The helium was maintained at a concentration of at least 20 percent (%) within the
shroud. The shroud helium-concentrations were documented on field datasheets allowing for
calculation of the magnitude of atmospheric leakage if needed. The RWQCB and the DTSC
allow for a maximum 5% leakage of ambient air into a sample container before the results
are considered to be compromised. For example, with 20% helium maintained within the
shroud, any helium detection over 1% in the sample indicates the sample may be
compromised.
• Purge Volume – Vapor Probes: Following the shut-in test, the tubing and filter-pack void
space volume were purged of three volumes of vapor.
• Purging: Prior to sample collection, purging of the air within the manifold and tubing was
performed in order to collect samples representative of the subsurface soil vapor conditions.
Purging was conducted using either a Gillian Gilair pump or a syringe at a consistent flow
127
Ninyo & Moore | 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California | 403151011 | April 23, 2025 4
rate of 150 mL/min. Purge volume was monitored either by counting the number of syringe
pulls or by reading the volume purged on the electric pump.
• Sample Collection: Subsequent to purging, the purge valve was closed and the sample
canister valve opened to begin sample collection. The sampling was monitored by change in
pressure. The sampling start time, initial sample canister vacuum, end time, and final vacuum
were recorded on soil vapor sampling data sheets. Sample canister valves were closed when
the remaining vacuum was approximately -5 in. Hg and prior to reaching 0 in. Hg, which
would indicate that no vacuum remained in the canister.
• Sample Handling: Upon collection, each sample was labeled with the sample identification,
date and time of collection, and analytical method requested. This information was also
recorded on a chain of custody supplied by the laboratory. Samples were delivered to a
state-certified analytical laboratory the day after sample collection.
• Sample Identification: Soil vapor probe samples were identified with letters SV (to denote
soil vapor probe), and SSV (to denote sub-slab soil vapor probe) followed by a unique
number for each probe.
3.2 Laboratory Analyses
Soil vapor samples were submitted to McCampbell Analytical, Inc. (MAI), a California-certified
analytical laboratory. The laboratory analytical report is presented in Appendix B. The soil vapor
samples were analyzed for VOCs using United States Environmental Protection Agency (US
EPA ) Method TO-15 and for fixed gas oxygen and tracer gas helium ASTM Method D 1946.
4 SOIL VAPOR SAMPLING RESULTS
Soil vapor analytical results are presented in Tables 1 and 2. Soil vapor results were compared to
RWQCB Residential and Commercial ESLs for Subslab/Soil Vapor, and gasoline constituent
results were also compared to the SWRCB LTCP criteria. Current select soil vapor data exceeding
ESLs are graphically shown on Figure 4. The laboratory analytical report is provided in Appendix
B, and a discussion of the analytical results is presented below.
4.1 Volatile Organic Compounds
During the November 20, 2024 soil vapor sampling event, twelve VOCs were detected above
laboratory reporting limits (RLs). A detailed list of VOC detections is below:
• Bromomethane, carbon disulfide, cyclohexane, dichlorodifluoromethane, ethylbenzene,
styrene, toluene, TCE, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, and total xylenes were detected at
concentrations below their respective residential ESLs, if established.
• Benzene was detected at 7.8 µg/m3 in the SV-4 sample, which exceeds the 3.2 µg/m3
Residential ESL and is below the 14 µg/m3 Commercial ESL. The detection is also below
SWRCB LTCP criteria for residential or commercial use with no bioattenuation zone.
Benzene was not detected in any other soil vapor samples collected in November 2024.
128
Ninyo & Moore | 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California | 403151011 | April 23, 2025 5
• PCE was detected at 7.7, 89, 190 and 5.1 µg/m3 in SV-1, SSV-2, SSV-3 and SV-4,
respectively. The concentrations detected in SSV-2 and SSV-3 exceed both the Residential
ESL of 15 µg/m3 and the Commercial ESL of 67 µg/m3.
4.2 Leak Detection Agent
No helium was detected at or above the laboratory report limit in any soil vapor samples collected
this event.
All soil vapor analytical results are considered valid.
4.3 Fixed Gases
Oxygen as a fixed gas was reported at 35% for all soil vapor samples collected this event. These
concentrations exceed atmospheric oxygen levels and are considered anomalous.
5 CONCLUSIONS
Ninyo & Moore conducted additional soil vapor sampling on November 20, 2024 to evaluate
potential contamination to shallow soil vapor and soil vapor concentration seasonal variability at
the Site. Based on the results of the November 2024 soil vapor sampling, Ninyo & Moore presents
the following conclusions:
• Benzene was detected in only one sample (soil vapor well SV-4), at a concentration that
exceeded the Residential ESL, but is below the Commercial ESL. Current concentrations are
consistent with concentrations detected in April 2024.
As noted in the Phase II ESA, the benzene exceedances may be related to a petroleum fuel
release from the former UST located on the south side of the Site. Therefore, the benzene
concentrations were also compared to the SWRCB LTCP. The detections are below the
residential LTCP criteria. Based on these comparisons to the LTCP criteria, the benzene
concentrations detected in Site soil vapor are unlikely to present a significant vapor intrusion
risk to the current or future Site building occupants.
• PCE concentrations exceeded both the Residential and Commercial ESLs in SSV-2 and
SSV-3, and have increased compared to concentrations from April 2024. Concentrations in
SSV-2 appear to be fluctuating, and concentrations from SSV-3, are increasing.
The source of the PCE concentrations is likely the adjacent My Cleaners, which is an open
case listed on the SWRCB GeoTracker database (Case No. 559210).
• As noted above, the fixed gas oxygen concentrations are anomalous. It is possible that
remedial activities at the adjacent My Cleaners site may be affecting sub-slab and soil vapor
conditions.
129
Ninyo & Moore | 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California | 403151011 | April 23, 2025 6
6 RECOMMENDATIONS
Ninyo & Moore recommends submitting this data to the San Mateo County Groundwater
Protection Program (GPP) to assist in their evaluation of the adjacent My Cleaners open case
under their oversight, especially as that site is undergoing remediation. If the City decides to
redevelop the Site, we recommend meeting with the GPP to discuss the redevelopment plans
and environmental data to develop a strategy to complete the redevelopment while protecting
human health and the environment. Ninyo & Moore also recommends conducting additional soil
vapor monitoring in April or May 2025 to continue to monitor VOC and oxygen concentrations; in
particular at SSV-2 and SSV-3 to further assess PCE trends.
7 LIMITATIONS
The environmental services described in this report have been conducted in general accordance
with current regulatory guidelines and the standard-of-care exercised by environmental
consultants performing similar work in the project area. No warranty, expressed or implied, is
made regarding the professional opinions presented in this report. Variations in Site conditions
may exist and conditions not observed or described in this report may be encountered during
subsequent activities. Please also note that this study did not include an evaluation of
geotechnical conditions or potential geologic hazards.
Ninyo & Moore’s opinions and recommendations regarding environmental conditions, as
presented in this report, are based on limited subsurface assessment and chemical analysis.
Further assessment of potential adverse environmental impacts from past on-Site and/or nearby
use of hazardous materials may be accomplished by a more comprehensive assessment. The
samples collected and used for testing, and the observations made, are believed to be
representative of the area(s) evaluated; however, conditions can vary significantly between
sampling locations. Variations in soil and/or groundwater conditions will exist beyond the points
explored in this evaluation.
The environmental interpretations and opinions contained in this report are based on the results
of laboratory tests and analyses intended to detect the presence and concentration of specific
chemical or physical constituents in samples collected from the Site. The testing and analyses
have been conducted by an independent laboratory that is certified by the State of California to
conduct such tests. Ninyo & Moore has no involvement in, or control over, such testing and
analysis. Ninyo & Moore, therefore, disclaims responsibility for any inaccuracy in such laboratory
results.
130
Ninyo & Moore | 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California | 403151011 | April 23, 2025 7
Our conclusions, recommendations, and opinions are based on an analysis of the observed Site
conditions. It should be understood that the conditions of a Site could change with time as a result
of natural processes or the activities of man at the Site or nearby Sites. In addition, changes to
the applicable laws, regulations, codes, and standards of practice may occur due to government
action or the broadening of knowledge. The findings of this report may, therefore, be invalidated
over time, in part or in whole, by changes over which Ninyo & Moore has no control.
This document is intended to be used only in its entirety. No portion of the document, by itself, is
designed to completely represent any aspect of the project described herein. Ninyo & Moore
should be contacted if the reader requires any additional information, or has questions regarding
content, interpretations presented, or completeness of this document.
This report is intended exclusively for use by the client. Any use or reuse of the findings,
conclusions, and/or recommendations of this report by parties other than the client is undertaken
at said parties’ sole risk.
131
Ninyo & Moore | 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California | 403151011 | April 23, 2025 8
8 REFERENCES
Cal EPA / RWQCB / DTSC, 2015. Advisory, Active Soil Gas Investigations; California
Environmental Protection Agency / Regional Water Quality Control Board/ California
Department of Toxic Substance Control; dated July.
California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), 2012. Low-Threat Underground
Storage Tank Case Closure Policy. Effective August 17, 2012.
Ninyo & Moore, 2018. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment and Geophysical Survey Report,
1 Chestnut Avenue, 1010 El Camino Real, 33 Arroyo Drive and 81 Arroyo Drive Properties,
South San Francisco, California. Dated January 15.
Ninyo & Moore, 2021. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Municipal Services Building,
South San Francisco, California. Dated April 20.
Ninyo & Moore, 2022. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San
Francisco, California. Dated November 19.
San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), 2019. Environmental
Screening Levels, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Dated
February.
132
Ninyo & Moore | 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California | 403151011 | April 23, 2025
TABLES
133
Table 1 – Soil Vapor Analytical Results - VOCs
Depth
(feet bgs)AcetoneAcrylonitrileBenzeneBromomethane2-Butanone(MEK)Carbon DisulfideChloroformChloromethaneCyclohexane1,1-Dichloroethenecis-1,2-Dichloroethenetrans-1,2-DichloroetheneDichlorodifluoromethaneEthanolEthylbenzene4-EthyltolueneHeptaneHexaneMethylene Chloride4-Methyl-2-pentanone(MIBK)StyreneTetrachloroethene (PCE)TolueneTrichloroethene (TCE)1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene1,3,5-TrimethylbenzeneVinyl ChlorideXylenes, TotalOthers VOCsSV-1 3/21/2022 5.0 ND<60 ND<1.1 4.3 6.8 ND<15 6.4 3.4 3.1 ND<18 ND<2.0 ND<2.0 ND<2.0 ND<2.5 ND<95 19 4.2 ND<21 ND<18 ND<8.8
2.8 ND<2.2 5.4 44 ND<2.8 17 8.3 ND<0.26 74 ND
SV-1 7/19/2022 5.0 ND<60 ND<1.1 ND<1.6 60 ND<15 ND<1.6 ND<2.5 7.5 ND<18 ND<2.0 ND<2.0 ND<2.0 ND<2.5 ND<95 ND<2.2 ND<2.5 ND<21 ND<18 ND<8.8 ND<2.1 ND<2.2 7.4 B ND<1.9 ND<2.8 ND<2.5 ND<2.5 ND<0.26 ND<2.2 ND
SV-1 5/17/2023 5.0 ND<60 ND<1.1 ND<1.6 120 ND<15 ND<1.6 ND<2.5 ND<1.0 ND<18 ND<2.0 ND<2.0 ND<2.0 ND<2.5 ND<95 ND<2.2 ND<2.5 ND<21 ND<18 ND<8.8 ND<2.1
ND<2.2 ND<3.5 ND<1.9 ND<2.8 ND<2.5 ND<2.5 ND<0.26 ND<2.2 ND
SV-1 9/29/2023 5.0 ND<60 ND<1.1 ND<1.6 33 ND<15 ND<1.6 ND<2.5 1.7 ND<18 ND<2.0 ND<2.0 ND<2.0 ND<2.5 ND<95 ND<2.2 ND<2.5 ND<21 ND<18 ND<8.8 ND<2.1 ND<2.2 6.5 ND<1.9 ND<2.8 ND<2.5 ND<2.5 ND<0.26 ND<2.2 ND
SV-1 4/3/2024 5.0 ND<61 ND<1.1 ND<1.6 11 ND<15 ND<1.6 ND<2.5 ND<1.0 ND<18 ND<2.0 ND<2.0 ND<2.0 ND<2.5 ND<96 ND<2.2 ND<2.5 ND<21 ND<18 ND<8.9 ND<2.1
ND<2.2 4.9 ND<1.9 ND<2.8 ND<2.5 ND<2.5 ND<0.26 ND<2.2 ND
SV-1 11/20/2024 5.0 ND<60 ND<1.1 ND<1.6 2.7 ND<15 ND<1.6 ND<2.5 ND<1.0 ND<18 ND<2.0 ND<2.0 ND<2.0 ND<2.5 ND<95 ND<2.2 ND<2.5 ND<21 ND<18 ND<8.8 ND<2.1 ND<2.2 7.7 ND<1.9 ND<2.8 ND<2.5 ND<2.5 ND<0.26 <4.4 ND
SV-2 3/21/2022 5.0 130 ND<1.1 25 ND<1.9 35 12 ND<2.5 ND<1.0 28 6.7 510 140 ND<2.5 ND<95 16 6.1 27 28 ND<8.8 8.7 ND<2.2 ND<3.5 35 17 22 9.8 74 70 ND
SV-2 7/19/2022 5.0 Not sampled due to high back pressure during purging ND
SV-2 5/17/2023 5.0 Not sampled due to high back pressure during purging ND
SSV-2 9/29/2023 sub-slab ND<60 ND<1.1 ND<1.6 ND<1.9 ND<15 ND<1.6 ND<2.5 ND<1.0 ND<18 ND<2.0 ND<2.0 ND<2.0 ND<2.5 180 ND<2.2 ND<2.5 ND<21 ND<18 ND<8.8 ND<2.1 ND<2.2 72 10 12 ND<2.5 ND<2.5 ND<0.26 7 ND
SSV-2 4/3/2024 sub-slab ND<61 ND<1.1 ND<1.6 ND<1.9 ND<15 ND<1.6 ND<2.6 ND<1.0 ND<18 ND<2.0 ND<2.0 ND<2.0 ND<2.6 160 ND<2.2 ND<2.6 ND<21 ND<18 15 ND<2.1 ND<2.2 7.9 ND<1.9 ND<2.9 ND<2.6 ND<2.6 ND<0.27 ND<2.2 ND
SSV-2 11/20/2024 sub-slab ND<60 ND<1.1 ND<1.6 ND<1.9 ND<15 ND<1.6 ND<2.5 ND<1.0 ND<18 ND<2.0 ND<2.0 ND<2.0 2.5 ND<95 ND<2.2 ND<2.5 ND<21 ND<18 ND<8.8 ND<2.1 2.4 89 ND<1.9 13 ND<2.5 ND<2.5 ND<0.26 7.3 ND
SV-3 3/21/2022 5.0 Not sampled due to high back pressure during purging ND
SV-3 7/19/2022 5.0 Not sampled due to high back pressure during purging ND
SV-3 5/17/2023 5.0 Not sampled due to high back pressure during purging ND
SSV-3 9/29/2023 sub-slab ND<60 ND<1.1 ND<1.6 ND<1.9 ND<15 ND<1.6 ND<2.5 ND<1.0 ND<18 ND<2.0 ND<2.0 ND<2.0 ND<2.5 ND<95 ND<2.2 ND<2.5 ND<21 ND<18 ND<8.8 ND<2.1
ND<2.2 34 3.7 6.7
ND<2.5 ND<2.5 ND<0.26 ND<2.2 ND
SSV-3 4/3/2024 sub-slab ND<62 ND<1.1 ND<1.7 ND<2.0 ND<16 ND<1.7 ND<2.6 ND<1.0 ND<19 ND<2.1 2.4 ND<2.1 ND<2.6 150 ND<2.3 ND<2.6 ND<22 ND<19 ND<9.1 ND<2.2 ND<2.3 48 ND<2.0 9.2 ND<2.6 ND<2.6 ND<0.27 ND<2.3 ND
SSV-3 11/20/2024 sub-slab ND<61 ND<1.1 ND<1.6 ND<1.9 ND<15 ND<1.6 ND<2.5 ND<1.0 ND<18 ND<2.0 ND<2.0 ND<2.0 2.6 ND<96 ND<2.2 ND<2.5 ND<21 ND<18 ND<8.9 ND<2.1
ND<2.2 190 ND<1.9 13
ND<2.5 ND<2.5 ND<0.26 ND<4.5 ND
SV-4 3/21/2022 5.0 77 6.8 15 2.3 16 18 ND<2.5 ND<1.0 ND<18 ND<2.0 ND<2.0 ND<2.0 ND<2.5 ND<95 19 5 66 41 ND<8.8 ND<2.1 ND<2.2 ND<3.5 46 ND<2.8 16 8.2 ND<0.26 70 ND
SV-4 7/19/2022 5.0 ND<60 ND<1.1 11 ND<1.9 ND<15 3.5 ND<2.5 ND<1.0 66 ND<2.0 ND<2.0 ND<2.0 ND<2.5 ND<96 13 ND<2.5 ND<21 29 ND<8.9 ND<2.1 ND<2.2 7.7 B 25 ND<2.8 14 7.9 ND<0.26 55 ND
SV-4 5/17/2023 5.0 ND<60 ND<1.1 7.7 86 ND<15 ND<1.6 ND<2.5 ND<1.0 ND<18 ND<2.0 ND<2.0 ND<2.0 ND<2.5 ND<95 7.2 ND<2.5 ND<21 ND<18 ND<8.8 ND<2.1 ND<2.2 ND<3.5 5.5 ND<2.8 5.4 ND<2.5 ND<0.26 23 ND
SV-4 9/29/2023 5.0 ND<60 ND<1.1 11 17 ND<15 ND<1.6 ND<2.5 ND<1.0 ND<18 ND<2.0 ND<2.0 ND<2.0 ND<2.5 ND<95 12 2.9
ND<21 ND<18 ND<8.8 ND<2.1 ND<2.2 ND<3.5 7.7 ND<2.8 10
ND<2.5 ND<0.26 44
ND
SV-4 4/3/2024 5.0 ND<61 ND<1.1 9.3 25 ND<15 ND<1.6 ND<2.5 ND<1.0 ND<18 ND<2.0 ND<2.0 ND<2.0 ND<2.5 ND<97 6 ND<2.5 ND<21 ND<18 ND<8.9 ND<2.1 ND<2.2 ND<3.6 3.4 ND<2.8 8.4 ND<2.5 ND<0.26 24 ND
SV-4 11/20/2024 5.0 ND<60 ND<1.1 7.8 4.0 ND<15 1.8 ND<2.5 ND<1.0 46 ND<2.0 ND<2.0 ND<2.0 ND<2.5 ND<95 5.6 ND<2.5 ND<21 ND<18 ND<8.8 ND<2.1 ND<2.2 5.1 3.1 ND<2.8 11 ND<2.5 ND<0.26 23 ND
Screening Criteria
1,100,000 NE 3.2 170 170,000 NE 4.1 3,100 NE 2,400 280 2,800 NE NE 37 NE NE NE 34 100,000 31,000 15 10,000 16 NE NE 0.32 3,500 Various
4,500,000 NE 14 730 730,000 NE 18 13,000 NE 10,000 1,200 12,000 NE NE 160 NE NE NE 410 440,000 130,000 67 44,000 100 NE NE 5.2 15,000 Various
NE NE 85/280 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 1,100/3,600 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
Notes:
VOCs - volatile organic compous analyzed using United States Environmental Protection Agency Method TO-15
ID - identification
bgs - below ground surface
µg/m3 - micrograms per cubic meter
ND<X - not detected at or above the laboratory reporting limit X
B - analyte detected in the associated Method Blank at a concentration greater than 1/10 the reported sample result
--- not analyzed
ESL - San Francisco Bay Regional Water Control Board (RWQCB) environmental screening level
LTCP - State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Low-Threat Underground Storage Tank Case Closure Policy
NE - screening level not established
1 = RWQCB Subslab/Soil Gas ESL, Vapor Intrusion: Human Health Risk Levels (Table SG-1), Residential, Cancer risk /non-cancer hazard, 2019 (Rev.2). Most conservative value shown.
2 = RWQCB Subslab/Soil Gas ESL, Vapor Intrusion: Human Health Risk Levels (Table SG-1), Commercial, Cancer risk /non-cancer hazard, 2019 (Rev.2). Most conservative value shown.
3 = SWRCB LTCP, 2012. Petroleum Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air, Scenario 4 with no bioattenuation zone, residential/commercial
Results in Bold equal or exceed ESLs
μg/m³
LTCP Residential/Commercial3
Sample
Date
Sample
ID
Residental ESL1
Commercial ESL2
Ninyo & Moore | 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California | 403151011 | April 23, 2025 1 134
Table 2 – Soil Vapor Analytical Results - Fixed Gases
SV-1 3/21/2022 5.0 ND<0.050 6.4
SV-1 7/19/2022 5.0 ND<0.050 5.0
SV-1 5/17/2023 5.0 ND<0.050 3.4
SV-1 9/29/2023 5.0 ND<0.050 6.6
SV-1 4/3/2024 5.0 ND<0.050 4.1
SV-1 11/20/2024 5.0 ND<0.050 35
SV-2 3/21/2022 5.0 ND<0.050 1.1
SV-2 7/19/2022 5.0 Not sampled due to high back pressure during purging
SV-2 5/17/2023 5.0 Not sampled due to high back pressure during purging
SSV-2 9/29/2023 sub-slab ND<0.050 19
SSV-2 4/3/2024 sub-slab 0.13 28
SSV-2 11/20/2024 sub-slab ND<0.050 35
SV-3 3/21/2022 5.0 Not sampled due to high back pressure during purging
SV-3 7/19/2022 5.0 Not sampled due to high back pressure during purging
SV-3 5/17/2023 5.0 Not sampled due to high back pressure during purging
SSV-3 9/29/2023 sub-slab ND<0.050 0.58
SSV-3 4/3/2024 sub-slab ND<0.052 15
SSV-3 11/20/2024 sub-slab ND<0.051 35
SV-4 3/21/2022 5.0 ND<0.050 0.98
SV-4 7/19/2022 5.0 ND<0.050 0.77
SV-4 5/17/2023 5.0 ND<0.050 0.44
SV-4 9/29/2023 5.0 ND<0.050 19
SV-4 4/3/2024 5.0 ND<0.051 0.9
SV-4 11/20/2024 5.0 ND<0.050 35
Notes:
Fixed gases analyzed using ASTM D 1946
ID - identification
bgs - below grou surface
% - percent
ND<X - not detected at or above the laboratory reporting limit X
Helium OxygenSample ID Sample Date Depth
(feet bgs)
%
Ninyo & Moore | 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California | 403151011 | April 23, 2025 1 135
Ninyo & Moore | 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California | 403151011 | April 23, 2025
Appendix A
Photographic Documentation
FIGURES
136
SITE
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
SITE LOCATION
0
SCALE (FEET)
2,000 4,0000
N
403151011.dwg 01/15/2025 AEKFIGURE 1
NOTE: DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS, AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE I REFERENCE: USGS, 2018
SOIL VAPOR SAMPLING REPORT - FOURTH QUARTER 2024
33 ARROYO DRIVE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
403151011 I 04/25
137
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
ARROYO DRCA
M
A
R
I
T
A
S
A
V
E
A
L
T
A
L
O
M
A
D
R
2,000-GALLON
DIESEL AST &
DISPENSER
FORMER MY
CLEANERS
D
E
L
P
A
S
O
D
R
SB/SV-1
SB/SV-2
SB/SV-3SB/SV-4
SSV-2
SSV-3
FORMER FIRING
RANGE
(LOWER LEVEL)
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
SITE PLAN
0
SCALE (FEET)
80 1600
N
403151011.dwg 01/15/2025 AEKFIGURE 2
LEGEND
SITE BOUNDARY
SOIL BORING AND
SOIL VAPOR WELL
SB/SV-1
SOIL BORING AND FORMER
SOIL VAPOR WELL
(DESTROYED SEPTEMBER 2023)
SB/SV-2
SUB-SLAB SOIL VAPOR PINSSV-2
SOIL VAPOR SAMPLING REPORT - FOURTH QUARTER 2024
33 ARROYO DRIVE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
403151011 I 04/25
NOTE:
SOIL VAPOR PIN SSV-1 (REPLACEMENT FOR SV-1)
NOT INSTALLED; NOT CURRENTLY NEEDED
NOTE: DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS, AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
REFERENCES: GOODWIN B. STEINBERG ASSOCIATES, 1979; GOOGLE EARTH, 2023
138
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
ARROYO DRCA
M
A
R
I
T
A
S
A
V
E
A
L
T
A
L
O
M
A
D
R
2,000-GALLON
DIESEL AST &
DISPENSER
FORMER MY
CLEANERS
D
E
L
P
A
S
O
D
R
SB/SV-1
SB/SV-2
SB/SV-3SB/SV-4
SSV-2
SSV-3
FORMER FIRING
RANGE
(LOWER LEVEL)
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
HISTORICAL SELECT SOIL VAPOR DATA
0
SCALE (FEET)
80 1600
N
403151011.dwg 01/15/2025 AEKFIGURE 3
LEGEND
SITE BOUNDARY
SOIL BORING AND
SOIL VAPOR WELL
SB/SV-1
SOIL BORING AND FORMER
SOIL VAPOR WELL
(DESTROYED SEPTEMBER 2023)
SB/SV-2
SUB-SLAB SOIL VAPOR PINSSV-2
SOIL VAPOR SAMPLING REPORT - FOURTH QUARTER 2024
33 ARROYO DRIVE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
403151011 I 04/25
NOTE: DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS, AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
REFERENCES: GOODWIN B. STEINBERG ASSOCIATES, 1979; GOOGLE EARTH, 2023
NOTES:
SS = SUB-SLAB
BENZ = BENZENE
CIS = cis-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
PCE = TETRACHLOROETHENE
TCE = TRICHLOROETHENE
VC = VINYL CHLORIDE
NS = NOT SAMPLED; HIGH BACK
PRESSURE DURING PURGING
<X = NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE
LABORATORY REPORTING LIMIT
B = ANALYTE DETECTED IN
METHOD BLANK
R = RESIDENTIAL ESL
C = COMMERCIAL ESL
RESULTS IN BOLD EQUAL
OR EXCEED ESL
SAMPLE ID,
DATE, DEPTH,
AND RESULTS,
IN MICROGRAMS
PER CUBIC
METER
SV-1
DATE 03/21/22 07/19/22 05/17/23 09/29/23 04/03/24 11/20/24
FT 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
BENZ 4.3 <1.6 <1.6 <1.6 <1.6 <1.6
cis <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
PCE 5.4 7.4 B <3.5 6.5 4.9 7.7
TCE <2.8 <2.8 <2.8 <2.8 <2.8 <2.8
VC <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26
SSV-3
DATE 09/29/23 04/03/24 11/20/24
FT SS SS SS
BENZ <1.6 <1.7 <1.6
cis <2.0 2.4 <2.0
PCE 34 48 190
TCE 6.7 9.2 13
VC <0.26 <0.27 <0.26
SV-2
DATE 03/21/22 07/19/22 05/17/23
FT 5.0 5.0 5.0
BENZ 25
NS NS
cis 510
PCE <3.5
TCE 17
VC 74
SV-4
DATE 03/21/22 07/19/22 05/17/23 09/29/23 04/03/24 11/20/24
FT 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
BENZ 15 11 7.7 11 9.3 9.3
cis <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
PCE <3.5 7.7 B <3.5 <3.5 <3.6 <3.6
TCE <2.8 <2.8 <2.8 <2.8 <2.8 <2.8
VC <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26
SSV-2
DATE 09/29/23 04/03/24 11/20/24
FT SS SS SS
BENZ <1.6 <1.6 <1.6
cis <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
PCE 72 7.9 89
TCE 12 <2.9 13
VC <0.26 <0.27 <0.26
SV-3
DATE 03/21/22 07/19/22 05/17/23
FT 5.0 5.0 5.0
BENZ
NS NS NS
cis
PCE
TCE
VC
SV-1
DATE 04/03/24
FT 5.0 R C
BENZ <1.6 3.2 14
cis <2.0 280 1,200
PCE 4.9 15 67
TCE <2.8 16 100
VC <0.26 0.32 5.2
139
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
ARROYO DRCA
M
A
R
I
T
A
S
A
V
E
A
L
T
A
L
O
M
A
D
R
2,000-GALLON
DIESEL AST &
DISPENSER
FORMER MY
CLEANERS
D
E
L
P
A
S
O
D
R
SB/SV-1
SB/SV-2
SB/SV-3SB/SV-4
SSV-2
SSV-3
FORMER FIRING
RANGE
(LOWER LEVEL)
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
SELECT SOIL VAPOR DATA
0
SCALE (FEET)
80 1600
N
403151011.dwg 01/15/2025 AEKFIGURE 4
SOIL VAPOR SAMPLING REPORT - FOURTH QUARTER 2024
33 ARROYO DRIVE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
403151011 I 04/25
NOTE: DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS, AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
REFERENCES: GOODWIN B. STEINBERG ASSOCIATES, 1979; GOOGLE EARTH, 2023
SV-1
DATE 11/20/24
FT 5.0
BENZ <1.6
cis <2.0
PCE 7.7
TCE <2.8
VC <0.26
SSV-3
DATE 11/20/24
FT SS
BENZ <1.6
cis <2.0
PCE 190
TCE 13
VC <0.26
SSV-2
DATE 11/20/24
FT SS
BENZ <1.6
cis <2.0
PCE 89
TCE 13
VC <0.26
SV-4
DATE 11/20/24
FT 5.0
BENZ 9.3
cis <2.0
PCE <3.6
TCE <2.8
VC <0.26
LEGEND
SITE BOUNDARY
SOIL BORING AND
SOIL VAPOR WELL
SB/SV-1
SOIL BORING AND FORMER
SOIL VAPOR WELL
(DESTROYED SEPTEMBER 2023)
SB/SV-2
SUB-SLAB SOIL VAPOR PINSSV-2
NOTES:
SS = SUB-SLAB
BENZ = BENZENE
CIS = cis-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
PCE = TETRACHLOROETHENE
TCE = TRICHLOROETHENE
VC = VINYL CHLORIDE
<X = NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE
LABORATORY REPORTING LIMIT
R = RESIDENTIAL ESL
C = COMMERCIAL ESL
RESULTS IN BOLD EQUAL OR
EXCEED ESL
SV-1
DATE 04/03/24
FT 5.0 R C
BENZ <1.6 3.2 14
cis <2.0 280 1,200
PCE 4.9 15 67
TCE <2.8 16 100
VC <0.26 0.32 5.2
SAMPLE ID,
DATE, DEPTH,
AND RESULTS,
IN MICROGRAMS
PER CUBIC
METER
140
Ninyo & Moore | 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California | 403151011 | April 23, 2025
APPENDIX A
Soil Vapor Sampling Sheets
141
142
143
144
145
Ninyo & Moore | 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California | 403151011 | April 23, 2025
APPENDIX B
Laboratory Analytical Report
146
WorkOrder:
Report Created for:Ninyo & Moore
1301 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 110
Alameda, CA 94501
Project Contact:Gregory Roberts
Project:403151011; City of SSF-MSB
Project P.O.:
Project Received:11/22/2024
Analytical Report reviewed & approved for release on 12/06/2024 by:
Jennifer Lagerbom
2411F09
McCampbell Analytical Inc. is not accredited for all the testing in this
report. The report shall not be reproduced except in full, without the
written approval of the laboratory. The analytical results relate only to
the items tested.
Analytical Report
1534 Willow Pass Rd. Pittsburg, CA 94565 ♦ TEL: (877) 252-9262 ♦ FAX: (925) 252-9269 ♦ www.mccampbell.com
Project Manager
Project Location:33 Arroyo Drive South SF
McCampbell Analytical, Inc.
"When Quality Counts"
Page 1 of 33
147
Glossary of Terms & Qualifier Definitions
Client:Ninyo & Moore
Project:403151011; City of SSF-MSB
WorkOrder:2411F09
McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701
Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269
http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts"
Glossary Abbreviation
%D Serial Dilution Percent Difference
95% Interval 95% Confident Interval
CCV Continuing Calibration Verification.
CCV REC (%)% recovery of Continuing Calibration Verification.
CPT Consumer Product Testing not NELAP Accredited
DF Dilution Factor
DI WET (DISTLC) Waste Extraction Test using DI water
DISS Dissolved (direct analysis of 0.45 µm filtered and acidified water sample)
DLT Dilution Test (Serial Dilution)
DUP Duplicate
EDL Estimated Detection Limit
ERS External reference sample. Second source calibration verification.
ITEF International Toxicity Equivalence Factor
LCS Laboratory Control Sample
LCS2 Second LCS for the batch. Spike level is lower than that for the first LCS; applicable to method 1633.
LQL Lowest Quantitation Level
MB Method Blank
MB IS/SS % Rec % Recovery of Internal Standard or Surrogate in Method Blank, if applicable
MB SS % Rec % Recovery of Surrogate in Method Blank, if applicable
MDL Method Detection Limit ¹
ML Minimum Level of Quantitation
MS Matrix Spike
MSD Matrix Spike Duplicate
NA Not Applicable
ND Not detected at or above the indicated MDL or RL
NR Data Not Reported due to matrix interference or insufficient sample amount.
PDS Post Digestion Spike
PF Prep Factor
RD Relative Difference
RL Reporting Limit ²
RPD Relative Percent Difference
RRT Relative Retention Time
RSD Relative Standard Deviation
SNR Surrogate is diluted out of the calibration range
¹ MDL is the minimum measured concentration of a substance that can be reported with 99% confidence that the measured concentration is
distinguishable from method blank results. Definition and Procedure for the Determination of the Method Detection Limit, Revision 2, 40CFR,
Part 136, Appendix B, EPA 821-R-16-006, December 2016. Values are based upon our default extraction volume/amount and are subject to
change.
² RL is the lowest level that can be reliably determined within specified limits of precision and accuracy during routine laboratory operating
conditions. (The RL cannot be lower than the lowest calibration standard used in the initial calibration of the instrument and must be greater
than the MDL.) Values are based upon our default extraction volume/amount and are subject to change.
Page 2 of 33
148
Glossary of Terms & Qualifier Definitions
Client:Ninyo & Moore
Project:403151011; City of SSF-MSB
WorkOrder:2411F09
McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701
Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269
http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts"
SPK Val Spike Value
SPKRef Val Spike Reference Value
SPLP Synthetic Precipitation Leachate Procedure
ST Sorbent Tube
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure
TEQ Toxicity Equivalents
TNTC “Too Numerous to Count;” greater than 250 colonies observed on the plate.
TZA TimeZone Net Adjustment for sample collected outside of MAI's Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). (Adjustment
for Daylight Saving is not accounted.)
WET (STLC)Waste Extraction Test (Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration)
Quality Control Qualifiers
F2 LCS/LCSD recovery and/or RPD/RSD is out of acceptance criteria.
F7 The LCS/LCSD recovery is above the upper control limit. The target analyte(s) were Not Detected (ND);
therefore, the data is reportable.
Page 3 of 33
149
Client:Ninyo & Moore
Project:403151011; City of SSF-MSB
Case Narrative
December 06, 2024
Work Order:2411F09
McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701
Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269
http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts"
TO-15 ANALYSIS
McCampbell Analytical Inc. is currently not accredited for TO15 and ASTM D 1946m.
All summa canisters are EVACUATED 5 days after the reporting of the results. Please call or email if a longer retention
time is required.
Page 4 of 33
150
Summary of Sample Pressure Report
Lab ID Lab Prep
Vacuum
(psia)
Field Initial
Vacuum
(inHg)
Field Final
Vacuum
(inHg)
Lab
Received
Vacuum
(psia)
Lab
Received
Vacuum
(inHg)
Lab Final
Vacuum /
Pressure
(psia)
Canister ID
McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701
Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269
http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts"
2411F09-001A 1975-2602 0.22 -29 -5 13.01 -3.44 26.11
2411F09-002A 1992-2619 0.25 -29 -5 12.61 -4.26 25.3
2411F09-003A 2036-2660 0.24 -28 -5 12.16 -5.17 24.63
2411F09-004A 2011-2638 0.25 -30 -5 12.04 -5.42 24.14
Page 5 of 33
151
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701
Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269
http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts"
Client:Ninyo & Moore
Project:403151011; City of SSF-MSB
Date Received:11/22/2024 14:16
Date Prepared:11/26/2024
WorkOrder:2411F09
Extraction Method:ASTM D 1946-90
Analytical Method:ASTM D 1946-90
Unit:%
Atmospheric Gases
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID
SV-1 2411F09-001A SoilGas 11/20/2024 07:53 GC51 2024-11-26 14-5 306790
Analytes Result RL DF Date Analyzed
NA NA
Initial Pressure (psia)Final Pressure (psia)Analyst(s)
PRE
Oxygen 35 0.40 1 11/26/2024 14:59
SSV-2 2411F09-002A SoilGas 11/20/2024 08:32 GC51 2024-11-26 15-4 306790
Analytes Result RL DF Date Analyzed
NA NA
Initial Pressure (psia)Final Pressure (psia)Analyst(s)
PRE
Oxygen 35 0.40 1 11/26/2024 15:43
SSV-3 2411F09-003A SoilGas 11/20/2024 09:26 GC51 2024-11-26 16-2 306790
Analytes Result RL DF Date Analyzed
NA NA
Initial Pressure (psia)Final Pressure (psia)Analyst(s)
PRE
Oxygen 35 0.40 1 11/26/2024 16:27
(Cont.)
Page 6 of 33
152
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701
Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269
http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts"
Client:Ninyo & Moore
Project:403151011; City of SSF-MSB
Date Received:11/22/2024 14:16
Date Prepared:11/26/2024
WorkOrder:2411F09
Extraction Method:ASTM D 1946-90
Analytical Method:ASTM D 1946-90
Unit:%
Atmospheric Gases
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID
SV-4 2411F09-004A SoilGas 11/20/2024 10:22 GC51 2024-11-26 17-1 306790
Analytes Result RL DF Date Analyzed
NA NA
Initial Pressure (psia)Final Pressure (psia)Analyst(s)
PRE
Oxygen 35 0.40 1 11/26/2024 17:12
Page 7 of 33
153
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701
Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269
http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts"
Client:Ninyo & Moore
Project:403151011; City of SSF-MSB
Date Received:11/22/2024 14:16
Date Prepared:12/02/2024
WorkOrder:2411F09
Extraction Method:ASTM D 1946-90
Analytical Method:ASTM D 1946-90
Unit:%
Helium
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID
SV-1 2411F09-001A SoilGas 11/20/2024 07:53 GC26 1202240310.D 306976
Analytes Result RL DF Date Analyzed
13.01 26.11
Initial Pressure (psia)Final Pressure (psia)Analyst(s)
PRE
Helium ND 0.050 1 12/02/2024 17:58
SSV-2 2411F09-002A SoilGas 11/20/2024 08:32 GC26 1202240311.D 306976
Analytes Result RL DF Date Analyzed
12.61 25.30
Initial Pressure (psia)Final Pressure (psia)Analyst(s)
PRE
Helium ND 0.050 1 12/02/2024 18:11
SSV-3 2411F09-003A SoilGas 11/20/2024 09:26 GC26 1202240312.D 306976
Analytes Result RL DF Date Analyzed
12.16 24.63
Initial Pressure (psia)Final Pressure (psia)Analyst(s)
PRE
Helium ND 0.051 1 12/02/2024 18:24
(Cont.)
Page 8 of 33
154
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701
Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269
http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts"
Client:Ninyo & Moore
Project:403151011; City of SSF-MSB
Date Received:11/22/2024 14:16
Date Prepared:12/02/2024
WorkOrder:2411F09
Extraction Method:ASTM D 1946-90
Analytical Method:ASTM D 1946-90
Unit:%
Helium
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID
SV-4 2411F09-004A SoilGas 11/20/2024 10:22 GC26 1202240313.D 306976
Analytes Result RL DF Date Analyzed
12.04 24.14
Initial Pressure (psia)Final Pressure (psia)Analyst(s)
PRE
Helium ND 0.050 1 12/02/2024 18:36
Page 9 of 33
155
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701
Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269
http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts"
Client:Ninyo & Moore
Project:403151011; City of SSF-MSB
Date Received:11/22/2024 14:16
Date Prepared:12/03/2024
WorkOrder:2411F09
Extraction Method:TO15
Analytical Method:TO15
Unit:µg/m³
Volatile Organic Compounds
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID
SV-1 2411F09-001A SoilGas 11/20/2024 07:53 GC24 12022419.D 307071
Analytes Result RL DF Date Analyzed
13.01 26.11
Initial Pressure (psia)Final Pressure (psia)Analyst(s)
PRE
Acetone ND 60 1 12/03/2024 03:01
Acrolein ND 5.8 1 12/03/2024 03:01
Acrylonitrile ND 1.1 1 12/03/2024 03:01
tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME)ND 2.1 1 12/03/2024 03:01
Benzene ND 1.6 1 12/03/2024 03:01
Benzyl chloride ND 2.7 1 12/03/2024 03:01
Bromodichloromethane ND 1.4 1 12/03/2024 03:01
Bromoform ND 5.3 1 12/03/2024 03:01
Bromomethane 2.7 1.9 1 12/03/2024 03:01
1,3-Butadiene ND 1.1 1 12/03/2024 03:01
2-Butanone (MEK)ND 15 1 12/03/2024 03:01
t-Butyl alcohol (TBA)ND 16 1 12/03/2024 03:01
Carbon Disulfide ND 1.6 1 12/03/2024 03:01
Carbon Tetrachloride ND 1.3 1 12/03/2024 03:01
Chlorobenzene ND 2.4 1 12/03/2024 03:01
Chloroethane ND 1.3 1 12/03/2024 03:01
Chloroform ND 2.5 1 12/03/2024 03:01
Chloromethane ND 1.0 1 12/03/2024 03:01
Cyclohexane ND 18 1 12/03/2024 03:01
Dibromochloromethane ND 4.4 1 12/03/2024 03:01
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND 0.12 1 12/03/2024 03:01
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)ND 0.078 1 12/03/2024 03:01
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 3.0 1 12/03/2024 03:01
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 3.0 1 12/03/2024 03:01
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 3.0 1 12/03/2024 03:01
Dichlorodifluoromethane ND 2.5 1 12/03/2024 03:01
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 2.0 1 12/03/2024 03:01
1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2-DCA)ND 2.0 1 12/03/2024 03:01
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 2.0 1 12/03/2024 03:01
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 2.0 1 12/03/2024 03:01
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 2.0 1 12/03/2024 03:01
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 2.4 1 12/03/2024 03:01
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 2.3 1 12/03/2024 03:01
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 2.3 1 12/03/2024 03:01
(Cont.)
Page 10 of 33
156
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701
Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269
http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts"
Client:Ninyo & Moore
Project:403151011; City of SSF-MSB
Date Received:11/22/2024 14:16
Date Prepared:12/03/2024
WorkOrder:2411F09
Extraction Method:TO15
Analytical Method:TO15
Unit:µg/m³
Volatile Organic Compounds
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID
SV-1 2411F09-001A SoilGas 11/20/2024 07:53 GC24 12022419.D 307071
Analytes Result RL DF Date Analyzed
13.01 26.11
Initial Pressure (psia)Final Pressure (psia)Analyst(s)
PRE
1,2-Dichloro-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane ND 3.6 1 12/03/2024 03:01
Diisopropyl ether (DIPE)ND 2.1 1 12/03/2024 03:01
1,4-Dioxane ND 1.9 1 12/03/2024 03:01
Ethanol ND 95 1 12/03/2024 03:01
Ethyl acetate ND 1.9 1 12/03/2024 03:01
Ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE)ND 2.1 1 12/03/2024 03:01
Ethylbenzene ND 2.2 1 12/03/2024 03:01
4-Ethyltoluene ND 2.5 1 12/03/2024 03:01
Freon 113 ND 3.9 1 12/03/2024 03:01
Heptane ND 21 1 12/03/2024 03:01
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 2.2 1 12/03/2024 03:01
Hexachloroethane ND 4.9 1 12/03/2024 03:01
Hexane ND 18 1 12/03/2024 03:01
2-Hexanone ND 2.1 1 12/03/2024 03:01
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)ND 2.1 1 12/03/2024 03:01
Methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE)ND 1.9 1 12/03/2024 03:01
Methylene chloride ND 8.8 1 12/03/2024 03:01
Methyl methacrylate ND 2.1 1 12/03/2024 03:01
Naphthalene ND 2.7 1 12/03/2024 03:01
Styrene ND 2.2 1 12/03/2024 03:01
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 3.5 1 12/03/2024 03:01
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.70 1 12/03/2024 03:01
Tetrachloroethene 7.7 3.5 1 12/03/2024 03:01
Tetrahydrofuran ND 3.0 1 12/03/2024 03:01
Toluene ND 1.9 1 12/03/2024 03:01
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 3.8 1 12/03/2024 03:01
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 2.8 1 12/03/2024 03:01
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 2.8 1 12/03/2024 03:01
Trichloroethene ND 2.8 1 12/03/2024 03:01
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND 3.1 1 12/03/2024 03:01
Trichlorofluoromethane ND 2.9 1 12/03/2024 03:01
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 2.5 1 12/03/2024 03:01
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 2.5 1 12/03/2024 03:01
Vinyl Acetate ND 18 1 12/03/2024 03:01
(Cont.)
Page 11 of 33
157
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701
Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269
http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts"
Client:Ninyo & Moore
Project:403151011; City of SSF-MSB
Date Received:11/22/2024 14:16
Date Prepared:12/03/2024
WorkOrder:2411F09
Extraction Method:TO15
Analytical Method:TO15
Unit:µg/m³
Volatile Organic Compounds
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID
SV-1 2411F09-001A SoilGas 11/20/2024 07:53 GC24 12022419.D 307071
Analytes Result RL DF Date Analyzed
13.01 26.11
Initial Pressure (psia)Final Pressure (psia)Analyst(s)
PRE
Vinyl Chloride ND 0.26 1 12/03/2024 03:01
m,p-Xylene ND 4.4 1 12/03/2024 03:01
o-Xylene ND 2.2 1 12/03/2024 03:01
Xylenes, Total ND 4.4 1 12/03/2024 03:01
Surrogates REC (%)Limits
1,2-DCA-d4 103 70-130 12/03/2024 03:01
Toluene-d8 96 70-130 12/03/2024 03:01
4-BFB 91 70-130 12/03/2024 03:01
(Cont.)
Page 12 of 33
158
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701
Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269
http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts"
Client:Ninyo & Moore
Project:403151011; City of SSF-MSB
Date Received:11/22/2024 14:16
Date Prepared:12/03/2024
WorkOrder:2411F09
Extraction Method:TO15
Analytical Method:TO15
Unit:µg/m³
Volatile Organic Compounds
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID
SSV-2 2411F09-002A SoilGas 11/20/2024 08:32 GC24 12022420.D 307071
Analytes Result RL DF Date Analyzed
12.61 25.30
Initial Pressure (psia)Final Pressure (psia)Analyst(s)
PRE
Acetone ND 60 1 12/03/2024 03:40
Acrolein ND 5.8 1 12/03/2024 03:40
Acrylonitrile ND 1.1 1 12/03/2024 03:40
tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME)ND 2.1 1 12/03/2024 03:40
Benzene ND 1.6 1 12/03/2024 03:40
Benzyl chloride ND 2.7 1 12/03/2024 03:40
Bromodichloromethane ND 1.4 1 12/03/2024 03:40
Bromoform ND 5.3 1 12/03/2024 03:40
Bromomethane ND 1.9 1 12/03/2024 03:40
1,3-Butadiene ND 1.1 1 12/03/2024 03:40
2-Butanone (MEK)ND 15 1 12/03/2024 03:40
t-Butyl alcohol (TBA)ND 16 1 12/03/2024 03:40
Carbon Disulfide ND 1.6 1 12/03/2024 03:40
Carbon Tetrachloride ND 1.3 1 12/03/2024 03:40
Chlorobenzene ND 2.4 1 12/03/2024 03:40
Chloroethane ND 1.3 1 12/03/2024 03:40
Chloroform ND 2.5 1 12/03/2024 03:40
Chloromethane ND 1.0 1 12/03/2024 03:40
Cyclohexane ND 18 1 12/03/2024 03:40
Dibromochloromethane ND 4.4 1 12/03/2024 03:40
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND 0.12 1 12/03/2024 03:40
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)ND 0.078 1 12/03/2024 03:40
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 3.0 1 12/03/2024 03:40
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 3.0 1 12/03/2024 03:40
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 3.0 1 12/03/2024 03:40
Dichlorodifluoromethane 2.5 2.5 1 12/03/2024 03:40
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 2.0 1 12/03/2024 03:40
1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2-DCA)ND 2.0 1 12/03/2024 03:40
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 2.0 1 12/03/2024 03:40
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 2.0 1 12/03/2024 03:40
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 2.0 1 12/03/2024 03:40
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 2.4 1 12/03/2024 03:40
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 2.3 1 12/03/2024 03:40
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 2.3 1 12/03/2024 03:40
(Cont.)
Page 13 of 33
159
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701
Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269
http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts"
Client:Ninyo & Moore
Project:403151011; City of SSF-MSB
Date Received:11/22/2024 14:16
Date Prepared:12/03/2024
WorkOrder:2411F09
Extraction Method:TO15
Analytical Method:TO15
Unit:µg/m³
Volatile Organic Compounds
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID
SSV-2 2411F09-002A SoilGas 11/20/2024 08:32 GC24 12022420.D 307071
Analytes Result RL DF Date Analyzed
12.61 25.30
Initial Pressure (psia)Final Pressure (psia)Analyst(s)
PRE
1,2-Dichloro-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane ND 3.6 1 12/03/2024 03:40
Diisopropyl ether (DIPE)ND 2.1 1 12/03/2024 03:40
1,4-Dioxane ND 1.9 1 12/03/2024 03:40
Ethanol ND 95 1 12/03/2024 03:40
Ethyl acetate ND 1.9 1 12/03/2024 03:40
Ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE)ND 2.1 1 12/03/2024 03:40
Ethylbenzene ND 2.2 1 12/03/2024 03:40
4-Ethyltoluene ND 2.5 1 12/03/2024 03:40
Freon 113 ND 3.9 1 12/03/2024 03:40
Heptane ND 21 1 12/03/2024 03:40
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 2.2 1 12/03/2024 03:40
Hexachloroethane ND 4.9 1 12/03/2024 03:40
Hexane ND 18 1 12/03/2024 03:40
2-Hexanone ND 2.1 1 12/03/2024 03:40
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)ND 2.1 1 12/03/2024 03:40
Methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE)ND 1.9 1 12/03/2024 03:40
Methylene chloride ND 8.8 1 12/03/2024 03:40
Methyl methacrylate ND 2.1 1 12/03/2024 03:40
Naphthalene ND 2.7 1 12/03/2024 03:40
Styrene 2.4 2.2 1 12/03/2024 03:40
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 3.5 1 12/03/2024 03:40
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.70 1 12/03/2024 03:40
Tetrachloroethene 89 3.5 1 12/03/2024 03:40
Tetrahydrofuran ND 3.0 1 12/03/2024 03:40
Toluene ND 1.9 1 12/03/2024 03:40
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 3.8 1 12/03/2024 03:40
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 2.8 1 12/03/2024 03:40
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 2.8 1 12/03/2024 03:40
Trichloroethene 13 2.8 1 12/03/2024 03:40
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND 3.1 1 12/03/2024 03:40
Trichlorofluoromethane ND 2.9 1 12/03/2024 03:40
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 2.5 1 12/03/2024 03:40
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 2.5 1 12/03/2024 03:40
Vinyl Acetate ND 18 1 12/03/2024 03:40
(Cont.)
Page 14 of 33
160
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701
Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269
http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts"
Client:Ninyo & Moore
Project:403151011; City of SSF-MSB
Date Received:11/22/2024 14:16
Date Prepared:12/03/2024
WorkOrder:2411F09
Extraction Method:TO15
Analytical Method:TO15
Unit:µg/m³
Volatile Organic Compounds
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID
SSV-2 2411F09-002A SoilGas 11/20/2024 08:32 GC24 12022420.D 307071
Analytes Result RL DF Date Analyzed
12.61 25.30
Initial Pressure (psia)Final Pressure (psia)Analyst(s)
PRE
Vinyl Chloride ND 0.26 1 12/03/2024 03:40
m,p-Xylene 4.4 4.4 1 12/03/2024 03:40
o-Xylene 2.9 2.2 1 12/03/2024 03:40
Xylenes, Total 7.3 2.2 1 12/03/2024 03:40
Surrogates REC (%)Limits
1,2-DCA-d4 104 70-130 12/03/2024 03:40
Toluene-d8 95 70-130 12/03/2024 03:40
4-BFB 101 70-130 12/03/2024 03:40
(Cont.)
Page 15 of 33
161
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701
Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269
http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts"
Client:Ninyo & Moore
Project:403151011; City of SSF-MSB
Date Received:11/22/2024 14:16
Date Prepared:12/03/2024
WorkOrder:2411F09
Extraction Method:TO15
Analytical Method:TO15
Unit:µg/m³
Volatile Organic Compounds
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID
SSV-3 2411F09-003A SoilGas 11/20/2024 09:26 GC24 12022421.D 307071
Analytes Result RL DF Date Analyzed
12.16 24.63
Initial Pressure (psia)Final Pressure (psia)Analyst(s)
PRE
Acetone ND 61 1 12/03/2024 04:20
Acrolein ND 5.9 1 12/03/2024 04:20
Acrylonitrile ND 1.1 1 12/03/2024 04:20
tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME)ND 2.1 1 12/03/2024 04:20
Benzene ND 1.6 1 12/03/2024 04:20
Benzyl chloride ND 2.7 1 12/03/2024 04:20
Bromodichloromethane ND 1.4 1 12/03/2024 04:20
Bromoform ND 5.4 1 12/03/2024 04:20
Bromomethane ND 1.9 1 12/03/2024 04:20
1,3-Butadiene ND 1.1 1 12/03/2024 04:20
2-Butanone (MEK)ND 15 1 12/03/2024 04:20
t-Butyl alcohol (TBA)ND 16 1 12/03/2024 04:20
Carbon Disulfide ND 1.6 1 12/03/2024 04:20
Carbon Tetrachloride ND 1.3 1 12/03/2024 04:20
Chlorobenzene ND 2.4 1 12/03/2024 04:20
Chloroethane ND 1.3 1 12/03/2024 04:20
Chloroform ND 2.5 1 12/03/2024 04:20
Chloromethane ND 1.0 1 12/03/2024 04:20
Cyclohexane ND 18 1 12/03/2024 04:20
Dibromochloromethane ND 4.5 1 12/03/2024 04:20
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND 0.12 1 12/03/2024 04:20
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)ND 0.079 1 12/03/2024 04:20
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 3.0 1 12/03/2024 04:20
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 3.0 1 12/03/2024 04:20
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 3.0 1 12/03/2024 04:20
Dichlorodifluoromethane 2.6 2.5 1 12/03/2024 04:20
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 2.0 1 12/03/2024 04:20
1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2-DCA)ND 2.0 1 12/03/2024 04:20
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 2.0 1 12/03/2024 04:20
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 2.0 1 12/03/2024 04:20
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 2.0 1 12/03/2024 04:20
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 2.4 1 12/03/2024 04:20
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 2.3 1 12/03/2024 04:20
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 2.3 1 12/03/2024 04:20
(Cont.)
Page 16 of 33
162
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701
Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269
http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts"
Client:Ninyo & Moore
Project:403151011; City of SSF-MSB
Date Received:11/22/2024 14:16
Date Prepared:12/03/2024
WorkOrder:2411F09
Extraction Method:TO15
Analytical Method:TO15
Unit:µg/m³
Volatile Organic Compounds
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID
SSV-3 2411F09-003A SoilGas 11/20/2024 09:26 GC24 12022421.D 307071
Analytes Result RL DF Date Analyzed
12.16 24.63
Initial Pressure (psia)Final Pressure (psia)Analyst(s)
PRE
1,2-Dichloro-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane ND 3.6 1 12/03/2024 04:20
Diisopropyl ether (DIPE)ND 2.1 1 12/03/2024 04:20
1,4-Dioxane ND 1.9 1 12/03/2024 04:20
Ethanol ND 96 1 12/03/2024 04:20
Ethyl acetate ND 1.9 1 12/03/2024 04:20
Ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE)ND 2.1 1 12/03/2024 04:20
Ethylbenzene ND 2.2 1 12/03/2024 04:20
4-Ethyltoluene ND 2.5 1 12/03/2024 04:20
Freon 113 ND 3.9 1 12/03/2024 04:20
Heptane ND 21 1 12/03/2024 04:20
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 2.2 1 12/03/2024 04:20
Hexachloroethane ND 5.0 1 12/03/2024 04:20
Hexane ND 18 1 12/03/2024 04:20
2-Hexanone ND 2.1 1 12/03/2024 04:20
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)ND 2.1 1 12/03/2024 04:20
Methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE)ND 1.9 1 12/03/2024 04:20
Methylene chloride ND 8.9 1 12/03/2024 04:20
Methyl methacrylate ND 2.1 1 12/03/2024 04:20
Naphthalene ND 2.7 1 12/03/2024 04:20
Styrene ND 2.2 1 12/03/2024 04:20
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 3.5 1 12/03/2024 04:20
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.71 1 12/03/2024 04:20
Tetrachloroethene 190 3.5 1 12/03/2024 04:20
Tetrahydrofuran ND 3.0 1 12/03/2024 04:20
Toluene ND 1.9 1 12/03/2024 04:20
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 3.8 1 12/03/2024 04:20
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 2.8 1 12/03/2024 04:20
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 2.8 1 12/03/2024 04:20
Trichloroethene 13 2.8 1 12/03/2024 04:20
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND 3.1 1 12/03/2024 04:20
Trichlorofluoromethane ND 2.9 1 12/03/2024 04:20
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 2.5 1 12/03/2024 04:20
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 2.5 1 12/03/2024 04:20
Vinyl Acetate ND 18 1 12/03/2024 04:20
(Cont.)
Page 17 of 33
163
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701
Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269
http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts"
Client:Ninyo & Moore
Project:403151011; City of SSF-MSB
Date Received:11/22/2024 14:16
Date Prepared:12/03/2024
WorkOrder:2411F09
Extraction Method:TO15
Analytical Method:TO15
Unit:µg/m³
Volatile Organic Compounds
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID
SSV-3 2411F09-003A SoilGas 11/20/2024 09:26 GC24 12022421.D 307071
Analytes Result RL DF Date Analyzed
12.16 24.63
Initial Pressure (psia)Final Pressure (psia)Analyst(s)
PRE
Vinyl Chloride ND 0.26 1 12/03/2024 04:20
m,p-Xylene ND 4.5 1 12/03/2024 04:20
o-Xylene ND 2.2 1 12/03/2024 04:20
Xylenes, Total ND 4.5 1 12/03/2024 04:20
Surrogates REC (%)Limits
1,2-DCA-d4 104 70-130 12/03/2024 04:20
Toluene-d8 95 70-130 12/03/2024 04:20
4-BFB 94 70-130 12/03/2024 04:20
(Cont.)
Page 18 of 33
164
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701
Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269
http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts"
Client:Ninyo & Moore
Project:403151011; City of SSF-MSB
Date Received:11/22/2024 14:16
Date Prepared:12/03/2024
WorkOrder:2411F09
Extraction Method:TO15
Analytical Method:TO15
Unit:µg/m³
Volatile Organic Compounds
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID
SV-4 2411F09-004A SoilGas 11/20/2024 10:22 GC24 12022422.D 307071
Analytes Result RL DF Date Analyzed
12.04 24.14
Initial Pressure (psia)Final Pressure (psia)Analyst(s)
PRE
Acetone ND 60 1 12/03/2024 05:00
Acrolein ND 5.8 1 12/03/2024 05:00
Acrylonitrile ND 1.1 1 12/03/2024 05:00
tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME)ND 2.1 1 12/03/2024 05:00
Benzene 7.8 1.6 1 12/03/2024 05:00
Benzyl chloride ND 2.7 1 12/03/2024 05:00
Bromodichloromethane ND 1.4 1 12/03/2024 05:00
Bromoform ND 5.3 1 12/03/2024 05:00
Bromomethane 4.0 1.9 1 12/03/2024 05:00
1,3-Butadiene ND 1.1 1 12/03/2024 05:00
2-Butanone (MEK)ND 15 1 12/03/2024 05:00
t-Butyl alcohol (TBA)ND 16 1 12/03/2024 05:00
Carbon Disulfide 1.8 1.6 1 12/03/2024 05:00
Carbon Tetrachloride ND 1.3 1 12/03/2024 05:00
Chlorobenzene ND 2.4 1 12/03/2024 05:00
Chloroethane ND 1.3 1 12/03/2024 05:00
Chloroform ND 2.5 1 12/03/2024 05:00
Chloromethane ND 1.0 1 12/03/2024 05:00
Cyclohexane 46 18 1 12/03/2024 05:00
Dibromochloromethane ND 4.4 1 12/03/2024 05:00
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND 0.12 1 12/03/2024 05:00
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)ND 0.078 1 12/03/2024 05:00
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 3.0 1 12/03/2024 05:00
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 3.0 1 12/03/2024 05:00
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 3.0 1 12/03/2024 05:00
Dichlorodifluoromethane ND 2.5 1 12/03/2024 05:00
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 2.0 1 12/03/2024 05:00
1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2-DCA)ND 2.0 1 12/03/2024 05:00
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 2.0 1 12/03/2024 05:00
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 2.0 1 12/03/2024 05:00
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 2.0 1 12/03/2024 05:00
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 2.4 1 12/03/2024 05:00
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 2.3 1 12/03/2024 05:00
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 2.3 1 12/03/2024 05:00
(Cont.)
Page 19 of 33
165
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701
Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269
http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts"
Client:Ninyo & Moore
Project:403151011; City of SSF-MSB
Date Received:11/22/2024 14:16
Date Prepared:12/03/2024
WorkOrder:2411F09
Extraction Method:TO15
Analytical Method:TO15
Unit:µg/m³
Volatile Organic Compounds
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID
SV-4 2411F09-004A SoilGas 11/20/2024 10:22 GC24 12022422.D 307071
Analytes Result RL DF Date Analyzed
12.04 24.14
Initial Pressure (psia)Final Pressure (psia)Analyst(s)
PRE
1,2-Dichloro-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane ND 3.6 1 12/03/2024 05:00
Diisopropyl ether (DIPE)ND 2.1 1 12/03/2024 05:00
1,4-Dioxane ND 1.9 1 12/03/2024 05:00
Ethanol ND 95 1 12/03/2024 05:00
Ethyl acetate ND 1.9 1 12/03/2024 05:00
Ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE)ND 2.1 1 12/03/2024 05:00
Ethylbenzene 5.6 2.2 1 12/03/2024 05:00
4-Ethyltoluene ND 2.5 1 12/03/2024 05:00
Freon 113 ND 3.9 1 12/03/2024 05:00
Heptane ND 21 1 12/03/2024 05:00
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 2.2 1 12/03/2024 05:00
Hexachloroethane ND 4.9 1 12/03/2024 05:00
Hexane ND 18 1 12/03/2024 05:00
2-Hexanone ND 2.1 1 12/03/2024 05:00
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)ND 2.1 1 12/03/2024 05:00
Methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE)ND 1.9 1 12/03/2024 05:00
Methylene chloride ND 8.8 1 12/03/2024 05:00
Methyl methacrylate ND 2.1 1 12/03/2024 05:00
Naphthalene ND 2.7 1 12/03/2024 05:00
Styrene ND 2.2 1 12/03/2024 05:00
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 3.5 1 12/03/2024 05:00
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.70 1 12/03/2024 05:00
Tetrachloroethene 5.1 3.5 1 12/03/2024 05:00
Tetrahydrofuran ND 3.0 1 12/03/2024 05:00
Toluene 3.1 1.9 1 12/03/2024 05:00
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 3.8 1 12/03/2024 05:00
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 2.8 1 12/03/2024 05:00
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 2.8 1 12/03/2024 05:00
Trichloroethene ND 2.8 1 12/03/2024 05:00
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND 3.1 1 12/03/2024 05:00
Trichlorofluoromethane ND 2.9 1 12/03/2024 05:00
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 11 2.5 1 12/03/2024 05:00
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 2.5 1 12/03/2024 05:00
Vinyl Acetate ND 18 1 12/03/2024 05:00
(Cont.)
Page 20 of 33
166
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701
Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269
http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts"
Client:Ninyo & Moore
Project:403151011; City of SSF-MSB
Date Received:11/22/2024 14:16
Date Prepared:12/03/2024
WorkOrder:2411F09
Extraction Method:TO15
Analytical Method:TO15
Unit:µg/m³
Volatile Organic Compounds
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID
SV-4 2411F09-004A SoilGas 11/20/2024 10:22 GC24 12022422.D 307071
Analytes Result RL DF Date Analyzed
12.04 24.14
Initial Pressure (psia)Final Pressure (psia)Analyst(s)
PRE
Vinyl Chloride ND 0.26 1 12/03/2024 05:00
m,p-Xylene 16 4.4 1 12/03/2024 05:00
o-Xylene 6.7 2.2 1 12/03/2024 05:00
Xylenes, Total 23 2.2 1 12/03/2024 05:00
Surrogates REC (%)Limits
1,2-DCA-d4 104 70-130 12/03/2024 05:00
Toluene-d8 89 70-130 12/03/2024 05:00
4-BFB 125 70-130 12/03/2024 05:00
Page 21 of 33
167
Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701
Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269
http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts"
Client:Ninyo & Moore
Project:403151011; City of SSF-MSB
Date Analyzed:11/26/2024
Date Prepared:11/26/2024
WorkOrder:2411F09
BatchID:306790
Analytical Method:ASTM D 1946-90
Unit:%
Sample ID:MB/LCS/LCSD-306790
Instrument:GC51
Matrix:SoilGas
Extraction Method:ASTM D 1946-90
QC Summary Report for ASTM D1946-90
Analyte MB
Result
MDL RL
Oxygen ND 0.027 0.40 ---
Analyte LCS
Result
LCSD
Result
SPK
Val
LCS
%REC
LCSD
%REC
LCS/LCSD
Limits
RPD RPD
Limit
Oxygen 3.5 3.5 4.2 83 83 70-130 0.276 20
Page 22 of 33
168
Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701
Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269
http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts"
Client:Ninyo & Moore
Project:403151011; City of SSF-MSB
Date Analyzed:12/02/2024
Date Prepared:12/02/2024
WorkOrder:2411F09
BatchID:306976
Analytical Method:ASTM D 1946-90
Unit:%
Sample ID:MB/LCS/LCSD-306976
Instrument:GC26
Matrix:Soilgas
Extraction Method:ASTM D 1946-90
QC Summary Report for ASTM D1946-90
Analyte MB
Result
MDL RL
Helium ND 0.050 0.050 ---
Analyte LCS
Result
LCSD
Result
SPK
Val
LCS
%REC
LCSD
%REC
LCS/LCSD
Limits
RPD RPD
Limit
Helium 0.18 0.18 0.20 90 90 60-140 0.00955 20
Page 23 of 33
169
Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701
Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269
http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts"
Client:Ninyo & Moore
Project:403151011; City of SSF-MSB
Date Analyzed:12/02/2024 - 12/03/2024
Date Prepared:12/02/2024 - 12/03/2024
WorkOrder:2411F09
BatchID:307071
Analytical Method:TO15
Unit:µg/m³
Sample ID:MB/LCS/LCSD-307071
Instrument:GC24
Matrix:SoilGas
Extraction Method:TO15
QC Summary Report for TO15
Analyte MB
Result
MDL RL SPK
Val
MB IS/SS
%REC
MB IS/SS
Limits
Acetone ND 4.3 60 ---
Acrolein ND 1.1 5.8 ---
Acrylonitrile ND 0.66 1.1 ---
tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME)ND 1.3 2.1 ---
Benzene ND 0.79 1.6 ---
Benzyl chloride ND 1.7 2.7 ---
Bromodichloromethane ND 0.13 1.4 ---
Bromoform ND 1.1 5.3 ---
Bromomethane ND 0.41 1.9 ---
1,3-Butadiene ND 0.98 1.1 ---
2-Butanone (MEK)ND 2.0 15 ---
t-Butyl alcohol (TBA)ND 1.9 16 ---
Carbon Disulfide ND 1.1 1.6 ---
Carbon Tetrachloride ND 0.19 1.3 ---
Chlorobenzene ND 0.59 2.4 ---
Chloroethane ND 0.35 1.3 ---
Chloroform ND 0.58 2.5 ---
Chloromethane ND 0.52 1.0 ---
Cyclohexane ND 1.6 18 ---
Dibromochloromethane ND 1.1 4.4 ---
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND 0.074 0.12 ---
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)ND 0.025 0.078 ---
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.95 3.0 ---
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.94 3.0 ---
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.97 3.0 ---
Dichlorodifluoromethane ND 0.56 2.5 ---
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 0.50 2.0 ---
1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2-DCA)ND 0.58 2.0 ---
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 0.40 2.0 ---
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.43 2.0 ---
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.45 2.0 ---
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.59 2.4 ---
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.71 2.3 ---
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.86 2.3 ---
1,2-Dichloro-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane ND 1.8 3.6 ---
Diisopropyl ether (DIPE)ND 0.55 2.1 ---
1,4-Dioxane ND 0.71 1.9 ---
Ethanol ND 3.8 95 ---
(Cont.)
Page 24 of 33
170
Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701
Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269
http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts"
Client:Ninyo & Moore
Project:403151011; City of SSF-MSB
Date Analyzed:12/02/2024 - 12/03/2024
Date Prepared:12/02/2024 - 12/03/2024
WorkOrder:2411F09
BatchID:307071
Analytical Method:TO15
Unit:µg/m³
Sample ID:MB/LCS/LCSD-307071
Instrument:GC24
Matrix:SoilGas
Extraction Method:TO15
QC Summary Report for TO15
Analyte MB
Result
MDL RL SPK
Val
MB IS/SS
%REC
MB IS/SS
Limits
Ethyl acetate ND 0.63 1.9 ---
Ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE)ND 0.68 2.1 ---
Ethylbenzene ND 0.51 2.2 ---
4-Ethyltoluene ND 0.61 2.5 ---
Freon 113 ND 1.0 3.9 ---
Heptane ND 2.4 21 ---
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 0.38 2.2 ---
Hexachloroethane ND 2.7 4.9 ---
Hexane ND 2.2 18 ---
2-Hexanone ND 1.6 2.1 ---
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)ND 0.94 2.1 ---
Methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE)ND 0.43 1.9 ---
Methylene chloride ND 0.82 8.8 ---
Methyl methacrylate ND 0.65 2.1 ---
Naphthalene ND 1.9 2.7 ---
Styrene ND 0.62 2.2 ---
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 1.2 3.5 ---
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.10 0.70 ---
Tetrachloroethene ND 1.1 3.5 ---
Tetrahydrofuran ND 0.82 3.0 ---
Toluene ND 0.89 1.9 ---
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 2.7 3.8 ---
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 0.71 2.8 ---
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 0.85 2.8 ---
Trichloroethene ND 0.69 2.8 ---
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND 0.89 3.1 ---
Trichlorofluoromethane ND 0.78 2.9 ---
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 1.2 2.5 ---
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.73 2.5 ---
Vinyl Acetate ND 1.1 18 ---
Vinyl Chloride ND 0.14 0.26 ---
m,p-Xylene ND 1.1 4.4 ---
o-Xylene ND 0.39 2.2 ---
(Cont.)
Page 25 of 33
171
Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701
Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269
http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts"
Client:Ninyo & Moore
Project:403151011; City of SSF-MSB
Date Analyzed:12/02/2024 - 12/03/2024
Date Prepared:12/02/2024 - 12/03/2024
WorkOrder:2411F09
BatchID:307071
Analytical Method:TO15
Unit:µg/m³
Sample ID:MB/LCS/LCSD-307071
Instrument:GC24
Matrix:SoilGas
Extraction Method:TO15
QC Summary Report for TO15
Analyte MB
Result
MDL RL SPK
Val
MB IS/SS
%REC
MB IS/SS
Limits
Surrogate Recovery
1,2-DCA-d4 1100 1000 106 70-130
Toluene-d8 980 1000 98 70-130
4-BFB 880 1000 88 70-130
(Cont.)
Page 26 of 33
172
Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701
Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269
http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts"
Client:Ninyo & Moore
Project:403151011; City of SSF-MSB
Date Analyzed:12/02/2024 - 12/03/2024
Date Prepared:12/02/2024 - 12/03/2024
WorkOrder:2411F09
BatchID:307071
Analytical Method:TO15
Unit:µg/m³
Sample ID:MB/LCS/LCSD-307071
Instrument:GC24
Matrix:SoilGas
Extraction Method:TO15
QC Summary Report for TO15
Analyte LCS
Result
LCSD
Result
SPK
Val
LCS
%REC
LCSD
%REC
LCS/LCSD
Limits
RPD RPD
Limit
Acetone 19 16 12 157,F7 136 60-140 14.2 25
Acrolein 8.2 8.5 11.6 71 73 60-140 3.18 25
Acrylonitrile 14 13 11 125 120 60-140 4.42 25
tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME)19 20 21 90 95 60-140 4.66 25
Benzene 13 14 16 82 89 60-140 8.03 25
Benzyl chloride 29 25 26.6 110 95 60-140 14.9 25
Bromodichloromethane 38 41 35 108 117 60-140 7.81 25
Bromoform 57 59 52.6 108 112 60-140 3.49 25
Bromomethane 17 19 19.6 87 96 60-140 10.7 25
1,3-Butadiene 5.3 5.9 11 48,F2 54,F2 60-140 11.0 25
2-Butanone (MEK)16 15 15 108 101 60-140 6.44 25
t-Butyl alcohol (TBA)16 15 15.6 101 96 60-140 5.11 25
Carbon Disulfide 12 14 16 72 88 60-140 20.3 25
Carbon Tetrachloride 35 38 32 109 118 60-140 8.14 25
Chlorobenzene 26 27 23.6 108 113 60-140 3.84 25
Chloroethane 8.6 9.4 13.6 63 69 60-140 9.40 25
Chloroform 27 29 24.6 108 118 60-140 8.32 25
Chloromethane 9.2 9.8 10.6 87 92 60-140 5.87 25
Cyclohexane 16 17 17.6 89 95 60-140 6.18 25
Dibromochloromethane 44 46 43.6 100 105 60-140 4.73 25
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 86 76 49 175,F7 156,F7 60-140 11.7 25
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)45 47 39 116 121 60-140 4.42 25
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 45 45 30.6 146,F7 147,F7 60-140 0.297 25
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 40 40 30.6 132 130 60-140 1.43 25
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 36 36 30.6 118 117 60-140 1.03 25
Dichlorodifluoromethane 25 27 25 100 109 60-140 7.89 25
1,1-Dichloroethane 19 21 20.6 93 103 60-140 9.89 25
1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2-DCA)22 23 20.6 105 113 60-140 7.77 25
1,1-Dichloroethene 19 20 20 94 99 60-140 4.96 25
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 19 21 20 95 104 60-140 8.73 25
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 18 19 20 92 97 60-140 5.90 25
1,2-Dichloropropane 21 23 23.6 90 98 60-140 8.27 25
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 24 25 23 102 108 60-140 5.29 25
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 24 25 23 105 107 60-140 2.54 25
1,2-Dichloro-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane 32 35 35.6 91 99 60-140 8.61 25
Diisopropyl ether (DIPE)20 21 21 94 100 60-140 6.21 25
1,4-Dioxane 21 21 18.6 111 114 60-140 2.89 25
Ethanol 10 7.2 9.6 107 75 60-140 35.8,F2 25
(Cont.)
Page 27 of 33
173
Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701
Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269
http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts"
Client:Ninyo & Moore
Project:403151011; City of SSF-MSB
Date Analyzed:12/02/2024 - 12/03/2024
Date Prepared:12/02/2024 - 12/03/2024
WorkOrder:2411F09
BatchID:307071
Analytical Method:TO15
Unit:µg/m³
Sample ID:MB/LCS/LCSD-307071
Instrument:GC24
Matrix:SoilGas
Extraction Method:TO15
QC Summary Report for TO15
Analyte LCS
Result
LCSD
Result
SPK
Val
LCS
%REC
LCSD
%REC
LCS/LCSD
Limits
RPD RPD
Limit
Ethyl acetate 20 21 18.6 108 112 60-140 3.49 25
Ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE)19 21 21 93 98 60-140 5.40 25
Ethylbenzene 22 23 22 98 104 60-140 5.22 25
4-Ethyltoluene 26 27 25 103 107 60-140 3.62 25
Freon 113 37 40 39 94 103 60-140 8.93 25
Heptane 20 21 21 94 100 60-140 6.80 25
Hexachlorobutadiene 77 77 54 143,F7 143,F7 60-140 0.507 25
Hexachloroethane 52 50 49.2 105 102 60-140 3.51 25
Hexane 15 16 18 85 91 60-140 6.55 25
2-Hexanone 22 25 21 106 121 60-140 13.4 25
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)22 22 21 103 106 60-140 3.17 25
Methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE)16 17 18.6 87 94 60-140 7.47 25
Methylene chloride 18 19 17.6 101 107 60-140 6.10 25
Methyl methacrylate 20 21 20.8 96 99 60-140 2.76 25
Naphthalene 45 42 26.5 169,F7 160,F7 60-140 5.69 25
Styrene 24 24 21.6 110 111 60-140 0.613 25
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 41 43 35 117 123 60-140 5.03 25
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 36 38 35 104 108 60-140 4.18 25
Tetrachloroethene 35 38 34.4 102 110 60-140 7.63 25
Tetrahydrofuran 15 16 15 103 104 60-140 1.41 25
Toluene 18 19 19 96 101 60-140 4.84 25
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 72 67 37.6 193,F7 178,F7 60-140 7.79 25
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 27 30 27.6 98 108 60-140 9.09 25
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 29 30 27.6 103 110 60-140 6.43 25
Trichloroethene 26 28 27.6 94 103 60-140 8.86 25
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 36 36 30.64 118 118 60-140 0.676 25
Trichlorofluoromethane 35 38 28.6 121 133 60-140 9.67 25
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 28 29 25 112 115 60-140 2.25 25
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 25 26 25 101 104 60-140 2.74 25
Vinyl Acetate 19 19 18 103 108 60-140 4.11 25
Vinyl Chloride 7.2 7.8 13 56,F2 60 60-140 7.64 25
m,p-Xylene 42 43 44 95 99 60-140 3.73 25
o-Xylene 23 23 22 103 105 60-140 1.59 25
(Cont.)
Page 28 of 33
174
Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701
Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269
http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts"
Client:Ninyo & Moore
Project:403151011; City of SSF-MSB
Date Analyzed:12/02/2024 - 12/03/2024
Date Prepared:12/02/2024 - 12/03/2024
WorkOrder:2411F09
BatchID:307071
Analytical Method:TO15
Unit:µg/m³
Sample ID:MB/LCS/LCSD-307071
Instrument:GC24
Matrix:SoilGas
Extraction Method:TO15
QC Summary Report for TO15
Analyte LCS
Result
LCSD
Result
SPK
Val
LCS
%REC
LCSD
%REC
LCS/LCSD
Limits
RPD RPD
Limit
Surrogate Recovery
1,2-DCA-d4 1100 1100 1000 105 107 70-130 1.74 25
Toluene-d8 940 930 1000 94 93 70-130 1.08 25
4-BFB 1100 1100 1000 111 107 70-130 3.28 25
Page 29 of 33
175
McCampbell Analytical, Inc.
1534 Willow Pass Rd
Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701
(925) 252-9262
CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD Page
Lab ID Matrix Collection Date Hold
Requested Tests (See legend below)
Report to:
Gregory Roberts
1301 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 110
Alameda, CA 94501
(408) 435-9000 FAX:(510) 633-5646
PO:
11/22/2024
ClientSampID
Project:403151011; City of SSF-MSB
WorkOrder:2411F09
1 of 1
Date Logged:
Date Received:11/22/2024
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Ninyo & Moore
Bill to:
Accounts Payable
Ninyo & Moore
1301 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 110
Alameda, CA 94501
Requested TAT:5 days;
ClientCode:NMO
Email:groberts@ninyoandmoore.com
EDF EQuIS Email HardCopy ThirdParty
nmaccountspayable@ninyoandmoore.c
Excel
J-flagCLIP
cc/3rd Party:
WaterTrax
Detection Summary
Dry-Weight
[A1_Standard _QC]
A2411F09-001 SoilGas 11/20/2024 07:53SV-1 A A
A2411F09-002 SoilGas 11/20/2024 08:32SSV-2 A A
A2411F09-003 SoilGas 11/20/2024 09:26SSV-3 A A
A2411F09-004 SoilGas 11/20/2024 10:22SV-4 A A
2411F09-005 SoilGas <Not Provided>Unused Summa A
Prepared by: Valerie Alfaro
NOTE: Soil samples are discarded 60 days after receipt unless other arrangements are made (Water samples are 30 days).
Hazardous samples will be returned to client or disposed of at client expense.
Comments:
ATMOSPHERICGAS_SG(%)HELIUM_LC_SOILGAS(%)PRUNUSEDSUMMA TO15_Scan-SIM_SOIL(UG/M3)1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
9 10
Test Legend:
11 12
The following SampIDs: 001A, 002A, 003A, 004A contain testgroup TO15He__O2_SG(UG/M3).
Project Manager:Jennifer Lagerbom
Page 30 of 33
176
LabID ClientSampID Collection Date
& Time
Date Logged:
TATMatrixTest Name Cont./
Comp.
WORK ORDER SUMMARY
Work Order:2411F09
Comments:
Client Name:NINYO & MOORE Project:403151011; City of SSF-MSB
QC Level:LEVEL 2
HoldDry-
Weight
Sub
Out
Bottle &
Preservative
11/22/2024
Sediment
Content
EDF EQuIS Email HardCopy ThirdPartyExcel J-flagCLIP
Gregory RobertsClient Contact:
groberts@ninyoandmoore.comContact's Email:
WaterTrax
Test Due DateHead
Space
U**
McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701
Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269
http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts"
001A SV-1 11/20/2024 7:53 5 daysSoilGasTO15 w/ Helium plus O2 1 1L Summa 12/3/2024
002A SSV-2 11/20/2024 8:32 5 daysSoilGasTO15 w/ Helium plus O2 1 1L Summa 12/3/2024
003A SSV-3 11/20/2024 9:26 5 daysSoilGasTO15 w/ Helium plus O2 1 1L Summa 12/3/2024
004A SV-4 11/20/2024 10:22 5 daysSoilGasTO15 w/ Helium plus O2 1 1L Summa 12/3/2024
1 of 1Page
* STLC and TCLP extractions require 2 days to complete; therefore, all TATs begin after the extraction is completed (i.e., One-day TAT yields results
in 3 days from sample submission).
NOTES:
- MAI assumes that all material present in the provided sampling container is considered part of the sample - MAI does not exclude any material from
the sample prior to sample preparation unless requested in writing by the client.
U** = An unpreserved container was received for a method that suggests a preservation in order to extend hold time for analysis.
- Organic extracts are held for 40 days before disposal; Inorganic extract are held for 30 days.
- ISM prep requires 5 to 10 days to complete; therefore, all TATs begin after the extraction is completed (i.e., One-day TAT yields results in 6 to 11
days from sample submission). Due date listed on WO summary will not accurately reflect the time needed for sample preparation.
Cont./Comp. = Containers /Composites
Page 31 of 33
177
Page 32 of 33178
Sample Receipt Checklist
McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701
Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269
http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts"
Client Name:Ninyo & Moore
WorkOrder №:2411F09
Date Logged:11/22/2024
Logged by:Valerie AlfaroMatrix:SoilGas
Carrier:Antonio Mason (MAI Courier)
Shipping container/cooler in good condition?Yes No
Custody seals intact on shipping container/cooler?Yes No NA
Samples Received on Ice?Yes No
Chain of custody present?Yes No
Chain of custody signed when relinquished and received?Yes No
Chain of custody agrees with sample labels?Yes No
Samples in proper containers/bottles?Yes No
Sample containers intact?Yes No
Sufficient sample volume for indicated test?Yes No
NAAll samples received within holding time?Yes No
NASample/Temp Blank temperature
Yes No NAZHS conditional analyses: VOA meets zero headspace
requirement (VOCs, TPHg/BTEX, RSK)?
pH acceptable upon receipt (Metal: <2)?Yes No NA
Temp:
Chain of Custody (COC) Information
Yes NoSample IDs noted by Client on COC?
Yes NoDate and Time of collection noted by Client on COC?
Yes NoSampler's name noted on COC?
Sample Receipt Information
Sample Preservation and Hold Time (HT) Information
Sample labels checked for correct preservation?Yes No
Project:403151011; City of SSF-MSB
Comments:
pH tested and acceptable upon receipt (200.7: ≤2; 533: 6 - 8;
537.1: 6 - 8)?
Yes No NA
UCMR Samples:
Free Chlorine tested and acceptable upon receipt (<0.1mg/L)
[not applicable to 200.7]?
Yes No NA
Date and Time Received:11/22/2024 14:16
Received by:Valerie Alfaro
COC agrees with Quote?Yes No NA
Custody seals intact on sample bottles?Yes No NA
Page 33 of 33
179
Ninyo & Moore | 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California | 403151011 | April 23, 2025
1301 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 110 | Alameda, California 94501 | p. 510.343.3000
ARIZONA | CALIFORNIA | COLORADO | NEVADA | TEXAS | UTAH
ninyoandmoore.com
180
MSB Alternative Site Concepts
Site Name Corridor Address APN(s)Est. Acreage Zoning
Potential Rezoning, if
needed Min DU/Acre
Est. # of
Units Very Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
Affordability
Program Pros Cons CEQA Action
Estimated
Costs
Municipal Services Building N ECR 33 Arroyo Dr 010 400 270 1.87 T4C n/a 80 150 56 56 37 0
Public Private
Partnership -
100% Affordable
City owned and controlled
In HE as a potential mixed income project that
is 100% affordable so other sites may need to
be contemplated in similar concept if small
site; substantial change in use from current
use
Consistent with
General Plan EIR
W. Orange Library (Closed)N ECR 840 W Orange Avenue 013 250 050 1.54 Public
RH-37.5 to match
adjacent zoning; could
consider higher
density zoning
38 58 22 22 14 0
Public Private
Partnership -
100% Affordable
City owned and controlled; high
resource area
Will require a rezoning and subsequent CEQA
analysis and costs; substantial change in use
from current use
Requires CEQA
Analysis; No clear
Streamlining
Exemptions
~ $100K
Consultant
Contract
San Mateo Co. Courthouse N ECR APN 011302280 011 302 280 1.20 RM-22 22 26 10 10 7 0
Public Private
Partnership -
100% Affordable
County has shown willingness to
construct housing on other SMCo
sites; adjacent to BART; high
resource area
County controlled and portion of site
dedicated to new healthy facility; Will require
a rezoning and subsequent CEQA analysis and
costs; substantial change in use from current
use
Consistent with
General Plan EIR -
999 Grand Ave 011 311 150 1.60 RM-22 22 35 13 13 9 0
1024 Mission Road 011 311 170 2.54 Public
RM-22 to match
adjacent zoning; could
consider higher
density zoning
22 56 21 21 14 0
Totals 117 44 44 29 0
SSF BART - Parking Areas N ECR 1600 El Camino Real (Parking
Structure)
010 292 110;
010 212 080 6.00 T5 Corridor 80 480 48 24 0 408
15% rental
inclusionary
applied
Has high density zoning in place;
adjacent to BART; substantial
development capacity; BART has
proven record of supporting on-
site housing
BART requires parking replacement plan;
substantial change in use from current use
Consistent with
General Plan EIR
~ $50k
Parking
Needs
Assessment
1500 El Camino Real (fronts
Mission)010 213 080 2.60 T5 Corridor 80 208 21 10 0 177
Totals 688 69 34 0 585
Foxridge School (Closed)N ECR Adjacent 257 Longford Drive 091 231 070 23.00 RM-22 22 506 190 190 127 0
Public Private
Partnership -
100% Affordable
Has zoning in place; substantial
development capacity; state law
permits workforce (teacher)
housing on former school sites;
high resource area
Not transit friendly; substantial change in use
from current use
Consistent with
General Plan EIR -
Skyline Blvd Open Space N ECR Adjacent No Address - Open Space 091 090 999 13.50 OS Adjacent zoning is RM-
22 22 297 111 111 74 0
Public Private
Partnership -
100% Affordable
Adjacent to existing Skyline
Village Condominium and
associated roadway infrastructure
Not transit friendly; substantial change in use
from current use as open space; hillside
ordinance may apply limiting development;
has second adjacent parcel but shared
jurisdiction with Pacifica
Requires CEQA
Analysis; No clear
Streamlining
Exemptions
~ $100K
Consultant
Contract
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:24-737 Agenda Date:8/28/2024
Version:1 Item #:9.
Report regarding a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Consulting Services Agreement
between the City of South San Francisco and Plan to Place,LLC for Facilitation Services for Community
Discussions of Decommissioned City Facilities,and consideration of potential alternatives.(Nell Selander,
Economic and Community Development Director, and Megan Wooley-Ousdahl, Principal Planner)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends City Council consider adopting a resolution approving a Consulting Services
Agreement with Plan to Place,LLC for Facilitation Services for Community Discussions of
Decommissioned City Facilities in an amount not to exceed $79,920 and authorizing the City Manager to
execute the agreement.Should Council decline to approve the resolution as drafted,staff is seeking
feedback on the alternatives discussed in the Conclusion section of this staff report.
BACKGROUND
Over the past year,the City has received significant public comment regarding the future use of the City-owned
Municipal Services Building.Both the Municipal Services Building and West Orange Library are two aging
pieces of the City’s infrastructure that beginning in 2014 were planned for decommissioning when their
continued repair and maintenance begged the question -should they be substantially repaired or replaced?Over
several years,the City planned for these buildings to be replaced and new community-serving spaces to be
built,including a new Police Department,the new Library |Parks &Recreation Center,and eventually a new
Fire Station 63.The planning effort for the delivery of these new facilities included substantial community
outreach engagement,passage of a local sales tax measure (Measure W),selection of design and construction
firms to complete the projects, property acquisition, and rezonings to accommodate these new uses.
Staff detailed the current conditions of the Municipal Services Building and West Orange Library facilities,past
planning efforts for these properties,reuse and redevelopment options for them,and information regarding a
community engagement effort planned for Fall 2024 in a staff report and presentation to the City Council on
June 26,2024 (see Link 1).During that meeting,Council directed staff to move forward with an inclusive
community engagement process to hear from the community regarding the future of these sites.The input
gathered during this engagement process would be used to help inform next steps for these City-owned
properties.
At its June 26th meeting,City Council also requested additional outreach meetings be held,in addition to the
two Open Houses staff had proposed.Regarding the timeline for this effort,Council expressed an interest in
allowing more time for community input,yet not excessively elongating the process.City Council also
expressed appreciation for the engagement process for the new park at Linden Avenue and Pine Avenue which
included multiple meetings and engagement opportunities,and refreshments.At the time staff received this
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/23/2024Page 1 of 8
powered by Legistar™220
File #:24-737 Agenda Date:8/28/2024
Version:1 Item #:9.
included multiple meetings and engagement opportunities,and refreshments.At the time staff received this
feedback from Council,the Request for Proposals to solicit a facilitator had already been released with
responses due just two days later,on June 28th.Staff asked short-listed firms invited to interview to incorporate
this expanded scope in their interview presentation.This expanded scope was then negotiated as part of the
contract with the staff recommended firm, as detailed below.
DISCUSSION
Facilitation Professional Services Procurement
Staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP)on the City’s preferred procurement platform,OpenGov
Procurement,on May 28,2024,with proposals due a month later,on June 28,2024.While this RFP was open
to the general public,to generate interest in the project,staff notified a total of 11 firms and non-profits,
including firms on the City’s on-call list and others that staff has worked with in the past on similar efforts.
Twenty-five firms downloaded the proposal packet.Eight firms submitted proposals.Review and
recommendation of a preferred firm consisted of a two-step process outlined below.In all,seven staff from
three different City departments reviewed the proposals and participated in evaluating the responsive firms.
Step 1. Paper Review of All Eight Proposals
A panel of four staff members (the Director of Capital Projects,Deputy Director of Economic and Community
Development,Chief Planner,and Principal Planner)reviewed the eight proposals.The panel rated the
proposals in the following areas:
1.Knowledge and Understanding:Demonstrated understanding of the RFP objectives and work
requirements.Identification of key issues.Methods of approach,work plan,and experience with
similar projects related to type of services.
2.Management Approach and Staffing Plan:Qualifications of project staff (particularly key personnel
such as the project manager),key personnel’s level of involvement in performing related work,and the
team’s experience in maintaining schedule.
3.Qualifications of the Proposer Firm:Experience with similar projects.Technical experience in
performing work related to type of services;record of completing work on schedule;strength and
stability of the firm;technical experience and strength and stability of proposed subconsultants;
demonstrated communications quality and success, and assessments by client references as available.
4.Presentation of a Concise and Responsive Proposal
The total possible score a firm could receive was 100 points. The panel’s scores are included in Attachment 1.
The top four scores, all above 80 points, were Lighthouse Public Affairs, Winter Consulting, Plan to Place,
LLC, and SERA Design & Architecture.
While Lighthouse Public Affairs received the top score during the paper review,staff made the decision to
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/23/2024Page 2 of 8
powered by Legistar™221
File #:24-737 Agenda Date:8/28/2024
Version:1 Item #:9.
While Lighthouse Public Affairs received the top score during the paper review,staff made the decision to
exclude them from the interview process because the City’s former Assistant City Manager is a principal at
this firm.Staff was concerned about a conflict of interest specifically on this project,as the former Assistant
City Manager was a key member of the project team managing Measure W and the planning process and
development of the new L|PR Center.Staff reached out to Lighthouse Public Affairs to inform them of this
decision.
Step 2. Interviews of Top Three Firms
Of the remaining applicants,staff invited the firms with the three highest-rated proposals to an interview.The
firms included Plan to Place,LLC,Winter Consulting,and SERA Design &Architecture.City staff invited the
firms to give a presentation and asked the firms to address the following prompt during their interview:
For the interview,please watch the City Council meeting on June 26,2024.Staff presented a
report to Council regarding this item,and City Council provided direction.During the interview,
please discuss how you would adjust the proposed scope and timeline to address Council’s
comments.
Prior to the interviews,staff called references for all three firms.All three firms received strong references
from former clients. These reference checks helped inform the interview questions.
Interviews were conducted on July 29,2024,by a panel of three staff members (the Assistant City Manager,
Director of Economic and Community Development,and Director of Parks and Recreation).After a
presentation by the firm,including a response to the prompt above,the interview panelists asked each firm the
following questions:
1.Can you speak to your experience facilitating sensitive community conversations?
2.How do you build credibility with community members?
3.What effective tools or processes do you use to ensure all voices are heard?
4.How do you create a transparent and open process that generates community buy-in?
5.How would you approach getting constructive feedback from community members who lack faith in the
process?
Members of the panel rated the interviews in the following areas:
1.Presentation Quality: Was the presentation professional, engaging, and concise?
2.Response to City Prompt:Response to the City’s prompt for the interview which was “Discuss how you
would adjust the proposed scope and timeline to address Council’s comments from the 06/26/2024 City
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/23/2024Page 3 of 8
powered by Legistar™222
File #:24-737 Agenda Date:8/28/2024
Version:1 Item #:9.
would adjust the proposed scope and timeline to address Council’s comments from the 06/26/2024 City
Council meeting.”
3.Overall Q&A Responses
4.Demonstrated Qualifications of the Project Manager and Team
5.Demonstrated Experience with Similar Projects
The total possible score a firm could receive was 100 points.The interview panel’s scores are included in
Attachment 2.
Staff Recommended Firm
Based on the scoring of the interviews and the consensus of the panel,staff identified Plan to Place,LLC as the
recommended firm.The firm’s description and biographical information on the staff for the proposed project is
included as Attachment 3.In addition to submitting a thoughtful,comprehensive,and responsive scope of work
in response to the RFP,Plan to Place delivered a concise and responsive interview presentation.They answered
questions thoroughly, drawing parallels between past work and the proposed project.
Plan to Place has extensive experience working with communities throughout the Bay Area on complex
projects ranging from City-wide General Plans,Specific Plans,and Housing Elements,to the adaptive reuse of
discrete sites and Vision Plans.They regularly facilitate conversations related to adaptive reuse,vital
infrastructure improvements and essential services,housing and displacement,and more.Their sole focus is on
the public facing side of projects.
While the firm’s senior staff have urban design and planning backgrounds,the firm’s work is limited to just
community engagement -they would not have a contractual interest in the outcome of the engagement effort as
they would not be the planning or architecture firm engaged on future phases of a project to reuse or redevelop.
Plan to Place also committed their most senior staff to completing the majority of the hours projected for this
project -this is notable as the City would have the most experienced staff committed to this important and
sensitive project.
Proposed Scope of Work
After the conclusion of the interview process,City staff contacted the Principal at Plan to Place and worked
with them to revise the scope of work that was outlined in the Request for Proposals to better align with
Council’s direction during the June 26,2024 meeting.Plan to Place’s updated proposed scope for this effort
includes:
·Two Hosted Tours of the Municipal Services Building and West Orange Library sites,held prior to the
Open Houses and on two different days to increase participation
·Two Community Open Houses
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/23/2024Page 4 of 8
powered by Legistar™223
File #:24-737 Agenda Date:8/28/2024
Version:1 Item #:9.
·Eight focus group meetings and pop-up activities
·Online feedback form to include prompts similar to those asked in the in-person community open
houses to provide an equitable opportunity for input
·Outreach materials
Attachment 4 is Plan to Place’s original proposal,submitted on June 28,2024.Attachment 5 is Plan to Place’s
updated scope of work revised per Council’s guidance during the June 26, 2024 City Council meeting.
Proposed Schedule
City staff has revised the initial project schedule to allow for additional time and engagement opportunities,per
guidance from Council during the June 26,2024 meeting.Staff now proposes that the Hosted Tours,Open
Houses,and focus group meetings /pop-up activities be held over the fall (September through November 2024)
and conclude with a presentation of the Community Engagement Summary Report to City Council in early
2025.
Proposed Budget
Plan to Place’s budget of $79,920 is commensurate with the level of effort for this initiative. This
effort will be led by Plan to Place’s Principal and Senior Engagement Specialist who have led numerous
community outreach and engagement efforts similar to this one and have experience facilitating community
conversations on sensitive topics.Plan to Place staff have backgrounds in community engagement,urban
design,landscape architecture,and the creative arts which will assist them in facilitating an engaging and
dynamic community engagement process for the future of the MSB and West Orange Library sites.While this
is a significant investment,it is important to note that disposition of the Municipal Services Building could
have very substantial start-up and ongoing impacts on the City budget,and should be carefully considered.If
approved by Council, the City Manager will execute the Contract Services Agreement with Plan to Place.
FISCAL IMPACT
The fee for this project ($79,920)will be absorbed by the operating budgets of the City Manager’s Office,
Parks and Recreation Department,and the Economic and Community Development Department.There is no
new impact to the General Fund associated with adopting the recommendation.
CONCLUSION
While staff recommends the consultant,Plan to Place,selected through a rigorous and competitive public
procurement process and the proposed scope of work as presented with this staff report,there are various
alternatives Council may wish to consider.Staff is presenting these options without recommendation and
simply to provide Council with information to consider in evaluating whether or not to approve the associated
resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into a consulting services agreement with Plan to Place as
presented in Exhibit A to the associated resolution.
Alternative 1 - Reduced Scope or Phased Scope of Work
While staff believes the negotiated price for the proposed scope is reasonable and reflective of the effort
involved in a broad community engagement effort,Council could direct staff reduce the scope of work or phase
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/23/2024Page 5 of 8
powered by Legistar™224
File #:24-737 Agenda Date:8/28/2024
Version:1 Item #:9.
involved in a broad community engagement effort,Council could direct staff reduce the scope of work or phase
the scope of work.In a reduced scope of work scenario,staff would recommend returning to the scope of work
identified in the RFP including just two community open houses,two tours,and a report to Council.In a phased
approach,staff would recommend Council approve the associated resolution and direct staff to return to
Council approximately halfway through the project with initial results of the outreach before proceeding with
additional engagement and exhausting the full budget.The goal of a reduced or phased approach would be to
spend no more than $50,000 and then return to Council before proceeding.
Alternative 2 -Eliminate Outreach Effort and Remove the Municipal Services Building as a Housing
Opportunity Site
Over the past year,the City has received numerous comments from a group of residents requesting the
Municipal Services Building site be removed from the City’s certified 2023-2031 Housing Element.As
presented to Council on June 26,2024 and detailed in the staff report linked below,the State of California
requires all jurisdictions in California to adopt a Housing Element and have it certified by the State Department
of Housing and Community Development (HCD)every eight years.The Housing Element is a planning
document prepared by local jurisdictions to identify how the jurisdiction will meet its Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA).Cities do not have to build the housing,but they do have to rezone the site to permit
housing and remove any constraints, to demonstrate capacity for housing development.
The Municipal Services Building site was included in the City’s 2015-2023 Housing Element beginning in
2017 when the City was required by HCD to select a replacement Opportunity Site for the parcels now
occupied by the L|PR Center (which was a previous Housing Element site).Opportunity Sites not developed
during a Housing Element cycle are typically included in the following Housing Element,and so the Municipal
Services Building site was carried forward from the 2015-2023 Housing Element to the City’s 2023-2031
Housing Element.Identifying a site as an Opportunity Site in the City’s Housing Element does not require it to
be built for housing;however,if the site is used for something other than housing,an alternative site would be
required to be identified as an Opportunity Site in its stead.
If Council desires to remove the Municipal Services Building site from the City’s adopted and State-certified
Housing Element,Council would need to consider and adopt an amendment to the Housing Element,which
would then be submitted to HCD for review and approval.Removal of the Municipal Services Building site
would require identification of other similar and suitable sites that can accommodate the same amount of
affordable housing,and very low-income housing in particular.The Municipal Services Building is located in a
high-opportunity area,providing lower income residents access to schools,jobs,and community amenities in a
higher-income neighborhood.This furthers the State’s goals of providing lower income community members
with access to opportunity.Any replacement sites would need to be similarly situated in high-opportunity areas
of the City and,preferably,be City-controlled in order to maximize the amount of affordable housing possible
within any housing development on the site.
While Council could elect to replace the Municipal Services Building site with the West Orange Library site in
the 2023-2031 Housing Element,the West Orange Library site may not be big enough to accommodate the
amount of affordable housing that the Municipal Services Building can accommodate and therefore other sites
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/23/2024Page 6 of 8
powered by Legistar™225
File #:24-737 Agenda Date:8/28/2024
Version:1 Item #:9.
amount of affordable housing that the Municipal Services Building can accommodate and therefore other sites
may need to be identified in addition to the West Orange Library site.The City’s property holdings are
primarily in the Downtown and so would not meet the high-opportunity threshold required of any other
substitute Housing Element sites that would need to be identified.In this case,privately owned sites would
need to be identified.Together,the West Orange Library site and any other identified replacement sites that
would generate sufficient capacity for lower income housing would need to then be evaluated for feasibility -
are there barriers (including economic barriers) to their development or redevelopment.
Any identified replacement sites if not already zoned for housing (such as the West Orange Library site)would
need to be rezoned to allow for housing development.This may also necessitate a General Plan Amendment
depending on the identified sites.The process to replace the Municipal Services Building site with other
suitable sites and complete any necessary rezonings would take nine months to a year to complete given the
number of Planning Commission and City Council hearings necessary to complete the process,as well as
capacity analysis and feasibility analysis on the selected sites.
As previously discussed at the June 26th Council meeting,removal of the Municipal Services Building site as a
housing opportunity site in the Housing Element leaves the future of the property uncertain and has no direct
effect on immediate use of the property.With the opening of the L|PR Center,staff and functions previously
housed at the Municipal Services Building were moved to the L|PR Center.Substantial building improvements
would have to be identified through a feasibility study and identified improvements completed at the Municipal
Services Building before services and programs could resume there.At this time,the City’s operating and
capital budgets do not include funding capacity for the capital improvement costs or operating expenses
necessary to reopen the Municipal Services Building.Therefore,reinitiation of services at the Municipal
Services Building would not occur prior to identification of programming to be provided at the site,budgeting
to provide funding,completion of required improvements,and hiring of necessary staff.In the interim,the
Municipal Services Building would continue to remain unused.
Finally,it should be noted that removing the Municipal Services Building site as a housing opportunity site in
the City’s 2025-2031 Housing Element may not necessarily prevent it from ever being redeveloped for housing
or affordable housing.Should the City determine that it wishes to lease the property for more than 15 years or
sell the property,it would need to be surplused under the State’s Surplus Land Act.Through this State-
mandated process,the property would need to be first offered to affordable housing developers and if offers are
received,the City would be required by State law to engage in good faith negotiations for a period of time
before declining or accepting an offer.If an offer is not accepted,the City could proceed to lease or sell the
property for a use other than affordable housing once the State certifies that the surplus process has been
adhered to and State law requirements met.
Alternative 3 -Proceed with Community Engagement and Remove the Municipal Services Building as a
Housing Opportunity Site
Should Council wish to replace the Municipal Services Building site in the City’s 2025-2031 Housing Element
with other similar and suitable opportunity sites,staff would strongly recommend also proceeding with a
facilitated community engagement process as described in Plan to Place’s scope and proposed in the associated
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/23/2024Page 7 of 8
powered by Legistar™226
File #:24-737 Agenda Date:8/28/2024
Version:1 Item #:9.
facilitated community engagement process as described in Plan to Place’s scope and proposed in the associated
resolution.While the Municipal Services Building would be removed from the Housing Element,it would
remain a City asset that has been largely decommissioned and plans should be made for its reuse or
redevelopment.As illustrated by the discussion of capital and operating expenses and State Surplus Land Act
requirements discussed above,significant City funding and effort will have to go into any reuse or
redevelopment.As such,any future plans for the Municipal Services Building and West Orange Library should
be informed by a broad community engagement effort, as is contemplated by the proposed scope of work.
Links:
1.June 26, 2024 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item #20:
<https://ci-ssf-ca.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6734493&GUID=D8B102CE-D536-48CA-
Attachments:
1.Paper Review Scoring
2.Interview Scoring
3.Plan to Place Firm Description and Staff Bios
4.Plan to Place’s Proposal, as submitted on June 28, 2024
5.Plan to Place’s Revised Scope of Work and Budget, as submitted on August 13, 2024
Associated File: Resolution 24-783
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/23/2024Page 8 of 8
powered by Legistar™227
Municipal Services Building
Facility Assessment & Options to Proceed
April 29, 2025
Government Code
Section 54957.5
SB 343 Item 1
Agenda: 04/29/2025
SPECIAL CC
228
BACKGROUND
2
1970s
•Central Fire Station located at 201
Baden
•Aging facility (built 1948)
•Insufficient space for fire admin staff,
apparatus, and tools/supplies
•Fire Dept adds 3rd firefighter to each
engine co
•Additional reserve apparatus, tools,
and disaster supplies
•Police Dept headquartered at 315
Maple
•Cramped and inadequate for modern
law enforcement operations
1974
•Measure G - $4.5 million
Public Safety Building general
obligation bond measure
•Proposed financing for
construction of a new 81,000
SF public safety complex at
Grand & Chestnut
•Required 2/3 majority
approval from voters
•Narrowly failed
229
BACKGROUND
3
1978
•Purchased 33
Arroyo
•Building
retrofitted to
include City
offices and
temporarily
house Fire
Station 63
1979
•MSB
substantially
remodeled for
Parks &
Recreation
and Police
1981
•Police Dept
headquarters
relocated to
the MSB
230
BACKGROUND
4
2005
•Fire Administration
moved from the
MSB to 480 N.
Canal, freeing up
additional office
space for the
police department
2010
•Fire Department
received FEMA
grant to
rehabilitate,
modernize,
seismically stabilize,
and remediate
Station 63
•Grant funded work
was restricted to
the station's original
footprint
2015
•City Council
decision to vacate
MSB and West
Orange Library
•Relocate Library,
Parks & Recreation,
Police Department,
and Fire Station 63
to new facilities
231
BACKGROUND
5
2021
•Council discussed MSB
redevelopment options
•Market rate residential
•Fully affordable
residential
•Joint development
with Buri Buri Shopping
Center
•Council approved
purchase of 71
Camaritas for relocation
of Station 63
•Council allocates
funding for station
design
2022
•Police Department
headquarters relocated
to 1 Chestnut
2023
•Library | Parks and
Recreation Center
opens
232
•The MSB site was included in the 2015-2023
and 2023-2031 Housing Elements
Opportunity Sites list as a potential location
for mixed-income housing
•Inclusion in this list does not require the City
to develop the site for housing and no
direction has been given by Council to do
so
•Over the past several years, the City has
received public comment asking to
preserve the building and reopen it
MSB LISTED AS A HOUSING ELEMENT OPPORTUNITY SITE
6
233
•In August 2024, Council directed staff to prepare:
•A facility condition assessment to inform a cost estimate for reopening the MSB
•A list of alternative Housing Element Opportunity Sites to inform whether to amend
the Housing Element to remove the MSB
•The following presentation includes:
•Results of a facility condition assessment, seismic study, construction cost estimates,
operating expense analysis, environmental monitoring results, and identified
alternative Housing Element Opportunity Sites
•Three options to proceed that staff recommend Council consider and provide
direction on
PURPOSE OF TODAY'S MEETING
7
234
Seismic Study
235
MSB Seismic Study
9
Purpose
•Determine if MSB meets current seismic standards for
public and essential facilities
Key Findings
•MSB does not meet current seismic standards
•Significant seismic deficiencies
•Major damage or collapse possible in strong
earthquake
236
MSB Seismic Study
10
Potential Seismic Deficiencies
•Weak wall-to-floor/roof connections
•Insufficient wall and diaphragm strength
•Discontinuous shear walls between floors
•Vulnerable exterior concrete panels
Estimated Costs for Seismic Upgrade
•Risk Category II (Offices): $5.6M
•Risk Category III (Assembly Uses): $6.5M
•Risk Category IV (Emergency Services): $7.6M
237
MSB Seismic Study
11
Options
•Voluntary seismic upgrade
•Use the building “as is”, but;
•No guarantee of performance in
a major earthquake
238
Facility Condition
Assessment Overview
239
Expert Consultant Team
•City contracted with Group4 for
independent project
management.
•Group4 subcontracted with
Bureau Veritas to conduct
inspection services.
•TBD Consultants retained for
cost estimate review.
MSB Facility Condition Assessment
13
240
Overview
•Bureau Veritas
began inspection for
assessment in 2024.
•Based on visual assessment.
•Review of architectural, MEP,
and fire/life safety systems.
•Assessment resulted in report,
with cost estimating performed
by TBD Consultants.
MSB Facility Condition Assessment
14
241
Summary of Findings
•Based on current costs, facility
has a current replacement
value of $142M to replace in-
kind with new facility.
•Years 0 -10 capital
improvement costs valued at
$41.4M.
•In years 0 – 20: grows $44.5M
(2025 dollars) or $52.6M
(escalated per year).
MSB Facility Condition Assessment
15
242
Cost Estimate Assumptions
•Public / gathering space on the
former Recreation portion of the
building.
•Office or other tenant use at PD
half of facility. Potentially
phased into unknown date in
future.
•Fire to remain until a new station
is constructed.
•Included full category IV seismic
upgrade cost.
MSB Facility Condition Assessment
16
243
Example Findings of Deficiencies
•New roof: $3.3M
•Plumbing: $3.6M
•Fire suppression: $1.4M
•Fire alarm system: $1M
•HVAC + ducting: $3.7M
•Electrical systems: $5M
•Low voltage: $2.5M
MSB Facility Condition Assessment
17
244
Bureau Veritas
Full Renovation
Cost Estimate
245
Full Renovation with Structural Upgrade
19
•Construction cost: $44.5M
•Plus contingency: $13.3M
•Total: $57.8M
•Seismic (voluntary): $7.6M
•Plus seismic: $65.4M
246
Group4 | Full Renovation
with Structural Upgrade
Cost Estimate
247
Full Renovation with Structural Upgrade
21
voluntary
248
22
Full Renovation with Structural Upgrade
Minus seismic / structural: $65 million
249
Group4 | Partial
Renovation
Recreation Wing Only
Cost Estimate
250
Partial Renovation – Recreation Wing
24
251
25
Partial Renovation – Recreation Wing
252
Operations and
Maintenance
Recreation Wing Only
253
Operations and Maintenance
27
Assumptions
•The City would only operate the
former Recreation Wing of the
facility.
•Additional costs if the former Police
Department was occupied by City
programs, offices, or tenant.
•P&R classes operate M-F, 9:00 a.m.
– 5:00 p.m.
•Facility rentals on weekends.
•Some fees for classes may be
necessary to sustain programs.
254
Operations and Maintenance
28
Minimum Additional / New Staffing
•Recreation Coordinator: 1 FTE
•Administrative Assistant: 1 FTE
•Instructor (hourly): 2.5 FTE
•Rec Leader – Classes (hourly): 2.0 FTE
•Rec Leader – Rentals (hourly): 0.80 FTE
• Custodian (Day Shift): 1 FTE
• Custodian (Swing Shift): 1 FTE
•Senior Custodian: As needed
255
Operations and Maintenance
29
Expenditures + Revenues
•On-going Supplies and Services:
$253,425 per year (includes
$180,000 utilities)
•On-going Personnel Costs:
$884,537 per year
•One-time Supplies and Services
Startup Costs: $90,000
•Revenue: ~$170,000 - $300,000
per year
256
Environmental
Investigation
257
History
•2021 Environmental Site Assessment Phase 1 --> indicated need for
Phase 2
•2022 ESA Phase 2 --> indicated need for further testing
•2023 & 2024 ongoing monitoring of sub foundation slab soil vapor
monitoring
Environmental Investigation
31
258
Findings
•Benzene, likely from underground
storage tank from former automotive
use
•PCE, likely from former My Cleaners
next door
•Benzene & PCE above residential
thresholds
•PCE, at some points in time, above
commercial thresholds
Environmental Investigation
32
259
Implications for the MSB
•No hazards to current or past occupants
•Ongoing monitoring recommended whether the building is occupied, or
not
•Remediation and ongoing monitoring plan will be needed if the site is
redeveloped
Environmental Investigation
33
260
Alternate Housing Element
Opportunity Sites
261
•Removing the MSB site
from the Housing Element
will require a State-
approved amendment
•Removing the site will not
alter what can be
done --> Council can
choose to redevelop or
not
•Alternate sites are
available, but have some
hurdles
Alternate Housing Element Opportunity Sites
35
262
What are we looking for in a site?
•Publicly owned with agency approval or indication they intend to
develop the site for housing
•Located in a high resource area (not clustered Downtown or along 101)
•Able to accommodate at least 150 units
Alternate Housing Element Opportunity Sites
36
263
Alternate Housing Element Opportunity Sites
37
Site Name Address Est. Acreage Est. # of Units CEQA Action Estimated Costs
Municipal Services Building 33 Arroyo Dr 1.87 150 Consistent with General Plan EIR
W. Orange Library (Closed)840 W Orange Avenue 1.54 58 Requires CEQA Analysis ~ $100,000
San Mateo Co. Courthouse APN 011302280 1.20 26 Consistent with General Plan EIR -
999 Grand Ave 1.60 35
1024 Mission Road 2.54 56
117
SSF BART - Parking Areas 1600 El Camino Real (Parking
Structure)6.00 480 Consistent with General Plan EIR ~ $50,000
1500 El Camino Real (fronts Mission)2.60 208
688
Foxridge School (Closed)257 Longford Drive 23.00 506 Consistent with General Plan EIR -
Skyline Blvd Open Space No Address - Open Space 13.50 297 Requires CEQA Analysis ~ $100,000
264
Options to Proceed
265
•Pause all discussion of the MSB
for a period of 2 to 3 years
while the City's budget position
stabilizes
•Reopen
•Two options to proceed
•Redevelopment
•Housing Element Alternate Sites
Options to Proceed
39
266
Option 1: Reopen
Recreation Wing &
Operate
267
Program
•City-operated community center
•Open Mon – Fri,9 am – 5 pm
•20 hours of programming/day
•Facility rentals, as available
Next Steps
•Assess demand for services and
programming
•Identify funding sources /
balance other funding needs
•Impact fees
•Measure W revenue
•General Fund reserve
Option 1: Reopen Rec Wing & Operate
41
Cost
•$29 million over 10 years (capital)
•$1.1 million annually (operations)
268
Option 2: Reopen
Recreation Wing and
Lease
269
Cost
•$29 million over 10 years (capital), or as can be reduced in the form of a
tenant improvement credit
Potential Lease Revenue
Option 2: Reopen Rec Wing & Lease
43
270
Next Steps
•Assess demand for tenants (unsuccessful RFP for West Orange Library)
•Engage qualified broker to market the site broadly
•Identify funding sources /balance other funding needs
•Impact fees
•Measure W revenue
•General Fund reserve
Option 2: Reopen Rec Wing & Lease
44
271
Option 3: Explore Site
Redevelopment
272
Program
•Flexible, to be determined by City
Council
Next Steps
•Engage economic consultant
to test various development
scenarios
•Return to Council for feedback
to inform a Request for
Qualifications
•Issue RFQ
Option 3: Explore Site Redevelopment
46
Cost (if Affordable)
•Free/discounted land
•$5 - $10 million housing funds loan
Price (if Market Rate)
•Approximately $5 million
273
Housing Element
Amendment
274
•Staff does not recommend amending the
Housing Element to replace the MSB as a
Housing Opportunity site
•Not one site that has it all – no easy swap
•Process is costly, time consuming, and
largely symbolic
•The action could jeopardize the City's
standing with the State
Housing Element Amendment
48
275
Conclusion
276
•Like many other Bay Area communities, the City is
experiencing a structural deficit
•Operating new assets – like the Aquatic Center – will
necessitate expenditure reductions and potentially drawing
upon reserves
•City would need to consider reduction in City services to
accommodate budget impact of reopening the MSB
Conclusion
50
277
•Staff is seeking direction on whether to:
•Pause discussion of the MSB for a period of time (2-3 years)
•Reopen the MSB and operate it as a City facility
•Reopen the MSB and lease the facility
•Redevelop the site
Conclusion
51
278
Municipal Services Building
Facility Assessment & Options to Proceed
City of South San Francisco
QUESTIONS?
279
Id Start time Name / Nombre
1 4/29/2025 16:51 Denni Harp
2 4/29/2025 18:07 Manny Mairena
3 4/29/2025 18:08 Kevin folan
4 4/29/2025 18:10 Anna
5 4/29/2025 18:20 Ava Marie romero
6 4/29/2025 18:22 Jeremy Levine
7 4/29/2025 18:28 Katherine Acosta
8 4/29/2025 18:28 Cynthia Marcopulos
9 4/29/2025 18:28 Mina Richardson
10 4/29/2025 18:30 Asha Grandbois
11 4/29/2025 18:31 Melanie Olson
12 4/29/2025 18:24 Roderick
13 4/29/2025 18:35 Jennifer Garstang
14 4/29/2025 18:49 Bryan Palomino
15 4/29/2025 18:50 Erin chazer