Agenda, regular meeting, first session — San Bruno City Council, May 28, 2024 (part 2 of 3)

BE IT FURTHE
R RESOLVED that the Secretary of the San Bruno Planning Commission is hereby authorized to make minor alterations to the resolutions as may be required for legal reasons and is directed to forward to the City Council a certified copy of this Resolution together with an attested copy.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 253
Exhibit A: Findings for the 300 Piedmont Project
Exhibit B: MMRP
Exhibit C: Final EIR with errata

Date Planning Commission Chair

ATTEST APPROVED AS TO FORM

Planning Commission Secretary City Attorney

-o0o-

I, Michael P. Laughlin, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of San Bruno this 7th day of May 2024 by the following vote:

AYES Commissioners: Johnson, Durazo, Lethin, Madden, Kuhn, Harman NOES Commissioners: None
ABSENT Commissioners: Biasotti
RECUSED Commissioners None

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 5/9/2024
5/13/2024
5/13/2024
5/13/2024
254

EXHIBIT A

FINDINGS F
OR THE
300 PIEDMONT AVENUE PROJECT
DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 255
Findings for the 300 Piedmont Avenue Project
Required under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.)
1 Introduction
The California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code [PRC], Section 21000 et seq.) (CEQA), provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects” and that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” (PRC, § 21002.) A project may be approved despite its significant environmental effects if there are specific economic, social, or other considerations which justify approval notwithstanding unmitigated impacts. (PRC, § 21081.)
The mandate and principles established under CEQA are implemented, in part, through the requirement of Public Resources Code section 21081 which states that, before approving projects, agencies must: 1) make written findings with regard to the disposition of each significant impact; and 2) if significant unavoidable impacts remain after mitigation, identify overriding considerations explaining why the lead agency will continue to move ahead with the project. For each significant environmental effect identified in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a proposed project, the approving agency must make a written finding supported by substantial evidence reaching one or more of three conclusions, as described in CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Section 15000, et seq.). CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 specifically provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. (b) The findings required by subsection (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.

The “changes or alterations” referred to in the CEQA Guidelines may be mitigation measures, alternatives to the project, or changes to the project by the project proponent. The Final EIR for the Project identifies mitigation measures that will reduce significant effects of the Project. A Mitigation DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 256
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will also be adopted by the City to ensure that the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and these findings will be implemented.

CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. As defined by CEQA, “feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors (PRC, § 21061.1; see also CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(f)(1) (determining the feasibility of alternatives)).

It can also take into account underlying goals and objectives of the project in addition to the desirability of the mitigation and alternatives. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(f).) As required under CEQA, the EIR describes the proposed project, adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project, and mitigation measures and alternatives that would substantially reduce or avoid those impacts. Each member of the City Council was provided a complete copy of the Final EIR for the Project in advance of the hearing on the Project. The City hereby finds that the Final EIR reflects its independent judgment. The City also finds that it has independently reviewed and analyzed the Final EIR prior to taking final action with respect to the Project.

The City Council hereby adopts the following Findings.
2 Description of the Proposed Project and Objectives

2.1 Project Description

The Project is located on a 40.2-acre parcel (Assessor’s Parcel Number 019-170-020) at 300 Piedmont Avenue in the City of San Bruno. Piedmont Avenue becomes Courtland Drive (a private driveway with a public access easement) at the southern entrance to the project site and runs north–south along and close to the eastern edge of the project site. Interstate 280 (I-280) runs east of Courtland Drive, with the San Bruno Chinese Church located between Courtland Drive and I-280 near the northern entrance to the project site and a vegetated area otherwise separating the two roadways. Vehicular access is provided to the project site from Piedmont Avenue at the southern entrance and Courtland Drive at its northern entrance. The Final EIR for the Project reviews the environmental impacts of proposed development.

The project would redevelop the project site into a new 155-lot single-family, detached-home community with associated open space and infrastructure located at 300 Piedmont Avenue (project site).

The Project would also include dedication of approximately 6.91 acres of public open space to the City, which the City would own and maintain. The City would also construct improvements within about 5.3 acres of the 6.91 acres of the dedicated open space area in the northern area of the project site, including a sports field with permanent nighttime lighting fixtures. The other 1.61 acres along Courtland Drive would be improved by the City and would be available for recreational supportive uses. Parking would be provided along Courtland Drive, within the recreational parcel, and along the northern extent of the residential ring road. The field would be striped to allow reconfiguration of fields to accommodate various sizes of fields. The Crestmoor Fields Master Plan was recently approved by the San Bruno City Council. The field design could use synthetic turf or natural grass and would allow for a maximum of six soccer fields in use at any one time. Another option would include striping for up to two little league DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 257
baseball fields and five soccer fields, allowing for a maximum of two little league games or five soccer games to occur at one time.

For a detailed description of the Project see Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR.

2.2 Project Objectives
Per CEQA Guidelines section 15124(b), the objectives of a proposed project “should include the underlying purpose of the project and may discuss the project benefits.” Importantly, the “objectives will help the lead agency develop a reasonable range of alternatives to evaluate in the EIR and will aid the decision makers in preparing findings or a statement of overriding considerations, if necessary” (CEQA State Guidelines Section 15124(b)).

The project objectives, for purposes of CEQA, include the following.

1. Redevelop an underutilized site with a residential neighborhood that provides a variety of home sizes at a density that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

2. Provide housing at a range of income levels (including low- and moderate-income households) that would assist the City in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) targets.

3. Develop a project that is compatible with the existing biological setting and that provides improved management of preserved open space.

4. Provide wildland fire protection and maintenance of existing wooded areas.

5. Provide recreation fields and other public facilities and amenities to provide recreational opportunities, including providing for evening uses to maximize availability of the fields and facilities.
3 Record of Proceedings and Location of Record
The City of San Bruno is the lead agency for the Project. The scoping process for this EIR was initiated on April 10, 2023, when the City submitted the Notice of Preparation (NOP) to the California State Clearinghouse for distribution to the necessary parties. The purpose of the NOP is to solicit participation from relevant agencies and from the public in determining the scope of an EIR. The scoping period for this EIR ended on May 11, 2023, and a public scoping meeting was held on April 18, 2023, at the San Bruno Senior Center (1555 Crystal Springs Road, San Bruno, California 94066).

Consistent with CEQA’s requirements, the Draft EIR was made available to the public and regulatory agencies for review and comment during the minimum 45-day comment period between October 20, 2023, and December 5, 2023. A Planning Commission meeting was held on October 26, 2023, to provide information about the Draft EIR, respond to general questions about the Draft EIR analysis, and accept oral comments on the Draft EIR.

The Final EIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA and contains responses to each comment received and resulting revisions to the Draft EIR. All written comments received during the public review period are responded to in Chapter 3, Responses to Comments, of the Final EIR. Revisions to the Draft EIR are contained in Chapter 4, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of the Final EIR.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 258
The documents and other materials that constitute the record upon which the City’s decision and these findings are based can be reviewed in person at the following location:

City of San Bruno
Community Development Department
567 El Camino Real
San Bruno, CA 94066
4 Draft Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts
and Mitigation Measures
Upon approving the Project, the City must adopt findings of fact regarding the significant effects identified in the Final EIR. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City is also adopting an MMRP for the mitigation measures that are the City’s responsibility to implement. The MMRP establishes a program to ensure that the adopted mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR will be implemented.

4.1 Draft Findings Regarding Significant and
Unavoidable Impacts
The City, based on the Final EIR, determines that the following significant effects cannot be avoided.

Feasible mitigation measures included in the Final EIR will lessen these effects but will not result in complete mitigation of the effects to a less-than-significant level. For these impacts, there are no feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives that would reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level and the impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The titles/numbers of the effects are the same as those in the Final EIR. The following identifies the pertinent mitigation measures by number and summary title.

4.1.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact GHG-1: The project would generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-2, w hich is hereby adopted and incorporated into the project, would reduce the impacts related to generation of GHG emissions but not to a less-than- significant level. Although the City finds Mitigation Measure TRA-2 feasible, special considerations, as set forth in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3), make further mitigation measures or alternatives to address GHG emissions infeasible. Therefore, the City hereby determines that any impacts related to GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable.

The City hereby makes finding (a)(3) (described above), as required by Pub. Res. Code Section 21081 and s
tated in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, with respect to the above identified effect.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 259
Facts in Support of Finding: The primary source of emissions during project operation1 would be mobile-source GHG emissions from vehicles traveling to and from the project site (i.e., project-generated VMT). The project’s estimated VMT would be 14.7 daily miles per resident, accounting for the fact that the project includes affordable units and increases the residential density of the neighborhood.

Nonetheless, project-generated VMT would exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) threshold of 12.4 daily miles per resident, or 15 percent below the regional average VMT for the region of 14.6 daily miles per resident. At 14.7 daily miles per resident, the project would result in a rate of VMT that exceeds the regional average by 0.1 mile per capita and exceeds the threshold by 2.3 miles per capita. Thus, the project would not result in a VMT reduction relative to the regional average; rather, it would result in a VMT increase.

The only available onsite Transportation Demand Management (TDM) str ategy deemed applicable and
feasible for this project to reduce VMT is trip reduction marketing coordinated by the Homeowners Association (HOA), which is expected to achieve up to a 4 percent trip (and VMT) reduction below ITE trip generation rates. Other strategies such as electric bike share, car share, and unbundled parking 2 were considered for this site, but were deemed infeasible at the present time for single-family homes on the project site. All three of these strategies require minimum densities and urban/suburban environments with a mix of land use types to be successful. Bikeshare requires that key destinations are within biking distance and the location of this project site is neither within biking distance nor is it supported by biking-friendly roadway design. Electric bikeshare programs are effective when applied at a community-wide scale in environments with supportive bike facilities (lanes, trails, parking, etc.).

There is no evidence that they reduce VMT when applied at an individual project scale. The lack of supportive bicycle facilities in San Bruno makes this measure particularly unlikely to reduce VMT.

Carshare and unbundled parking are meant to support a car-free or car-light lifestyle. Other modes (transit, walk, bike) need to be viable options to replace car trips and again, because of the low-density, single-use nature of this project and surrounding neighborhood, important destinations (e.g., grocery, school, healthcare, work, etc.) are not within typical walking or biking distance. Similarly, the low- density residential neighborhood does not support transit service. Car share offerings only reduce VMT when other travel options are available and equally if not more appealing than car travel for at least some trips. Because of the isolation of this project site in a low-density single-use neighborhood, the project is designed to be accessed by a car. The necessity of always using a vehicle will negate the usefulness of a car share option, which would be more expensive on a per trip basis than owning a personal vehicle. Unbundled parking only reduces VMT when it means that someone forego owning a personal vehicle and can live car-free or car-light. Furthermore, plentiful free, on-street parking (as is provided with Crestmoor) would render unbundling meaningless. Residents could still park without cost even if it wasn’t in their own driveway. Reducing parking supply was also determined to be inconsistent with the Municipal Code. While an HOA could offer transit subsidies, that was determined to be ineffective at the present time in this location given the lack of nearby or high-quality transit options. For the reasons described above, those lifestyle choices are unavailable with this project. 1 As explained in the Draft EIR, BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines or Justification Report do not identify a GHG emissions threshold for construction -related emissions. Nonetheless, BAAQMD’s 2022 CEQA Guidelines recommend the quantification and disclosure of construction GHG emissions. As such, the significance of GHG emissions in the Draft EIR is based on an evaluation of Project operations.
2 Unbundled parking is when parking spaces are sold or leased separate from the sale or lease of the residential property.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 260
No mitigation is available to reduce this impact to less than significant. As such, the project would be inconsistent with the BAAQMD GHG emissions requirement. The project consists of low-density single- family homes located in a primarily single-use neighborhood with few convenient walking or biking options to access shopping, work, education, or other opportunities. The project is also not located near any high-quality transit lines, nor does it add a mix of land uses or amenities that could reduce the number of vehicle trips or trip lengths for the existing or future residents of the neighborhood. These environmental characteristics result in project trips being made almost exclusively by car, and so, even though trip lengths may be shorter than the regional average, the share of trips made by car (instead of walk, bike, or transit) prevents the site from complying with state goals to reduce VMT below current levels. Therefore, even with mitigation, it is unlikely that the project can achieve 12.4 VMT per resident under Existing Plus Project conditions. Because a VMT mitigation fee, bank, or exchange program does not currently exist, at this time additional mitigation through financial contribution is not feasible. As a result, the impact remains significant and unavoidable. The City Council concludes, however, based upon the EIR, that the proposed project’s benefits outweigh the significant and unavoidable effects of the proposed project resulting as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section 6, below.

Mitigation Measure TRA-2: Implem
ent Transportation Demand Management Program
Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the residential component of the project, the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Director a TDM program that aims to reduce residential VMT to 12.4 miles per capita, consistent with a 15 percent reduction in VMT from the current regional average of 14.6 miles per capita. At minimum, the TDM program shall include an HOA transportation alternatives marketing program to reduce VMT from the residential component of the project.

The marketing program is expected to achieve up to a 4 percent trip (and VMT) reduction below ITE trip generation rates. Additional measures shall be included in the TDM program that, at the time the TDM program is submitted, are feasible, and appropriate for the residential component of the project, considering the proposed use and its location and size, in an effort to reduce VMT from the residential component of the project as indicated by the performance standard of this mitigation measure (12.4 miles per capita). Other measures that may be considered include but are not limited to, the following.
 Pre-Sale Marketing Program
 New Owner Trip Reduction Pledge (sales program)
 Pre-sales Trip Reduction Information
 New Owner TDM/Trip Reduction Welcome Packet
 TDM Plan - Purchase Contract/Escrow Disclosures
 Bike Parking Facilities
 Add Class II bike racks to HOA park
 Add bike repair fix-it station to HOA park
 Resident Incentive Program
 Prizes and rewards (bike, carpool, and vanpool)
 Quarterly promotions
DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 261
 Voluntary Travel Behavior Change Program (includes Commuter Coordinator, annual survey, and reporting)
 Travel Behavioral Intervention (on-site annual event)  Education, Marketing, and Outreach
 Online HOA Commuter Resource webpage
 Ride-Sharing (carpool matching) Programs (marketing/outreach)  School Pool Programs (marketing/outreach)
 Onsite E-Bike Subsidy Program
The applicant or HOA, as an alternative means of achieving all or a portion of the VMT reductions, has the option to participate in any adopted applicable VMT mitigation fee, bank or exchange program that would allow development projects to offset project VMT impacts by contributing money into a program to fund offsite VMT reducing projects or programs (such as, but not limited to, dedicated bike lanes, community shuttles, transit service improvements, roadway gap closures, or pedestrian network expansion). To be eligible, the mitigation fee, bank, or exchange program would need to meet the following requirements.  Real/verifiable: Identifies actual projects that would be implemented under the program within a reasonable period of time of the contribution as well as the expected attributable VMT reduction from each project.
 Additional: Projects implemented under the program would not be implemented if not for the financial contribution to the program.
 Measurable/Enforceable: Contains VMT reduction metrics that provide for conversion of the financial contribution to the program to an equivalent VMT reduction that can be applied to the project.

The applicant shall implement any pre-sale marketing component of the TDM program commencing upon initial marketing activities. The HOA shall implement the balance of the TDM program commencing upon full occupancy of the residential component of the project.

The Community Development Director may approve modifications to the residential TDM plan proposed by the applicant or the HOA that are consistent with the original findings and conditions approved by the review authority. A request to modify the TDM plan may only be granted if it is demonstrated to be at least as effective as the original TDM plan in furthering the transportation goals of the San Bruno General Plan by promoting and increasing transit use, ridesharing, walking, and bicycling to minimize the number of residents traveling in single- occupant vehicles and improving the mobility and general efficiency of circulation and transportation systems by reducing single occupant vehicle trips and total VMT within the community and the region.

The residential TDM program shall include annual monitoring and reporting requirements completed by a neutral third party on the effectiveness of the onsite component of the TDM program for the first 5 years after full site buildout. The HOA shall submit an annual report documenting the TDM activities undertaken and their results to the Community Development Director. The Community Development Director or designee shall evaluate the overall effectiveness of all TDM activities and may suggest new, modified, or substitute activities that are reasonable, feasible, and appropriate for the residential component of the project, considering the proposed use and its location, to meet the program’s objectives.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 262
Annual reporting requirements include information on the TDM marketing program, site occupancy, resident mode share, work-from-home rates, and use of alternative modes. For the first year after full occupancy, the onsite monitoring report must also include a 24-hour screenline vehicle count across all the residential neighborhood street gateways. This count shall be compared to the trip generation estimates prepared as part of the project EIR and will serve as a guidepost for compliance with the 4 percent onsite reduction target.

The HOA may need to supplement the marketing program with other measures if initial monitoring results show limited usage of alternative modes and higher than expected trip counts.

Impact GHG-2: The project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Finding: The proj ect does not comply with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2022 Scoping Plan. Therefore, the City hereby determines that the project would conflict with state, regional, or local plans to achieve the GHG reduction goals mandated by SB 32 for the year 2030 and AB 1279 for the year 2030 and 2045. Special considerations, as set forth in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3), make further mitigation measures or alternatives to address GHG emissions infeasible. Therefore, the City hereby determines that any impacts related to GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable.

The City hereby makes finding (a)(3) (described above), as required by Pub. Res. Code Section 21081 and s
tated in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, with respect to the above identified effect.

Facts in Support of Finding: The proj ect would conflict with CARB-identified project attributes. The project includes 24 onsite below market rate (BMR) homes (8 at low-income levels and 16 at moderate income levels, for a total of 15 percent of affordable units) distributed throughout the two neighborhoods, which would not meet the threshold of 20 percent of affordable units. As a result, the project would be inconsistent with this attribute.

While on its face the project does not comply with the BMR threshold of 20 percent affordable units,

additional BMR units for this project would not reduce the related GHG impact. As indicated in CARB Scoping Plan Appendix D3, affordable housing is linked to a reduction in VMT when it is near transit. For example, for this threshold, Appendix D cites “Income, Location Efficiency, and VMT: Affordable Housing as a Climate Strategy.”4 This paper concludes “that location-efficient affordable housing is a justified climate strategy not because location-efficient living is associated with deeper absolute VMT reductions for lower-income populations than for wealthier populations – no statistically significant differences were found – but because lower-income populations use location-efficient space more efficiently, which allows the same land area to yield more VMT reductions.” Appendix D also cites “Why Creating and Preserving Affordable Homes Near Transit is a Highly Effective Climate Protection Strategy.”5 As explained in that report, a key finding was that, “Lower Income households drive 25-30% fewer miles when living within 1/2 mile of transit than those living in non-TOD areas. When living within HCD’s 1/4 mile of frequent transit they drove nearly 50% less.”
3 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/2022-sp-appendix-d-local-actions.pdf 4 Newmark, G. and Haas, P. 2015. Income, Location Efficiency, and VMT: Affordable Housing as a Climate Strategy. Available at: https://chpc.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/CNT-Working-Paper-revised-2015-12-

18.pdf.
5 California Housing Partnership Corporation and TransForm. 2014. Why Creating and Preserving Affordable Homes Near Transit is a Highly Effective Climate Protection Strategy. Available at:
https://chpc.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/4-AffordableTODResearchUpdate070114.pdf.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 263
The project site itself is not conducive to an increase in BMR units to reduce VMT because it is not considered to be in a site that is location efficient. The project consists of low-density single-family homes located in a primarily single-use neighborhood with few convenient walking or biking options to access shopping, work, education, or other opportunities. The project is also not located near any high- quality transit lines, nor does it add a mix of land uses or amenities that could reduce the number of vehicle trips or trip lengths for the existing or future residents of the neighborhood. These environmental characteristics result in project trips being made almost exclusively by car, and so, even though trip lengths may be shorter than the regional average, the share of trips made by car (instead of walk, bike, or transit) prevents the site from complying with state goals to reduce VMT below current levels. Therefore, even with mitigation, it is unlikely that the project can achieve 12.4 VMT per resident under Existing Plus Project conditions. Because a VMT mitigation fee, bank, or exchange program does not currently exist, at this time additional mitigation through financial contribution is not feasible. As a result, the impact remains significant and unavoidable. The Council concludes, however, based upon the EIR, that the proposed project’s benefits outweigh the significant and unavoidable effects of the proposed project resulting as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section 6, below.

Furthermore, the project would not provide residential parking supply at a ratio of less than one parking space per dwelling unit. It would not be feasible to reduce the residential parking supply at the project site. It would be inconsistent with Municipal Code and limited in its effectiveness given the abundant supply of free neighborhood and recreational parking; therefore, it is not included in the TDM program.

Thus, the project would be inconsistent with two of the CARB-identified project attributes related to VMT reduction. The Council concludes, however, based upon the EIR, that the proposed project’s benefits outweigh the significant and unavoidable effects of the proposed project resulting as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section 6, below.

Mitigation Measure TRA-2: Implem
ent Transportation Demand Management Program
Implement Mitigation Measure TRA-2, the full text of which is provided above for Impact GHG-1.

Cumulative Impact – Greenhouse Gases: The project would result in a cumulatively considerable impact with regard to GHG emissions during operations.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-2, wh ich is hereby adopted and incorporated into the project, would reduce the cumulative impacts related to generation of GHG emissions during operation of the project but not to a less-than-significant level. Although the City finds Mitigation Measure TRA-2 feasible, special considerations, as set forth in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3), make further mitigation measures or alternatives to address GHG emissions infeasible.

Therefore, the City hereby determines that any impacts related to GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable.

The City hereby makes finding (a)(3) (described above), as required by Pub. Res. Code Section 21081 and s
tated in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, with respect to the above identified effect.

Facts in Support of Finding: If a proj ect is designed and built to incorporate the design elements listed in Table 3.7-3 of the EIR, then it would contribute its portion of what is necessary to achieve California’s long-term climate goals—its “fair share”—and would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change. The proposed project would not be consistent with all BAAQMD land use Threshold Option A design elements, because the project would not achieve a reduction in project generated VMT of 15 percent below the regional average. The project’s estimated VMT would be

14.7 daily miles per resident, accounting for the fact that the project includes affordable units and DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 264
increases the residential density of the neighborhood. Nonetheless, project-generated VMT would exceed the threshold of 12.4 daily miles per resident, or 15 percent below the regional average VMT for the region of 14.6 daily miles per resident. At 14.7 miles per resident, the project would result in a rate of VMT that exceeds the regional average by 0.1 mile per capita and exceeds the threshold by 2.3 miles per capita. Thus, the project would not result in a VMT reduction relative to the regional average; rather, it would result in a VMT increase.

The only available onsite TDM strategy deemed applicable and feasible for this project to reduce VMT is trip reduction marketing coordinated by the HOA, which is expected to achieve up to a 4 percent trip (and VMT) reduction below ITE trip generation rates. Other strategies such as electric bike share and car share were considered for this site but were deemed infeasible at the present time for single-family homes on the project site. Unbundled parking was also considered but is not infeasible for single-family homes. Many TDM strategies are only applicable at higher densities and when a site has shared facilities like garages, bike rooms, or community rooms. While an HOA could offer transit subsidies, that was determined to be ineffective at the present time in this location given the lack of nearby or high-quality transit options. Finally, reducing the parking supply was also considered for this site but determined to be inconsistent with Municipal Code and limited in its effectiveness given the abundant supply of free neighborhood and recreational parking; therefore, it is not included in the TDM program.

No mitigation is available to reduce this impact to less than significant. As such, the project would be inconsistent with this BAAQMD requirement. The project consists of low-density single-family homes located in a primarily single-use neighborhood with few convenient walking or biking options to access shopping, work, education, or other opportunities. The project is also not located near any high-quality transit lines, nor does it add a mix of land uses or amenities that could reduce the number of vehicle trips or trip lengths for the existing or future residents of the neighborhood. These environmental characteristics result in project trips being made almost exclusively by car, and so, even though trip lengths may be shorter than the regional average, the share of trips made by car (instead of walk, bike, or transit) prevents the site from complying with state goals to reduce VMT below current levels.

Therefore, even with mitigation, it is unlikely that the project can achieve 12.4 VMT per resident under Existing Plus Project conditions. Because a VMT mitigation fee, bank, or exchange program does not currently exist, at this time additional mitigation through financial contribution is not feasible. As a result, the impact remains significant and unavoidable. The Council concludes, however, based upon the EIR, that the proposed project’s benefits outweigh the significant and unavoidable effects of the proposed project resulting as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section 6, below.

Mitigation Measure TRA-2: Imple
ment Transportation Demand Management Program
Implement Mitigation Measure TRA-2, the full text of which is provided above for Impact GHG-1.

4.1.2 Transportation
Impact TRA-2: Transportation. The project would conflict or be inconsistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b).

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-2, w hich is hereby adopted and incorporated into the project, would reduce the impacts related to consistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b), but not to a less-than-significant level. Although the City finds Mitigation Measure TRA-2 feasible, special considerations, as set forth in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3), make further mitigation measures or alternatives to address consistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 265
subdivision (b) infeasible. Therefore, the City hereby determines that the project would conflict or be inconsistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b), and such impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

The City hereby makes finding (a)(3) (described above), as required by Pub. Res. Code Section 21081 and stated in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, with respect to the above identified effect.

Facts in Support of Finding: The pro ject would result in a significant impact related to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) if it would lead to VMT per resident higher than 15 percent below the existing regional average of 14.6 VMT per resident. This sets the threshold for project generated VMT per resident at 12.4 VMT. Using the C/CAG VMT Estimation Tool, the estimated VMT per resident with the project is estimated to be 14.7 daily miles per resident.

The only available onsite TDM strategy deemed applicable and feasible for this project to reduce VMT is trip re
duction marketing coordinated by the HOA, which is expected to achieve up to a 4 percent trip (and VMT) reduction below ITE trip generation rates. Other strategies such as electric bike share and car share were considered for this site but were deemed infeasible at the present time for single-family homes on the project site. Unbundled parking was also considered but is not feasible for single-family homes. All three of these strategies require minimum densities and urban/suburban environments with a mix of land use types to be successful. Bikeshare requires that key destinations are within biking distance and the location of this project site is neither within biking distance nor is it supported by biking-friendly roadway design. Electric bikeshare programs are effective when applied at a community- wide scale in environments with supportive bike facilities (lanes, trails, parking, etc.). There is no evidence that they reduce VMT when applied at an individual project scale. The lack of supportive bicycle facilities in San Bruno makes this measure particularly unlikely to reduce VMT.

The project consists of low-density single-family homes located in a primarily single-use neighborhood with few convenient walking or biking options to access shopping, work, education, or other opportunities. The project is also not located near any high-quality transit lines, nor does it add a mix of land uses or amenities that could reduce the number of vehicle trips or trip lengths for the existing or future residents of the neighborhood. These environmental characteristics result in project trips being made almost exclusively by car, and so, even though trip lengths may be shorter than the regional DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 266
average, the share of trips made by car (instead of walk, bike, or transit) prevents the site from complying with state goals to reduce VMT below current levels. Therefore, even with mitigation, it is unlikely that the project can achieve 12.4 VMT per resident under Existing Plus Project conditions.

Because a VMT mitigation fee, bank, or exchange program does not currently exist, at this time additional mitigation through financial contribution is not feasible. The Council concludes, however, based upon the EIR, that the proposed project’s benefits outweigh the significant and unavoidable effects of the proposed project resulting as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section 6, below.

Mitigation Measure TRA-2: Imple
ment Transportation Demand Management Program
Implement Mitigation Measure TRA-2, the full text of which is provided above for Impact GHG-1.

Cumulative Impact - Transportation: The project would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a conflict with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b).

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-2, w hich is hereby adopted and incorporated into the project, would reduce the cumulative impacts related to consistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b), but not to a less-than-significant level. Although the City finds Mitigation Measure TRA-2 feasible, special considerations, as set forth in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3), make further mitigation measures or alternatives to address consistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) infeasible. Therefore, the City hereby determines that the project would conflict or be inconsistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b), and such cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Facts in Support of Finding: VMT, in its nature is a cumulative analysis because its comparison is to per capita VMT. As explained in Impact TRA-2, the proposed project and variant VMT per resident would be 14.7 VMT per resident, which exceeds the threshold of 15 percent below the existing regional average of 14.6 VMT per resident.

The only available onsite TDM strategy deemed applicable and feasible for this project to reduce VMT is trip re
duction marketing coordinated by the HOA, which is expected to achieve up to a 4 percent trip (and VMT) reduction below ITE trip generation rates. Other strategies such as electric bike share and car share were considered for this site but were deemed infeasible at the present time for single-family homes on the project site. Unbundled parking was also considered but is not infeasible for single-family homes. All three of these strategies require minimum densities and urban/suburban environments with a mix of land use types to be successful. Bikeshare requires that key destinations are within biking distance and the location of this project site is neither within biking distance nor is it supported by biking-friendly roadway design. Electric bikeshare programs are effective when applied at a community- wide scale in environments with supportive bike facilities (lanes, trails, parking, etc.). There is no evidence that they reduce VMT when applied at an individual project scale. The lack of supportive bicycle facilities in San Bruno makes this measure particularly unlikely to reduce VMT.

Carshare and unbundled parking are meant to support a car-free or car-light lifestyle. Other modes (transit, walk, bike) need to be viable options to replace car trips and again, because of the low-density, single-use nature of this project and surrounding neighborhood, important destinations (e.g., grocery, school, healthcare, work, etc.) are not within typical walking or biking distance. Similarly, the low- density residential neighborhood does not support transit service. Car share offerings only reduce VMT when other travel options are available and equally if not more appealing than car travel for at least some trips. Because of the isolation of this project site in a low-density single-use neighborhood, the DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 267
project is designed to be accessed by a car. The necessity of always using a vehicle will negate the usefulness of a car share option, which would be more expensive on a per trip basis than owning a personal vehicle. Unbundled parking only reduces VMT when it means that someone forego owning a personal vehicle and can live car-free or car-light. Furthermore, plentiful free, on-street parking (as is provided with Crestmoor) would render unbundling meaningless. Residents could still park without cost even if it wasn’t in their own driveway. Reducing parking supply was also determined to be inconsistent with the Municipal Code. While an HOA could offer transit subsidies, that was determined to be ineffective at the present time in this location given the lack of nearby or high-quality transit options. For the reasons described above, those lifestyle choices are unavailable with this project.

The project consists of low-density single-family homes located in a primarily single-use neighborhood with few convenient walking or biking options to access shopping, work, education, or other opportunities. The project is also not located near any high-quality transit lines, nor does it add a mix of land uses or amenities that could reduce the number of vehicle trips or trip lengths for the existing or future residents of the neighborhood. These environmental characteristics result in project trips being made almost exclusively by car, and so, even though trip lengths may be shorter than the regional average, the share of trips made by car (instead of walk, bike, or transit) prevents the site from complying with state goals to reduce VMT below current levels. Therefore, even with mitigation, it is unlikely that the project can achieve 12.4 VMT per resident under Existing Plus Project conditions.

Mitigation Measure TRA-2: Imple
ment Transportation Demand Management Program
Implement Mitigation Measure TRA-2, the full text of which is provided above for Impact GHG-1.

4.2 Draft Findings Regarding Significant Impacts
Mitigated to Less-Than-Significant Levels
The City has determined that, for the following effects, mitigation measures included in the EIR will mitigate the effects of the Project to a less-than-significant level. The following identifies the pertinent mitigation measures by number and summary title.

4.2.1 Air Quality
Impact AQ-2: Air Quality. The project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is a nonattainment area for an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, whi ch is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, would reduce construction impacts related to a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants to a less-than-significant level. The City finds the implementation of BAAQMD Best Management Practices for Construction-Related Fugitive Dust Emissions as included in Mitigation DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 268
Measure AQ-1 to be feasible. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, which requires implementation of BAAQMD Basic Best Management Practices, this impact would be less than significant.

The City hereby makes finding (a)(1) (described above), as required by Pub. Res. Code Section 21081 and stated in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, with respect to the above identified effect.

Facts in Support of Finding: Proje ct construction activities, such as demolition, rough grading, and material hauling, would generate fugitive dust emissions (i.e., PM2.5 and PM10). As noted in BAAQMD’s 2022 CEQA Guidelines, projects implementing the BAAQMD-recommended basic BMPs for construction- related fugitive dust emissions are considered to have a less-than-significant criteria air pollutant impact related to construction-generated fugitive dust emissions. As such, before the inclusion of feasible BAAQMD-identified BMPs, the proposed project’s construction-generated fugitive dust emissions would be considered significant. Consistent with the analysis of fugitive dust emissions for the residential component, fugitive dust emissions resulting from development of the recreational site would be considered significant before the inclusion of feasible BAAQMD-identified BMPs.

Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Requir e Implementation of BAAQMD Basic Best Management Practices for Construction-Related Fugitive Dust Emissions The project sponsors shall require their contractors, as a condition of contracts (e.g., standard specifications), to reduce construction-related fugitive dust emissions by implementing BAAQMD’s basic BMPs, including (but not limited to) the following measures.  All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.  All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material offsite shall be covered.  All visible mud or dirt track out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
 All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.  All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
 All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.
 All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.
 Unpaved roads providing access to sites located 100 feet or farther from a paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12-inch layer of compacted wood chips, mulch, or gravel.  Publicly visible signs shall be posted with the telephone number and name of the person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s General Air Pollution Complaints number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 269
For the residential component of the project, the project sponsor shall submit evidence of compliance to the City prior to grading permit issuance. For the recreational component, the City shall document compliance by its contractor.

4.2.2 Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1: Biological Resources. The project would have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1a , BIO-1b and BIO-1c, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, would reduce construction and operational impacts related to nesting and migratory birds, bats, and woodrats to a less-than-significant level. The City finds protection for nesting and migratory birds, bats, and woodrats to be feasible. With implementation of mitigation, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on nesting and migratory birds, bats and woodrats.

The City hereby determines that any construction impacts related to nesting and migratory birds, bats and woodrats remaining after implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1a, BIO-1b and BIO-1c would be less than significant.

The City hereby makes finding (a)(1) (described above), as required by Pub. Res. Code Section 21081 and s
tated in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, with respect to the above identified effect.

Facts in Support of Finding: Woodr at stick nests were observed within the mixed pine eucalyptus forest habitat during the May 1, 2023, field survey and were also documented in the applicant-prepared biological resources assessment. It is expected that avoidance of all or most of the woodrat nests should be feasible, as most of the area where construction would occur is already developed and is unsuitable habitat for nest development; however, any construction or demolition activity that results in harm or mortality to this species, or in nest abandonment, may be considered a significant impact under CEQA.

Most nests are present in the wooded area and could potentially be removed or disturbed by vegetation management work during construction and during ongoing operational activities.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1a woul
d be implemented to reduce the potential for impacts on San Francisco dusky-footed wood rat through conducting preconstruction surveys to identify any nests 30 days prior to the onset of construction. This survey timing would allow for the scheduling of and relocation of woodrat nests, if necessary. The survey should encompass all construction zones. It is expected that avoidance of all or most of the nests would be feasible for construction, as most of the area where construction would occur is already developed and is unsuitable habitat for nest development. For operation,
Tree removal and project construction could potentially remove habitat or disturb nests of nesting or migratory birds. Construction impacts would be potentially significant because of the potential to remove active nests. Trees, shrubs, and buildings occurring on and adjacent to the site could be used by raptors and other migratory birds for nesting. Project-related activities that adversely affect the nesting success of raptors and migratory birds (i.e., lead to the abandonment of active nests) or result in mortality of individual birds constitute a violation of state and federal laws. Disturbance of nesting bird species during nesting season could result in nest abandonment or the loss of fertile eggs or fledglings.

Vegetation management activities could pose a similar risk to nesting birds as construction activities if they involve tree trimming or tree or vegetation removal pursuant to the vegetation management plan DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 270
(Appendix H) when the trees or vegetation have active nests, or use of loud equipment (e.g., chainsaws, mowers) near active nests.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1b includes preconstruction and construction requirements to avoid and minimize potential impacts on migratory and nesting birds. Construction would occur either outside of the nesting season or, if it occurs during the nesting season, avoidance and buffers would be implemented to prevent nest abandonment. For operation, Mitigation Measure BIO-1b includes preconstruction and construction requirements to avoid and minimize potential impacts on migratory and nesting birds. Construction would occur either outside of the nesting season or, if it occurs during the nesting season, avoidance and buffers would be implemented to prevent nest abandonment.

No evidence of bats was observed during the April 2022 site visit however, the presence of bats inside the onsite buildings or within tree cavities within the forested portions of the site cannot be fully discounted. It is also possible the wooded area has larger trees with cavities that could also serve as roosting habitat for locally occurring bat species. Special-status bats known to occur in the region include Townsend’s big-eared bat, big free-tailed bat, and pallid bat. Tree removal or ground disturbance activities during construction and demolition could disturb active nests and result in mortality of roosting bats. Project-related activities that adversely affect the nesting success of bats (i.e., lead to the abandonment of active nests) or result in mortality of individual bats could be a potentially significant impact. Impacts on bats may occur similar to construction during vegetation management activities that involve tree removal pursuant to the vegetation management plan.

Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1c would require conducting preconstruction surveys within the project footprint and within a 50-foot buffer of the project footprint. If a nonbreeding or nonwintering bat colony is found, the individuals shall be humanely evicted via the partial dismantlement (two-step removal) of the trees or buildings prior to removal under the direction of a qualified biologist to ensure that no harm or take would occur to any bats as a result of removal activities. If a maternity colony or overwintering colony is detected in the trees or buildings of the site, then a construction-free buffer should be established and remain in place until it has been determined that the nursery or overwintering colony is no longer active. Mitigation measure BIO-1c would be implemented to similarly reduce operational impacts.

With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1a, BIO-1b, and BIO-1c, impacts to sensitive species would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1a: C
onduct Preconstruction Survey for Duskyfooted Woodrat and Implement Appropriate Measures
Prior to project demolition/construction and prior to the vegetation maintenance activities that could potentially have an impact on woodrat nests, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nests within and adjacent to the project footprint no more than 30 days prior to the onset of construction activities; demolition activities; and vegetation management activities that may impact woodrat nets, as defined in the vegetation management plan with input from a qualified biologist. This survey timing allows for the scheduling of and relocation of woodrat nests, if necessary. The survey shall encompass all construction zones and surrounding lands within 50 feet of these zones.

Two to three temporary shelters such as an upside-down half-wine barrel or wooden box with rodent-sized opening shall be placed near the nest to be disassembled to provide any evicted woodrats a safe cover (refugia). Deconstruction of the nest shall be conducted by the biologist on the opposite side of the nest as temporary refugia so that woodrats have a direct path to the refugia.
 Disassembling work shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in afternoon/evening hours to the extent practicable to limit stress to any evicted woodrats. Deconstructed nest material shall be placed on a tarp to either dispose of it or to use it to rebuild a nest with the same material in a different location. Materials on the tarp shall include structural, nesting chamber, and stored food. Relocation of nests shall be built as close as possible with a center chamber at the bottom with nesting material and food stores with sticks forming a chamber above this. If forming a nest chamber is difficult given the material of the original nest, additional sticks from the surrounding areas can be used or a wooden box with a hole cut for the entrance can be used based on the judgment of the qualified biologist.
 Survey results and any disassembling and relocation work (if needed) shall be documented in a report provided to the city.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1b: Avo id Impacts on Nesting Birds.

To address impacts on nesting raptors and migratory birds, project-related activities (i.e., demolition, construction, vegetation management) that occur during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31) should be constrained in the vicinity of any active nests. If tree removal, use of powered equipment (e.g., chainsaws, line trimmers, mowers), or ground- disturbance activities are scheduled to commence during the breeding season, nesting bird surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to identify possible nesting activity. A qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction/pre-activity surveys for nests on any tree, other vegetation, or structure within 500 feet of the project/activity footprint no more than 14 days before demolition, construction, or vegetation management activities begin. If no active nests are found during focused surveys, no further action under this measure will be required.

No tree shall be removed or trimmed if an active bird nest is present. If necessary, modifications to the project design to avoid removal of occupied habitat while still achieving project objectives shall be evaluated and implemented to the extent feasible.

If avoidance of the nesting season is not feasible or conflicts with project objectives, demolition, construction, and vegetation management with powered equipment shall be prohibited within a DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 272
buffer (generally 50 to 100 feet for songbirds and 250 to 500 feet for raptors, depending on the location and the professional judgment of the qualified biologist) of the nest to avoid disturbance until the nest is no longer active. Buffers may be reduced according to the discretion and professional judgment of the qualified biologist. The buffer shall be clearly marked and maintained until the young have fledged and are foraging independently. Prior to construction, demolition, or vegetation management activities, the qualified biologist shall conduct baseline monitoring of each nest to characterize “normal” bird behavior and establish a buffer distance, which allows the birds to exhibit normal behavior. The qualified biologist shall monitor the nesting birds during applicable activities and increase the buffer if birds show signs of unusual or distressed behavior (e.g., defensive flights and vocalizations, standing up from a brooding position, and/or flying away from the nest). If buffer establishment is not possible, the qualified biologist or construction foreman/vegetation management lead shall have the authority to cease all work in the area until the young have fledged, and the nest is no longer active.

A survey report shall be prepared and provided to the city to document the survey results. If monitoring is needed, the report shall also include the results of monitoring. An activity-free buffer of suitable dimensions must be established around any active raptor and migratory bird nests (generally 50 to 100 feet for songbirds and 250 to 500 feet for raptors, depending on the location and the professional judgment of the qualified biologist) for the duration of the construction, demolition, or vegetation management activity or until it has been determined that the chicks have fledged and are independent of their parents.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1c: Av
oid Impacts on Bats
To address any potential impacts on bats, a preconstruction/predemolition or, for ongoing vegetation management activities, a pretree removal survey for roosting bats shall be conducted within the project/tree removal footprint and within a 50-foot buffer of the project footprint/tree removal footprint within 14 days before the start of those activities. If a nonbreeding or nonwintering bat colony is found, the individuals shall be humanely evicted via the partial dismantlement (two-step removal) of the trees or buildings prior to removal under the direction of a qualified biologist (with specialized knowledge of bats) to ensure that no harm or take would occur to any bats as a result of removal activities. If a maternity colony or overwintering colony is detected in the trees or buildings of the site, then a construction- free/activity-free buffer should be established around the tree(s) and/or building(s) and remain in place until it has been determined that the nursery or overwintering colony is no longer active. The size of the buffer shall be highly dependent on bat species, nesting/roosting location, level of existing disturbances, etc., and shall be decided at the discretion and professional judgment of a qualified biologist.

A survey report shall be prepared and provided to the city to document the survey results. If monitoring is needed, the report shall also include the results of monitoring, which shall be the obligation of the applicant/developer with oversight by the City, with all costs, including City oversight costs, paid for by the applicant/developer.

Impact BIO-5: Biological Resources. The project would conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-5, w
hich is hereby adopted and incorporated into
the Project, would reduce impacts related to conflicts with the City’s tree ordinances to a less-than- significant level. The City finds the establishment of tree protection zones for retained heritage trees and specific measures to minimize impacts related to tree removal to be feasible. The City hereby determines that any impacts related to conflicts with any of the City’s tree ordinances remaining after implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-5 would be less than significant.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 273
The City hereby makes finding (a)(1) (described above), as required by Pub. Res. Code Section 21081 and stated in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, with respect to the above identified effect.

Facts in Support of Finding: Activ ities such as grading, installation of utilities, and construction of new homes may damage adjacent tree crowns and roots adjacent to the project area, which could potentially damage heritage trees. Mitigation Measure BIO-5 includes guidelines that would be implemented to mitigate any potential impact on surrounding trees through designation of a tree protection zone and modification of activities to reduce potential impacts.

With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-5, im
pacts to sensitive species would be less than
significant.

Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Protect Retained Heritage Trees The project proponent shall establish tree protection zones for retained heritage trees and specific measures to minimize impacts related to tree removal:
 Project Design
 Ensure adequate but not excessive water is supplied to trees; in most cases occasional irrigation will be required. Avoid directing runoff toward trees.  Tree Protection Zones
 Establish a Tree Protection Zone around each tree to be preserved. For trees outside of the project site, the Tree Protection Zone shall be the existing fence line on all sides.
 After tree removals are determined among the 182 perimeter trees surveyed, the project’s security fence shall define the Tree Protection Zone. Fences are to remain until all grading and construction is completed. Where demolition must occur close to trees, such as removing curb and pavement, install trunk protection devices such as winding silt sock wattling around trunks or stacking hay bales around tree trunks.
 Any approved grading, construction, demolition, or other work within the Tree Protection Zone should be monitored by the consulting arborist. The arborist shall also determine approval for any root pruning for construction purposes outside the Tree Protection Zone.
 All grading within the dripline of trees shall be done using the smallest equipment possible. The equipment shall operate perpendicular to the tree and operate from outside the Tree Protection Zone. Any modifications must be approved and monitored by the consulting arborist.
 Open Space Management and Project Operations
 A qualified arborist shall provide input on a management plan for the future open space areas that addresses ongoing management of heritage trees consistent with the guidance in this mitigation measure and with the San Bruno Tree Ordinance.

The input shall address actions to protect retained heritage trees during ongoing vegetation management activities.
 Use only herbicides safe for use around trees and labeled for that use, even below pavement.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 274
All pruning shall be done by a State of California Licensed Tree Contractor (C61/D49) who is a Certified Arborist or Certified Tree Worker and shall be conducted in accordance with the Best Management Practices for Pruning (International Society of Arboriculture 2002) and adhere to the most recent editions of the American National Standard for Tree Care Operations (Z133.1) and Pruning (A300).

4.2.3 Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-2: Cultural Resources. The project would have the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource, or potential disturbance to undiscovered archaeological resources, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2a an d CUL-2b, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, would reduce construction impacts related to archaeological resources to a less-than-significant level. The City finds implementation of worker awareness training, and requirements to stop work if archaeological deposits are encountered during ground-disturbing activities to be feasible. The City hereby determines that any construction impacts related to archaeological features remaining after implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2a and CUL-2b would be less than significant.

The City hereby makes finding (a)(1) (described above), as required by Pub. Res. Code Section 21081 and s
tated in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, with respect to the above identified effect.

Facts in Support of Finding: The pre sence of two precontact midden deposits within 0.25 mile of the project site indicates increased potential for encountering as-yet undocumented archaeological deposits during project-related ground disturbance associated with construction.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2a and Mi tigation Measure CUL-2b would reduce this potentially significant impact on archaeological resources during construction by ensuring that project activities would not result in the inadvertent destruction of an archaeological resource because work would stop in the case archaeological deposits are uncovered according to training. Then, a qualified professional would be consulted to implement the appropriate process to protect archaeological resources.

With implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2a and CUL-2b, impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2a: Con
duct Cultural Resource Awareness Training Prior to
Project-Related Ground Disturbance and Stop Work if Archaeological Deposits Are Encountered During Ground-Disturbing Activities
Prior to any project- or project variant–related ground disturbance, the applicant and/or City shall ensure that all construction workers receive training overseen by a qualified professional archaeologist who is experienced in teaching nonspecialists to ensure that contractors can recognize archaeological resources in the event that any are discovered during construction.

Construction staff directly overseeing excavation, or operating ground-disturbing vehicles during excavation activities, shall be required to participate in this preconstruction training.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 275
Mitigation Measure CUL-2b: Stop Work if Buried Cultural Deposits are Encountered During Construction Activities
In the event that previously unidentified archaeological, historical, or tribal cultural resources are uncovered during site preparation, excavation, or other construction activity, the applicant and/or City shall cease or ensure the ceasing of all such activity within 50 feet of the discovery until the resources have been evaluated by a qualified professional (cultural resources specialist or archaeologist) and specific measures can be implemented to protect these resources in accordance with PRC Sections 21083.2 and 21084.1.

Preservation in place (avoidance) is the preferred method of mitigation for impacts on cultural resources (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(A)) and is required unless the cultural resources specialist or archaeologist determines that another method would provide superior mitigation of impacts on the resource. No additional mitigation is necessary if the resource can be completely avoided, but the resource shall be recorded on Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms, which shall be filed with the Northwest Information Center. The qualified cultural resources specialist shall follow the procedures below if the resource cannot be completely avoided:
 Determine if the resource is an historical resource: The qualified cultural resources specialist or archaeologist shall determine if there is a potential for the resource to be a historical resource. Work can resume if there is no potential for the resource to qualify as a historical resource. If there is a potential for the resource to be a historical resource, the qualified cultural resources specialist or archaeologist shall prepare an Evaluation Plan.
 Prepare an Evaluation Plan: The Evaluation Plan shall be prepared specific to the resource and shall contain procedures used to determine if the discovered resource is an historical resource. The Evaluation Plan shall include enough discussion of background and context to provide for evaluation of the resource under the historical resource criteria. It shall include a description of procedures that will be used to gather information for the evaluation, which may include but not be limited to excavation, written documentation, interviews, and photography. For any archaeological resource testing, the Evaluation Plan shall describe testing procedures, such as surface collection, test excavations, analysis methods, and reporting procedure.  Implement Evaluation Plan: The evaluation plan shall be implemented in the field, and the subsequent report shall evaluate the resource based on the criteria contained in the Evaluation Plan, making a conclusion whether the resource is historical. If the resource is not historical, protective barriers can be removed and work can continue in the area.

If the resource is historical, the qualified cultural resources specialist or archaeologist shall prepare a Data Recovery Plan.
 Prepare a Data Recovery Plan: A Data Recovery Plan shall be prepared consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C) and Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. The Data Recovery Plan will contain a description of how data recovery will mitigate impacts on the resource to less than significant. It shall contain a description of level of effort (e.g., quantity of excavation units), excavation procedures, laboratory methods, types of samples to be collected (e.g., sediment), and the techniques that will be used to obtain information about the features of the site that make it a historical resource. Additionally, the Data Recovery Plan shall include a description of the reporting procedure. Once the Data Recovery Plan is completed, field work can DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 276
commence. Work can resume in the area once the qualified cultural resources specialist/archaeologist determines that no additional information needs to be recovered to satisfy fieldwork, reporting, and documentation requirements to reduce impacts to less than significant.
 Prepare a Data Recovery Report: A Data Recovery Report shall be prepared following completion of data recovery field work. The Report shall present results of data recovery, including field methods used, location and size of excavations, and analysis of materials recovered. It shall contain conclusions made based on the field work as well as where any recovered artifacts, samples, and documentation will be curated. Curation facilities must meet requirements of 36 Code of Federal Regulations 79. The Data Recovery Report shall be submitted to the Northwest Information Center, with all impacted known resources recorded on DPR 523 forms.

4.2.4 Geology and Soils
Impact GEO-5: Geology and Soils. The project would result in direct or indirect destruction of a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-5, wh ich is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, would reduce construction impacts related to paleontological resources to a less-than- significant level. The City finds paleontological resource monitoring, the evaluation of found resources, and preparation of a recovery plan to be feasible. The City hereby determines that any construction impacts related to paleontological resources remaining after implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-5 would be less than significant.

The City hereby makes finding (a)(1) (described above), as required by Pub. Res. Code Section 21081 and s
tated in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, with respect to the above identified effect.

Facts in Support of Finding: While t here are no known paleontological resources or unique geologic features on the project site, the site is underlain by the Merced Formation. This geologic unit is known to contain fossils. As a result, ground-disturbing activities such as grading and excavation in areas with native substrate may destroy or damage paleontological resources.

Mitigation Measure GEO-5 would e nsure that workers are informed of the procedures to follow should they encounter subsurface paleontological resources. It also ensures that work is halted until all appropriate procedures are followed in the event that paleontological resources are discovered and reduce ground disturbance impacts.

With implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-5, impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure GEO -5: Pro v
ide Cons truction Personnel Training and Follow
Unanticipated Paleontological Resources Discovery Protocol Prior to commencement of ground-disturbing activities, project personnel conducting ground- disturbing activities shall receive training regarding the potential for uncovering subsurface paleontological resources (a fossilized bone or other preserved plant or animal remains), work practices for implementing mitigation measures and complying with applicable laws and regulations, and how to recognize possible buried resources. The training shall include a presentation of procedures to follow upon discovery or suspected discovery of paleontological DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 277
resources, their treatment (described below) and actions that may be taken if there is violation of applicable laws.

If a previously undiscovered paleontological resource is encountered during construction, ground-disturbing activity within 100 feet of the resource shall be stopped. A qualified paleontological resource specialist shall be retained to assess the significance of the find. An exclusion area shall be established with signage and protective barriers. Entry into the area shall be limited to authorized personnel and a qualified paleontological resource specialist, and the contractor shall immediately notify the City of San Bruno. Preservation in place (avoidance) is preferred mitigation for impacts on unique paleontological resources. No additional mitigation is necessary if the resource can be avoided, but the qualified paleontological resource specialist shall document the resource in accordance with professional standards such as the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Standard of Procedures for the Assessment of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources (SVP 2010). A significant paleontological resource under these standards is defined as follows.

Significant paleontological resources are fossils and fossiliferous deposits, here defined as consisting of identifiable vertebrate fossils, large or small, uncommon invertebrate, plant, and trace fossils, and other data that provide taphonomic, taxonomic, phylogenetic, paleoecologic, stratigraphic, and/or biochronologic information. Paleontological resources are considered to be older than recorded human history and/or older than middle Holocene (i.e., older than about 5,000 radiocarbon years).

Work can resume if there is no potential for the resource to be a unique paleontological resource. If there is a potential for the resource to be a unique paleontological resource and it cannot be avoided, the qualified paleontological resource specialist shall identify mitigation measures, which may include ensuring that fossils are recovered, prepared, identified, catalogued, and analyzed consistent with current professional standards. Methods of recovery, testing, and evaluation shall adhere to current professional standards such as the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Standard of Procedures for the Assessment of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources (SVP 2010). Work can commence after data recovery.

4.2.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-5: Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The project would place facilities within an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, resulting in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area.

Finding: Implementation o
f Mitigation Measures HAZ-5a, and HAZ-5b, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, would reduce impacts related to safety hazards or excessive noise related to a public airport. The City finds obtainment of a determination of no-hazard from the FAA when notification under 14 C.F.R. Part 77 is required for both the residential component and recreational component to be feasible. The City hereby determines that any impacts related to safety hazards or excessive noise related to a public airport remaining after implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ- 5a and HAZ-5b would be less than significant.

The City hereby makes finding (a)(1) (described above), as required by Pub. Res. Code Section 21081 and s
tated in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, with respect to the above identified effect.

Facts in Support of Finding: FAA re gulation 14 C.F.R. Part 77 requires notification of any construction or alteration that would result in a structure being greater than 200 feet (61 meters) above ground level DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 278
from its base or that would exceed a specified height from an imaginary slope from the nearest runway.

No structures proposed on the site would be greater than 200 feet. The ALUCP for SFO indicates the project site’s imaginary surface in the project area is between 162.3 and 200 feet amsl. Given that the site itself ranges from 380 to 430 feet amsl, the ALUCP indicates the terrain penetrates the airspace surface. As a result, the proposed project may pose airspace safety concerns.

Mitigation measure HAZ-5a would apply to the residential component of the project and would require either a finding of no-hazard from the FAA or documentation that site conditions are such that notification is not required because there would be no safety hazard due to existing shielding. For the recreational component, Mitigation measure HAZ-5b requires obtaining a finding of no-hazard from the FAA due to the height of light standards and the addition of new lighting.

With implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-5a and HAZ-5b, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-2a: FA
A Part 77 Determination or Documentation of Exception for Residential Component
The project sponsor for the residential component of the proposed project shall obtain a determination of no-hazard from the FAA when notification under 14 C.F.R. Part 77 is required for any component of the residential portion of the proposed project. The project sponsor shall provide documentation of the FAA finding to the City prior to the use of equipment or installation of structures that require notification under 14 C.F.R. Part 77. Alternatively, the project sponsor can provide documentation that notification is not required under 14 C.F.R. Part

77.9(e) should it be found that new structures “will be shielded by existing structures of a permanent and substantial nature or by natural terrain or topographic features of equal or greater height, and will be located in the congested area of a city, town, or settlement where the shielded structure will not adversely affect safety in air navigation.” Such documentation shall be provided to the City prior to the start of construction of the residential component of the proposed project.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-2b: FAA P art 77 Determination for Recreation Component The City shall obtain a determination of no-hazard from the FAA when notification under 14 C.F.R. Part 77 is required for any component of the recreation portion of the proposed project, such as the light standards. The City shall obtain documentation of the FAA finding prior to the use of equipment or installation of structures that require notification under 14 C.F.R. 77.

4.2.6 Noise
Impact NOI-1: Noise. The project would result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or other applicable standards of other agencies.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI- 1a and NOI-1b, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, would reduce construction impacts related to ambient noise levels to a less-than-significant level. The City finds implementation of noise reduction measures, including the installation of temporary noise barriers (as needed), to be feasible. The City hereby determines that any construction impacts related to ambient noise remaining after Mitigation Measures NOI-1a and NOI-1b would be less than significant.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 279
The City hereby makes finding (a)(1) (described above), as required by Pub. Res. Code Section 21081 and stated in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, with respect to the above identified effect.

Facts in Support of Finding: Construc tion could result in short-term increases in average ambient noise levels exceeding 10 dBA at nearby residences during worst-case construction noise-generating activities.

Implementation of mitigation measures NOI-1a and NOI-1b would reduce noise as experienced at nearby sensitive uses during construction by requiring noise reduction measures such as equipping equipment with mufflers, using electrically powered equipment where feasible, and staging equipment far from existing noise-sensitive uses. The mitigation measures are anticipated to reduce the increase in average noise levels at the nearest residences during project construction to less than 10 dBA, which is below the significance criteria.

With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1a and NOI-1b, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure NOI-1a: Requ ire Construction Noise Reduction Measures The following measures shall be incorporated into the project onsite construction activities in order to ensure compliance with the noise standards pertaining to construction noise contained in the City of San Bruno Municipal Code. In cases where a measure is considered infeasible (e.g., construction is needed outside allowable hours), the Planning Director shall review and approve that determination prior to that activity occurring to verify and track compliance with this measure.
 Noise-generating construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., as feasible.
 Combined construction noise for activities that take place between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. shall be limited to 85 dBA Leq at a distance of 100 feet from construction activities, as feasible.
 Should noise-generating construction activities be required between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., combined construction noise shall be limited to 60 dBA Leq at a distance of 100 feet from construction activities, as feasible.
 Temporary construction noise levels shall not result in an increase of 10 dBA or greater.  Measures to achieve these performance standards include:
 All noise-producing project equipment and vehicles using internal combustion engines shall be equipped with manufacturers-recommended mufflers and be maintained in good working condition.
 All mobile or fixed noise-producing equipment used on the project site that are regulated for noise output by a federal, state, or local agency shall comply with such regulations while in the course of project activity.
 Electrically powered equipment shall be used instead of pneumatic or internal- combustion-powered equipment, where feasible.
 Material stockpiles and mobile equipment staging, parking, and maintenance areas shall be located as far as practicable from existing noise-sensitive uses.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 280
 Nearby residences that border the project site, and the church located on the east side of Courtland Drive, shall be notified of construction schedules so that arrangements can be made, if desired, to limit their exposure to short-term increases in ambient noise levels.
 The name and telephone number of an onsite construction liaison who is available whenever construction is occurring shall be provided through onsite signage and on the notices mailed/delivered to surrounding land uses. If early morning or nighttime construction occurs, and construction noise during this time is found to be intrusive to the community (i.e., if complaints are received), the construction liaison shall take reasonable efforts in a reasonable amount of time to investigate the source of the noise (including measuring noise levels) and require that sensible measures be implemented to correct the problem.

Mitigation Measure NOI-1b: Install Te mporary Noise Barriers In the event that investigation of construction noise-related complaints by the construction liaison required by mitigation measure NOI-1a indicates that project construction activities are resulting in increases in ambient noise levels at nearby residential uses of 10 dBA or more, temporary noise barriers shall be installed as close as possible to the noise source or the receptor and positioned within the direct line-of-sight path between the noise source and nearby sensitive receptor(s), if feasible. In cases where this measure is required but considered infeasible (e.g., construction is needed outside allowable hours and noise barriers cannot be installed), the Planning Director shall review and approve that determination prior to that activity occurring to verify and track compliance with this measure. The barrier should be constructed of material that has a surface weight of at least 1 pound per square foot and has an acoustical rating of at least 25 STC (Sound Transmission Class). This can include a temporary barrier constructed with plywood support on a wood frame, sound curtains supported on a frame, or other comparable material.

4.2.7 Tribal Cultural Resources
Impacts TCR-1 and TCR-2: Tribal Cultural Resources. The project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is (a) listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR or in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k), or (b) determined by the lead agency to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2a,
and CUL-2b, which are hereby adopted and
incorporated into the Project, would reduce construction impacts related to Tribal Cultural Resources to a less-than-significant level. The City finds mitigation measures that call for development and implementation of a monitoring plan, worker awareness training, and requirements to stop work if Tribal Cultural Resources deposits are encountered during ground-disturbing activities to be feasible.

The City hereby determines that any construction impacts related to tribal cultural resources remaining after implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2a, and CUL-2b would be less than significant.

The City hereby makes finding (a)(1) (described above), as required by Pub. Res. Code Section 21081 and s
tated in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, with respect to the above identified effect.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 281
Facts in Support of Finding: The presence of two precontact midden deposits, one of which contained Native American human remains, within 0.25 mile of the project site indicates increased potential for encountering as-yet undocumented tribal cultural resources deposits during project-related ground disturbance.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2a and Mi tigation Measure CUL-2b would reduce this potentially significant impact on archaeological resources during construction by ensuring that project activities would not result in the inadvertent destruction of a Tribal cultural resource because work would stop in the case archaeological deposits are uncovered according to training. Then, a qualified professional would be consulted to implement the appropriate process to protect Tribal Cultural Resources.

With implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2a and CUL-2b, impacts to sensitive species would be less than significant.

2. Mitigation Measure CUL-2b: St op Work if Buried Cultural Deposits are Encountered During Construction Activities
Implement Mitigation Measure CUL-2b, the full text of which is provided above for Impact CUL-

2. 4.2.8 Utilities
Impact UT-1: Utilities and Service Systems. The project would require or result in relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, with the potential to cause significant environmental effects.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures UT-1a
and UT-1b, which are hereby adopted and
incorporated into the Project, would reduce impacts related to wastewater facilities to a less-than- significant level. The City finds sanitary sewer rehabilitation in affected areas and upgrading water system regulator station 13 to be feasible. The City hereby determines that any impacts related to utility relocation, construction, or expansion of stormwater facilities remaining after implementation of Mitigation Measures UT-1a and UT-1b would be less than significant.

The City hereby makes finding (a)(1) (described above), as required by Pub. Res. Code Section 21081 and s
tated in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, with respect to the above identified effect.

Facts in Support of Finding: Alth ough there is sufficient capacity for sanitary sewer from the site, the City has identified condition issues with the sanitary sewer line in Courtland Drive and Whitman Way that would convey wastewater from the project site. Roots have intruded into pipes, and the pipes are aging. Currently, this sanitary sewer line conveys whatever minimal wastewater is conveyed from restrooms at the recreation field and project site as well as the church. It also collects wastewater from approximately 50 residences along Courtland Drive north of the project site, Glenbrook Lane, and DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 282
Rosewood Drive. The addition of wastewater from 155 residences on site would substantially increase the volume of wastewater conveyed through these pipes by quadrupling the number of homes discharging wastewater to this sewer line. Therefore, there is a potential for additional flows to exacerbate these degraded conditions.

Results from the Water System Hydraulic Evaluation of Crestmoor Residential Development determined that the hydraulic model indicates that the proposed pipelines and existing water system infrastructure cannot meet the minimum fire flow requirement of 500 gallons per minute (gpm) while maintaining a residual pressure of 20 pounds per square inch (psi) due to pressure deficiencies at existing high elevation services along Madison Avenue. The evaluation identified a regulating station improvement needed at regulator station 13, which is located near the intersection of Piedmont Avenue and Madison Avenue. A pressure regulating station contains pressure values that regulate water from higher-pressure zones into lower-pressure zones.

Mitigation Measures UT-1a and UT-1b would require sanitary sewer rehabilitation in affected areas on Courtland Drive and Whitman Way as well as upgrading water system regulator station 13.

With implementation of Mitigation Measures UT-1a and UT-1b, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Mitigation Measure UT-1a: Reha
bilitate Sanitary Sewer within Courtland Drive and
Whitman Way.

In coordination with City of San Bruno Public Works, the proponent of the residential component of the proposed project shall rehabilitate approximately 929 linear feet of sewer main on Courtland Drive (from MH 1874 to MH 1222) and approximately 740 linear feet of sewer main on Whitman Way (from MH 1222 to MH 1331).

Mitigation Measure UT-1b: Upg rade Water System Regulator Station 13.

In coordination with City of San Bruno Public Works, the proponent of the residential component of the proposed project shall upgrade regulator station RS-13 to meet or exceed the minimum fire flow requirements for the project of 500 gpm. The upgrade will consist of abandoning the existing RS-13, rerouting piping to install a new regulating station in the vicinity of the existing RS-13, with the proper-sized valves, and piping to meet or exceed the minimum fire flow requirement. 5 Draft Findings Regarding Alternatives
As noted above, these Findings address whether the various alternatives substantially lessen or avoid any of the significant impacts associated with the proposed project and then consider the feasibility of each alternative. Under CEQA, as noted earlier, “[f]easible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.” (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15364.) The concept of feasibility permits agency decisionmakers to consider the extent to which an alternative can meet some or all of a project’s objectives. In addition, the definition of feasibility encompasses “desirability” to the extent that an agency’s determination of infeasibility represents a reasonable balancing of competing economic, environmental, social and technological factors supported by substantial evidence. As such, these Findings consider the extent to which the alternatives can meet the project objectives, as described in the EIR and in Section 2.2, above.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 283
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires an EIR to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the project that would feasibly attain most of the project’s basic objectives, but that would avoid or substantially lessen any identified significant environmental impacts of the project, as well as the No Project Alternative. Alternatives determined to be infeasible, to not avoid or substantially reduce one or more significant impacts of the Project, or to not meet all or most of the Project’s objectives were dismissed from further analysis.

5.1 No-Project Alternative
Description of Alternative: No additional construction would occur at the project site with implementation of the No Project Alternative. Under the No Project Alternative, the existing conditions at the project site would not change. The existing playing fields, parking lots, a storage lot, school facilities, school district maintenance facilities, and unimproved sloping wooded open space would remain. San Mateo Union High School District (SMUHSD) currently has a lease agreement of the Crestmoor fields with AYSO and Lowen, with a term beginning on July 1, 2023, and expiring on June 30, 2024, and use of the fields beyond that date would require separate action of the Board of Trustees.

Therefore, should the City deny the project, it is reasonable to assume SMUHSD would continue to try to sell th
e property. However, actual development of the property is not included in the No Project Alternative because the characteristics, timing, and other details of such a development would be speculative. As a result, given past use by AYSO and Lowen, the No Project Alternative presumes that SMUHSD would continue to lease the playing fields on a short-term basis to private soccer clubs for youth soccer games and practices.

In addition to private league activities, informal use of the fields would continue to occur throughout the week, such as for walking, running, and other similar workouts. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the currently vacant high school campus would continue to remain vacant, rather than be leased as an educational facility (alternative high school and/or preschool).

Comparison to Proposed Project: The No Pr
oject Alternative would likely result in none of the impacts identified in the EIR, however, it would not provide any of the benefits sought by the City as expressed through the proposed project objectives, including redeveloping an underutilized site with a residential neighborhood, providing housing at a range of income levels, providing wildland fire protection, and providing recreation facilities and other amenities.

Findings: The Coun
cil finds the No Project Alternative infeasible and less desirable than the proposed project and rejects this Alternative for the following “[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations”: the proposed project benefits such as including redeveloping an underutilized site with a residential neighborhood, providing housing at a range of income levels, providing wildland fire protection, providing recreation facilities and other amenities, and other benefits of the proposed project “make infeasible the project alternatives identified in the [F]inal EIR.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(3).) The No Project Alternative also would not achieve any of the objectives for the proposed project which are identified above in Section 2.2. For these reasons, the Council rejects the No Project Alternatives as infeasible within the meaning of CEQA.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 284

5.2 Alternative 1: Increased Density with ADUs and
Open Space and Recreation
Description of Alternative: This alternative would have a total of 287 units. There would be 242 homes for the effective density of 8 dwelling units per acre for compatibility with the density allowed under the General Plan designation across the 30.26 acres, and the additional 45 units would be accessory dwelling units (ADUs) distributed throughout the project site. It is presumed these would be constructed at the same time as the houses. The 287 units constructed under the Alternative 1 would be located within two neighborhoods, as proposed under the project. Although the density is compatible with that allowed under the General Plan, to accommodate the increased density and ADUs, the proposed residential development would be denser, with smaller setbacks, smaller lots, and smaller dwelling unit areas. Homes would likely be three stories instead of two and arranged in a clustered development pattern.

Comparison to Proposed Project: This al
ternative would have similar impacts to the proposed project except for certain resource areas. There would be more total air pollutant emissions because there would be more construction associated with the higher number of units, which could increase concentrations of pollutants during construction. Increased density would result in incrementally more vehicle trips and emissions during operation. Therefore, this alternative would result in slightly greater air quality impacts compared to the proposed project. Due to a higher number of homes developed under this alternative, Alternative 1 would result in a higher energy demand compared to the proposed project. Alternative 1 would increase use of utilities like water, electricity, and telecommunications. It would also generate more solid waste and wastewater.

Construction activities would be the same as the proposed project but would last longer, resulting in longer
noise and vibration impacts of the same noise and vibration levels as construction of the proposed project and project variant. Noise during operations could be slightly greater due to the increased density and presence of more residents onsite.

The higher density of Alternative 1 would reduce VMT by about 1 percent compared to the proposed project. VMT reduction is a key component to reduction of GHG emissions in California. The per capita VMT is 14.7 daily miles per resident. A 1 percent reduction in that VMT would result in per capita VMT of 14.6 daily miles per resident. While this impact would not be reduced to less than significant, 14.6 is also the existing regional VMT. Therefore, the reduction in VMT under Alternative 1 is considered a substantial reduction in the significant VMT-related impacts for the purposes of the EIR. This would also result in a substantial reduction in the significant VMT-related GHG impacts, even though impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Findings: The C
ouncil acknowledges that this alternative was initially determined to be potentially feasible as described in the Draft EIR. However, the Council now finds that this alternative is ultimately infeasible for specific economic, social, environmental, technological, legal or other considerations.

Specifically, the alternative raises concerns related to urban planning and the goals of the City related to development, density, and VMT.

While this alternative may subst antially reduce VMT, the EIR’s determination of a substantial reduction did not then weigh the value of that reduction compared to its cost. In evaluating whether the substantial reduction as described in the EIR is commensurate with the number of additional units required to reduce this impact, the City Council finds that the reduction in VMT is not large enough to justify the increase in units when compared to the proposed project. The reduction in VMT would be by DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 285
1 percent daily miles per resident, but would require the addition of 132 units to the proposed project’s 155 (i.e., an increase of 85 percent). While the decrease in VMT may be substantial given the conditions of the site, the City finds in weighing the additional units needed that the substantial number of additional units needed for this reduction in VMT is not proportional. That is, the cost substantially outweighs the benefits.

Additionally, while increased density is generally desirable to reduce VMT, the location of higher density within the City is an important consideration. As explained in the Draft EIR, within the nine-county Bay Area, San Mateo County in general is a good place to build housing from a VMT perspective. Jobs are abundant and thus, commute lengths for people who live in the county are generally shorter than elsewhere in the region. However, the project site is located in a primarily single-use neighborhood with few convenient walking or biking options to access shopping, work, education, or other opportunities.

The project site is also not located near any high-quality transit lines, nor does the General Plan designation allow for a mix of land uses or amenities that could reduce the number of vehicle trips or trip lengths for the existing or future residents of the neighborhood, so that it is not ideal for using transit or walking within the larger City. These environmental characteristics result in project trips being made almost exclusively by car. Even though trip lengths may be shorter than the regional average, the share of trips made by car (instead of walking, biking, or transit) prevents compliance with state goals to reduce VMT below current levels as applied for the site itself. Putting additional density on the project site, though it may lower VMT by 1 percent, would also place more residents in an area that is not ideal for transit and walking within the larger City, making the site not ideal for substantially increased density. Therefore, the Council finds this alternative to be infeasible.

5.3 Alternative 2: Reduced Density with Open Space
and Recreation
Description of Alternative: Alternative 2 would provide 112 units, thereby resulting in less of a contribution to the RHNA goals than the proposed project. Alternative 2 would offer a variety of home sizes at a range of sales prices and meet the market demand in the City, consistent with the project sponsor’s objectives. Similar to the proposed project and project variant, this alternative would provide wildland fire protection, maintain existing wooded areas, and be compatible with the existing biological setting, while managing preserved open spaces. This alternative would, therefore, meet all of the project objectives.

Comparison to the Proposed Project: This a
lternative would have similar impacts to the proposed
project except for certain resource areas. There would be fewer total emissions of criteria pollutants because there would be less construction associated with the lower number of units, which could decrease concentrations of pollutants during construction depending on construction scheduling. A decrease in the number of residents could result in fewer vehicle trips and emissions during operation.

As a result, this alternative would result in fewer air quality impacts compared to the proposed project.

Due to reduced housing development under this alternative, Alternative 2 would result in slightly lower energy demand compared to the proposed project. The lower density could increase per-capita VMT and, therefore, also increase GHG emissions.

Construction activities would be the same as the proposed project and project variant but would take place over
a shorter construction window or require fewer daily construction hours, resulting in less noise and vibration impacts than the proposed project or project variant. Noise during operations could DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 286
be slightly reduced due to the decreased density and presence of less residents onsite. Given that the proposed project’s noise impacts during construction would require a suite of measures to reduce noise, reduction of construction noise impacts would be a substantial reduction from than the proposed project.

Findings: The Cou
ncil acknowledges that this alternative was initially determined to be potentially feasible as described in the Draft EIR. However, the Council now finds that this alternative is ultimately infeasible for specific economic, social, environmental, technological, legal or other considerations.

Specifically, this alternative raises concerns related to VMT and underdevelopment of the site that do not address long-term impacts of the proposed project, and in fact worsen them.

Because of the lower d ensity, this alternative is expected to worsen the only significant unavoidable impacts of the proposed project (VMT and GHG emissions). Additionally, the only significant impacts it would reduce are those related to construction (noise, air quality) that are temporary in nature. Further, Alternative 2 would result in 43 fewer housing units (a reduction of about 28 percent) than the proposed project, when development of housing is of critical importance in the City and the region. Therefore, the alternative results in temporary benefits in terms of reductions of significant impacts at a substantial cost in reduction in housing units. Therefore, the Council finds this alternative to be infeasible. 6 Draft Statement of Overriding Considerations

6.1 Introduction
CEQA requires decision-makers to balance the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve a project.

If the specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered acceptable (CEQA Section 21081(b); State CEQA Guidelines 15093). In this case, the lead agency must state in writing the specific reasons to support its action. This “statement of overriding considerations” shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record, shall be included in the record of the project approval, and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. Pursuant to Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, the following Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for the Project.

6.2 Significant or Potentially Significant Effects that Cannot be Mitigated to a Level of Less-Than-
Significant
The EIR identified the following significant impacts of the proposed project which cannot be mitigated to a level of less than significant:

 The project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment (Impact GHG-1).

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 287
 The project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases (Impact GHG-2).  The project would result in a cumulatively considerable impact with regard to GHG emissions during operations.
 The project would conflict or be inconsistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) (Impact TRA-2).
 The project would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a conflict with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b).

6.3 Findings Regarding the Proposed Project and Draft
Statement of Overriding Considerations
The City hereby finds that the following social, legal, environmental and economic benefits of the Project outweigh the significant unavoidable impacts for the following reasons. These benefits, viewed both individually and collectively, outweigh the significant unavoidable adverse effects of implementing the Project.

6.3.1 General Plan Implementation
The Project achieves the intent of General Plan implementing policy OSR-8. As included in the San Bruno General Plan Open Space element, OSR-8 states “During reuse of the former Crestmoor High School site (designated for single-family residential development), preserve the existing playing fields for recreational use per direction of the General Plan Update Committee.” While the proposed project also modifies this General Plan implementing policy to include specifics about dedication of certain land to the City, it nonetheless still fulfills the spirit of implementing policy OSR-8 and comports with implementing policy OSR-8 as currently written because it would preserve the playing fields while reusing the Crestmoor High School site. In this way, the Project would achieve General Plan implementing policy OSR-8.

San Bruno General Plan Implementing Policy LUD-1 aims to “Promote development of single-family housing on former school sites owned by public school districts. Retain existing recreation facilities for resident use, whenever possible.” The project site has also been predominantly vacant since Crestmoor High School’s closure in 1980. Other uses (school, judicial, and daycare) have utilized portions of the campus in more recent history; however, this use was short-term and not the entire facility so that the former Crestmoor High School site was effectively underused. Therefore, this site presents an opportunity for the City to achieve General Plan Implementing Policy LUD-1 at the former Crestmoor High School site.

Finally, San Bruno General Plan Implementing Policy LUD-5 aims to “Allow small-lot single-family housing in new and existing neighborhoods to serve as efficient and compact infill development.” While the project site is currently a former high school campus, the surrounding area is an existing neighborhood. Therefore, the Project as small lot single family housing would help fulfill Implementing Policy LUD-5.

Therefore, as a vehicle to implement the General Plan on the Project site, the Project’s benefits outweigh the significant and unavoidable environmental impacts.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 288

6.3.2 Neighborhood Safety – Wildfire and Hazard Trees
The Project includes long-needed (as identified by the City and the neighbors) vegetation management in the open space areas surrounding the developed areas. The residential component of the project would be designed to the 2022 California Building Standards and Fire Codes as amended by the City of San Bruno. A vegetation management plan would be implemented within the wooded slope area. Vegetation management under both the proposed project and the variant would reduce wildfire risk and other related risks (e.g., tree hazards) on an ongoing basis.

Therefore, as a way to improve neighborhood safety, the Project’s benefits outweigh the significant and unavoidable environmental impacts.

6.3.3 Housing Development
As indicated in the City of San Bruno Housing Element 2023-2031 and Technical Background Report,6 San Bruno has a very low vacancy rate (3.7%) compared to the County (5.1%) and Bay Area (5.5%) that is an indicator of a high demand for housing units in the community. Overcrowding in San Bruno is similar to that of the County and region, with 25-35% of San Bruno residents in households of 4 people or less experiencing some overcrowding. Similar to the rest of the region, San Bruno has aging housing stock, with most units built between 1940 and 1979. These factors indicate a need for new housing units, and the City of San Bruno Housing Element 2023-2031 also identifies a Regional Housing Needs Allocation for the City of 3,165 units, distributed among income categories.

To that end, an objective of this project is to: “Provide housing at a range of income levels (including low- and moderate-income households) that would assist the City in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) targets.” The proposed project would bring into the City 155 units. Additionally, in accordance with the City’s Affordable Housing Program (AHP), the project includes in those 155 units, 24 on-site below market rate (BMR) homes (8 at low-income level and 16 at moderate-income level) spread throughout the two neighborhoods, with 12 BMR homes in each neighborhood. Additionally, the project site has also been predominantly vacant since Crestmoor High School’s closure in 1980. Other uses (school, judicial, and daycare) have utilized portions of the campus in more recent history; however, this use was short-term and not the entire facility. Therefore, this site presents a significant opportunity for housing development in the City. Therefore, as way to increase the housing available in the City at a variety of income levels, the proposed project’s benefits outweigh the significant and unavoidable environmental impacts.

6.3.4 Enhanced Recreation Facilities
The Project achieves the intent of General Plan implementing policy OSR-8. As included in the San Bruno General Plan Open Space element, OSR-8 states “During reuse of the former Crestmoor High School site (designated for single-family residential development), preserve the existing playing fields for recreational use per direction of the General Plan Update Committee.” The proposed project also modifies this General Plan implementing policy to include specifics about dedication of certain land to the City, and also fulfills the spirit of implementing policy OSR-8 and comports with implementing policy 6 City of San Bruno 2023 - 2031 Housing Element. Adopted January 24, 2023. Revised March 2024. https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/5117/Draft-Housing-Element-382024---Copy?bidId=. City of San Bruno 2023 – 2031 Housing Element Technical Background Report. https://sanbruno.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/5118/San-Bruno_6thCycleTBR_HCD_PR_March-2024?bidId=.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 289
OSR-8 as currently written because it would to preserve the playing fields while reusing the Crestmoor High School site. The recreational component gives the City the chance to enhance recreational facilities, which is a rare opportunity given the community is built out. The facilities are currently well used by the community, including two youth soccer organizations as well as residents from nearby neighborhoods.

The proposed project will retain the playing fields on the Crestmoor High School site and allow for the City to upgrade these facilities to better serve the community and its recreational needs.

Therefore, as a vehicle to implement the General Plan and enhance recreational facilities available to the public, the proposed project’s benefits outweigh the significant and unavoidable environmental impacts.

6.3.5 The Benefits of the Proposed Project Outweigh the Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts
As set forth above, the proposed project provides significant benefits to the City and the community as a whole. Among those benefits are (1) implementation of the General Plan; (2) increased neighborhood safety; (3) increased housing in the City; and (4) retention of recreation facilities.

On the other hand, the proposed project has unmitigated adverse environmental impacts related to greenhouse gases and transportation. Implementation of the proposed project will result in the following significant or potentially significant impacts:
 The project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment (Impact GHG-1).  The project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases (Impact GHG-2).  The project would result in a cumulatively considerable impact with regard to GHG emissions during operations.
 The project would conflict or be inconsistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) (Impact TRA-2).
 The project would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a conflict with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b).

While these impacts are considered significant and unavoidable, the City is incorporating several measures in the proposed project aimed to mitigate the effects of the impacts, as described within these Findings. The City has weighed the economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the proposed project against the significant unavoidable impacts of the proposed project identified in the Final EIR.

The City hereby determines that the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the risks and adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project, and further determines that the proposed project’s significant unavoidable impacts are acceptable.

Accordingly, the City adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations, recognizing that significant unavoidable impacts will result from implementation of the proposed project. Having (i) adopted all feasible mitigation measures, as discussed in the Draft EIR, Final EIR, and Findings; (ii) rejected infeasible alternatives to the proposed project, as discussed in the Draft and Final EIR, the Findings, and this Statement of Overriding Considerations; and (iii) recognized the significant unavoidable impacts of the proposed project, the City hereby finds that each of the separate benefits of the proposed project, as DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 290
stated herein, is determined to be unto itself an overriding consideration, independent of other benefits, that warrants approval of the proposed project and outweighs and overrides its significant unavoidable impacts, and thereby justifies the approval of the proposed project.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 291

EXHIBIT B

MITIGATION M

ONITORING REPORTING PLAN (MMRP)

FOR THE
300 PIEDMONT AVENUE PROJECT
DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 292
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is formulated based upon the findings of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the 300 Piedmont Avenue Project (Project). The MMRP, found in the following table, lists mitigation measures recommended in the EIR prepared for the Project and identifies mitigation monitoring and implementation requirements.

This MMRP has been prepared to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6), which requires Lead Agencies making CEQA findings related to approval of a project for which an EIR was prepared/certified to adopt an MMRP when mitigation measures are required to avoid significant impacts. The MMRP is intended to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures identified in the EIR during implementation of the Project.

The MMRP is organized in a matrix format. The first column identifies to which component of the project (i.e., residential or recreation) the mitigation measure applies. The second column contains the mitigation measures. The third column, entitled “Timeframe for Implementation,” refers to when monitoring will occur to ensure that the mitigating action is completed. The fourth column, entitled “Responsibility for Implementation,” refers to the party responsible for implementing the mitigation measure. As explained in greater detail in the EIR, SummerHill Homes (project sponsor) is proposing to develop an approximately 40.2-acre site into a new 155-lot single-family, detached- home community with associated open space and infrastructure located at 300 Piedmont Avenue (project site) in the City. The City also proposes to construct new recreational amenities on a portion of the project site. The project would also demolish the former Crestmoor High School and other existing structures on the project site. Therefore, the EIR contains mitigation measures that may only apply to activities undertaken by the project sponsor, or to activities undertaken by both the project sponsor and the City. This column therefore designates which entity is responsible for implementing the mitigation measure based on to which aspect of the project the mitigation applies, as explained in the EIR. The fifth column, entitled, “Oversight of Implementation,” refers to the party responsible for oversight or ensuring that the mitigation measure is implemented.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 293

Project Component Mitigation Measures Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
Recreation, residential Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Require Implementation of BAAQMD Basic Best Management Practices for Construction-Related Fugitive Dust Emissions The project sponsors shall require their contractors, as a condition of contracts (e.g., standard specifications), to reduce construction-related fugitive dust emissions by implementing BAAQMD’s basic BMPs, including (but not limited to) the following measures.  All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.  All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material offsite shall be covered.  All visible mud or dirt trackout onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.  All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.  All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.  All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.  All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.  Unpaved roads providing access to sites located 100 feet or farther from a paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12-inch layer of compacted wood chips, mulch, or gravel.  Publicly visible signs shall be posted with the telephone number and name of the person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s General Air Pollution Complaints number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

For the residential component of the project, the project sponsor shall submit evidence of compliance to the City prior to grading permit issuance. For the recreational component, the City shall document compliance by its contractor.

Recreation (City): During
construction
Residential (Project
Sponsor): Submit evidence
of compliance prior to
grading permit issuance,
implement during all
construction activities
Recreation
(City):
contractor
Residential
(Project
Sponsor):
project sponsor
City of San
Bruno
Community
Development
Department
Recreation, residential Mitigation Measure BIO-1a: Conduct Preconstruction Survey for Dusky-footed Woodrat and Implement Appropriate Measures Prior to project demolition/construction and prior to the vegetation maintenance activities that could potentially have an impact on woodrat nests, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nests within and adjacent to the project footprint no more than 30 days prior to the onset of construction activities; demolition activities; and vegetation management activities that may impact woodrat nets, as defined in the vegetation management plan with input from a qualified biologist. This survey timing allows for the scheduling of and relocation of woodrat nests, if necessary. The survey shall encompass all construction zones and surrounding lands within 50 feet of these zones.

All identified nests shall be avoided, where possible. Woodrat nests that occur within 50 feet of the project work area shall have a construction-free physical buffer established around them demarcated by flagging, exclusion fencing, or other suitable materials, as determined by a qualified biologist. If avoidance of a nest is not possible, the nest(s) shall be manually relocated when young are not present using the following methods.
 To safely dismantle a nest, the dismantling process shall occur in October through December under the direction of a qualified biologist. If this timing is not feasible or compatible with the timing of construction, the biologist could dismantle the nest at a different time, but if baby woodrats (i.e., pups) are exposed during the process, the nest shall be rebuilt over the pups, and the nest shall be buffered for approximately 3 weeks before dismantling can recommence. To start dismantling, a landscape crew or other qualified crew shall be present onsite with the qualified biologist to clear vegetation for the qualified biologist to access the nest(s). All persons involved in the removal of materials (biologist and landscape crew) shall wear a respirator, long sleeves, and gloves during the disassembling and removal process to reduce the potential for exposure to hantavirus, rotavirus, and other diseases that woodrat nests may contain. Two to three temporary shelters such as an upside-down half-wine barrel or wooden box with rodent-sized opening shall be placed near the nest to be disassembled to provide any evicted woodrats a safe cover (refugia). Deconstruction of the nest shall be conducted by the biologist on the opposite side of the nest as temporary refugia so that woodrats have a direct path to the refugia.  Disassembling work shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in afternoon/evening hours to the extent practicable to limit stress to any evicted woodrats. Deconstructed nest material shall be placed on a tarp to either dispose of it or to use it to rebuild a nest with the same material in a different location. Materials on the tarp shall include structural, nesting chamber, and stored food. Relocation of nests shall be built as close as possible with a center chamber at the bottom with nesting material and food stores with sticks forming a chamber above this. If forming a nest chamber is difficult given the material of the original nest, additional sticks from the surrounding areas can be used or a wooden box with a hole cut for the entrance can be used based on the judgment of the qualified biologist.
 Survey results and any disassembling and relocation work (if needed) shall be documented in a report provided to the city.

Recreation (City): No more
than 30 days prior to, and
during all construction and
demolition activities and
vegetation maintenance
activities that could impact
woodrat nests; implement
buffer if needed during
activity
Residential (Project
Sponsor):

No more than 30 days prior
to, and during all
construction and demolition
activities and vegetation
maintenance activities that
could impact woodrat nests;
implement buffer if needed
during activity
Recreation
(City): Qualified
biologist, City
Residential
(Project
Sponsor):

Qualified
biologist,
project
applicant
City of San
Bruno
Community
Development
Department
Recreation, residential Mitigation Measure BIO-1b: Avoid Impacts on Nesting Birds To address impacts on nesting raptors and migratory birds, project-related activities (i.e., demolition, construction, vegetation management) that occur during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31) should be constrained in the vicinity of any active nests. If tree removal, use of powered equipment (e.g., chainsaws, line trimmers, mowers), or ground-disturbance activities are scheduled to commence during the breeding season, nesting bird surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to identify possible nesting activity. A qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction/pre-activity surveys for nests on any tree, other vegetation, or structure within 500 feet of the project/activity footprint no more than 14 days before demolition, construction, or vegetation management activities begin. If no active nests are found during focused surveys, no further action under this measure will be required. No tree shall be removed or trimmed if an active bird nest is present. If necessary, modifications to the project design to avoid removal of occupied habitat while still achieving project objectives shall be evaluated and implemented to the extent feasible.

If avoidance of the nesting season is not feasible or conflicts with project objectives, demolition, construction, and vegetation management with powered equipment shall be prohibited within a buffer (generally 50 to 100 feet for songbirds and 250 to 500 feet for raptors, depending on the location and the professional judgment of the qualified biologist) of the nest to avoid disturbance until the nest is no longer active. Buffers may be reduced according to the discretion and professional judgment of the qualified biologist. The buffer shall be clearly marked and maintained until the young have fledged and are foraging independently. Prior to construction, demolition, or vegetation management activities, the qualified biologist shall conduct baseline monitoring of each nest to characterize “normal” bird behavior and establish a buffer distance, which allows the birds to exhibit normal behavior. The qualified biologist shall monitor the nesting birds during applicable activities and increase the buffer if birds show signs of unusual or distressed behavior (e.g., defensive flights and vocalizations, standing up from a brooding position, and/or flying away Recreation (City): Prior to,
and during all construction
and demolition activities
during the bird breeding
season (February 1 through
August 31)
Residential (Project
Sponsor):

Prior to, and during all
construction and demolition
activities during the bird
breeding season (February 1
through August 31)
Recreation
(City): Qualified
biologist, City
Residential
(Project
Sponsor):

Qualified
biologist,
project sponsor
City of San
Bruno
Community
Development
Department
DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 294
Project Component Mitigation Measures Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
from the nest). If buffer establishment is not possible, the qualified biologist or construction foreman/vegetation management lead shall have the authority to cease all work in the area until the young have fledged, and the nest is no longer active.

Recreation, residential Mitigation Measure BIO-1c: Avoid Impacts on Bats To address any potential impacts on bats, a preconstruction/predemolition or, for ongoing vegetation management activities, a pretree removal survey for roosting bats shall be conducted within the project/tree removal footprint and within a 50-foot buffer of the project footprint/tree removal footprint within 14 days before the start of those activities. If a nonbreeding or nonwintering bat colony is found, the individuals shall be humanely evicted via the partial dismantlement (two-step removal) of the trees or buildings prior to removal under the direction of a qualified biologist (with specialized knowledge of bats) to ensure that no harm or take would occur to any bats as a result of removal activities. If a maternity colony or overwintering colony is detected in the trees or buildings of the site, then a construction-free/activity-free buffer should be established around the tree(s) and/or building(s) and remain in place until it has been determined that the nursery or overwintering colony is no longer active. The size of the buffer shall be highly dependent on bat species, nesting/roosting location, level of existing disturbances, etc., and shall be decided at the discretion and professional judgment of a qualified biologist.

Recreation (City): Within 14
days of and during all
construction and demolition
activities and vegetation
maintenance activities
involving tree removal;
implement humane eviction
or buffer if needed during
activity
Residential (Project
Sponsor):

Within 14 days of and during
all construction and
demolition activities and
vegetation maintenance
activities involving tree
removal; implement humane
eviction or buffer if needed
during activity
Recreation
(City): Qualified
biologist, City
Residential
(Project
Sponsor):

Qualified
biologist,
project sponsor
City of San
Bruno
Community
Development
Department
Residential MM-BIO-5: Protect Retained Heritage Trees
The project proponent shall establish tree protection zones for retained heritage trees and specific measures to minimize impacts related to tree removal:
 Project Design
 Ensure adequate but not excessive water is supplied to trees; in most cases occasional irrigation will be required. Avoid directing runoff toward trees.  Tree Protection Zones
 Establish a Tree Protection Zone around each tree to be preserved. For trees outside of the project site, the Tree Protection Zone shall be the existing fence line on all sides.  After tree removals are determined among the 182 perimeter trees surveyed, the project’s security fence shall define the Tree Protection Zone. Fences are to remain until all grading and construction is completed. Where demolition must occur close to trees, such as removing curb and pavement, install trunk protection devices such as winding silt sock wattling around trunks or stacking hay bales around tree trunks.
 Any approved grading, construction, demolition, or other work within the Tree Protection Zone should be monitored by the consulting arborist. The arborist shall also determine approval for any root pruning for construction purposes outside the Tree Protection Zone.  All grading within the dripline of trees shall be done using the smallest equipment possible. The equipment shall operate perpendicular to the tree and operate from outside the Tree Protection Zone. Any modifications must be approved and monitored by the consulting arborist.  Open Space Management and Project Operations
 A qualified arborist shall provide input on a management plan for the future open space areas that addresses ongoing management of heritage trees consistent with the guidance in this mitigation measure and with the San Bruno Tree Ordinance. The input shall address actions to protect retained heritage trees during ongoing vegetation management activities.  Use only herbicides safe for use around trees and labeled for that use, even below pavement.

All pruning shall be done by a State of California Licensed Tree Contractor (C61/D49) who is a Certified Arborist or Certified Tree Worker and shall be conducted in accordance with the Best Management Practices for Pruning (International Society of Arboriculture 2002) and adhere to the most recent editions of the American National Standard for Tree Care Operations (Z133.1) and Pruning (A300).

Prior to tree removal,
ongoing for vegetation
management
Project Sponsor City of San
Bruno
Community
Development
Department
Recreation, residential MM-CUL-2a Conduct Cultural Resource Awareness Training Prior to Project-Related Ground Disturbance and Stop Work if Archaeological Deposits Are Encountered During Ground-Disturbing Activities
Prior to any project- or project variant–related ground disturbance, the applicant and/or City shall ensure that all construction workers receive training overseen by a qualified professional archaeologist who is experienced in teaching nonspecialists to ensure that contractors can recognize archaeological resources in the event that any are discovered during construction.

Construction staff directly overseeing excavation, or operating ground-disturbing vehicles during excavation activities, shall be required to participate in this preconstruction training.

Recreation (City): Prior to
ground disturbance for
construction
Residential (Project
Sponsor):

Prior to ground disturbance
for construction
Recreation
(City):
contractor
Residential
(Project
Sponsor):
project sponsor
City of San
Bruno
Community
Development
Department
DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 295
Project Component Mitigation Measures Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
Recreation, residential Mitigation Measure CUL-2b: Stop Work if Buried Cultural Deposits are Encountered During Construction Activities In the event that previously unidentified archaeological, historical, or tribal cultural resources are uncovered during site preparation, excavation, or other construction activity, the applicant and/or City shall cease or ensure the ceasing of all such activity within 50 feet of the discovery until the resources have been evaluated by a qualified professional (cultural resources specialist or archaeologist) and specific measures can be implemented to protect these resources in accordance with PRC Sections 21083.2 and 21084.1.

Work can resume if there is no potential for the resource to qualify as a historical resource. If there is a potential for the resource to be a historical resource, the qualified cultural resources specialist or archaeologist shall prepare an Evaluation Plan.  Prepare an Evaluation Plan: The Evaluation Plan shall be prepared specific to the resource and shall contain procedures used to determine if the discovered resource is an historical resource.

The Evaluation Plan shall include enough discussion of background and context to provide for evaluation of the resource under the historical resource criteria. It shall include a description of procedures that will be used to gather information for the evaluation, which may include but not be limited to excavation, written documentation, interviews, and photography. For any archaeological resource testing, the Evaluation Plan shall describe testing procedures, such as surface collection, test excavations, analysis methods, and reporting procedure.  Implement Evaluation Plan: The evaluation plan shall be implemented in the field, and the subsequent report shall evaluate the resource based on the criteria contained in the Evaluation Plan, making a conclusion whether the resource is historical. If the resource is not historical, protective barriers can be removed and work can continue in the area. If the resource is historical, the qualified cultural resources specialist or archaeologist shall prepare a Data Recovery Plan.  Prepare a Data Recovery Plan: A Data Recovery Plan shall be prepared consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C) and Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. The Data Recovery Plan will contain a description of how data recovery will mitigate impacts on the resource to less than significant. It shall contain a description of level of effort (e.g., quantity of excavation units), excavation procedures, laboratory methods, types of samples to be collected (e.g., sediment), and the techniques that will be used to obtain information about the features of the site that make it a historical resource. Additionally, the Data Recovery Plan shall include a description of the reporting procedure. Once the Data Recovery Plan is completed, field work can commence. Work can resume in the area once the qualified cultural resources specialist/archaeologist determines that no additional information needs to be recovered to satisfy fieldwork, reporting, and documentation requirements to reduce impacts to less than significant.

Prepare a Data Recovery Report: A Data Recovery Report shall be prepared following completion of data recovery field work. The Report shall present results of data recovery, including field methods used, location and size of excavations, and analysis of materials recovered. It shall contain conclusions made based on the field work as well as where any recovered artifacts, samples, and documentation will be curated. Curation facilities must meet requirements of 36 Code of Federal Regulations 79. The Data Recovery Report shall be submitted to the Northwest Information Center, with all impacted known resources recorded on DPR 523 forms.

Recreation (City): During
construction activities
Residential (Project
Sponsor): During
construction activities

Recreation
(City):
contractor
Residential
(Project
Sponsor):
project sponsor
City of San
Bruno
Community
Development
Department
Recreation, residential MM-GEO-5: Provide Construction Personnel Training and Follow Unanticipated Paleontological Resources Discovery Protocol.

Prior to commencement of ground-disturbing activities, project personnel conducting ground-disturbing activities shall receive training regarding the potential for uncovering subsurface paleontological resources (a fossilized bone or other preserved plant or animal remains), work practices for implementing mitigation measures and complying with applicable laws and regulations, and how to recognize possible buried resources. The training shall include a presentation of procedures to follow upon discovery or suspected discovery of paleontological resources, their treatment (described below) and actions that may be taken if there is violation of applicable laws.

Recreation (City): Prior to
ground disturbance for
construction, during
construction activities
Residential (Project
Sponsor): Prior to ground
disturbance for construction,
during construction activities

Recreation
(City):
contractor
Residential
(Project
Sponsor):
project sponsor
City of San
Bruno
Community
Development
Department
Residential Mitigation Measure HAZ-5a: FAA Part 77 Determination or Documentation of Exception for Residential Component The project sponsor for the residential component of the proposed project shall obtain a determination of no-hazard from the FAA when notification under 14 C.F.R. Part 77 is required for any component of the residential portion of the proposed project. The project sponsor shall provide documentation of the FAA finding to the City prior to the use of equipment or installation of structures that require notification under 14 C.F.R. Part 77. Alternatively, the project sponsor can provide documentation that notification is not required under 14 C.F.R. Part 77.9(e) should it be found that new structures “will be shielded by existing structures of a permanent and substantial nature or by natural terrain or topographic features of equal or greater height, and will be located in the congested area of a city, town, or settlement where the shielded structure will not adversely affect safety in air navigation.” Such documentation shall be provided to the City prior to the start of construction of the residential component of the proposed project.

Prior to the use of
equipment or installation of
structures that require
notification under 14 C.F.R.

Part 77
Project Sponsor City of San
Bruno
Community
Development
Department
DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 296
Project Component Mitigation Measures Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
Recreation Mitigation Measure HAZ-5b: FAA Part 77 Determination for Recreation Component The City shall obtain a determination of no-hazard from the FAA when notification under 14 C.F.R. Part 77 is required for any component of the recreation portion of the proposed project, such as the light standards. The City shall obtain documentation of the FAA finding prior to the use of equipment or installation of structures that require notification under 14 C.F.R. 77.

Prior to the use of
equipment or installation of
structures that require
notification under 14 C.F.R.

Part 77
City/Contractor City of San
Bruno
Community
Development
Department
Recreation, residential MM-NOI-1a: Require Construction Noise Reduction Measures The following measures shall be incorporated into the project onsite construction activities in order to ensure compliance with the noise standards pertaining to construction noise contained in the City of San Bruno Municipal Code. In cases where a measure is considered infeasible (e.g., construction is needed outside allowable hours), the Planning Director shall review and approve that determination prior to that activity occurring to verify and track compliance with this measure.  Noise-generating construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., as feasible.  Combined construction noise for activities that take place between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. shall be limited to 85 dBA Leq at a distance of 100 feet from construction activities, as feasible.  Should noise-generating construction activities be required between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., combined construction noise shall be limited to 60 dBA Leq at a distance of 100 feet from construction activities, as feasible.
 Temporary construction noise levels shall not result in an increase of 10 dBA or greater.  Measures to achieve these performance standards include:
 All noise-producing project equipment and vehicles using internal-combustion engines shall be equipped with manufacturers-recommended mufflers and be maintained in good working condition.
 All mobile or fixed noise-producing equipment used on the project site that are regulated for noise output by a federal, state, or local agency shall comply with such regulations while in the course of project activity.
 Electrically powered equipment shall be used instead of pneumatic or internal-combustion-powered equipment, where feasible.  Material stockpiles and mobile equipment staging, parking, and maintenance areas shall be located as far as practicable from existing noise-sensitive uses.  Nearby residences that border the project site, and the church located on the east side of Courtland Drive, shall be notified of construction schedules so that arrangements can be made, if desired, to limit their exposure to short-term increases in ambient noise levels.  The name and telephone number of an onsite construction liaison who is available whenever construction is occurring shall be provided through onsite signage and on the notices mailed/delivered to surrounding land uses. If early morning or nighttime construction occurs, and construction noise during this time is found to be intrusive to the community (i.e., if complaints are received), the construction liaison shall take reasonable efforts in a reasonable amount of time to investigate the source of the noise (including measuring noise levels) and require that sensible measures be implemented to correct the problem.

Recreation (City): During
construction activities
Residential (Project
Sponsor): During
construction activities
Recreation
(City):
contractor
Residential
(Project
Sponsor):
project sponsor
City of San
Bruno
Community
Development
Department
Recreation, residential Mitigation Measure NOI-1b: Install Temporary Noise Barriers In the event that investigation of construction noise-related complaints by the construction liaison required by mitigation measure NOI-1a indicates that project construction activities are resulting in increases in ambient noise levels at nearby residential uses of 10 dBA or more, temporary noise barriers shall be installed as close as possible to the noise source or the receptor and positioned within the direct line-of-sight path between the noise source and nearby sensitive receptor(s), if feasible. In cases where this measure is required but considered infeasible (e.g., construction is needed outside allowable hours and noise barriers cannot be installed), the Planning Director shall review and approve that determination prior to that activity occurring to verify and track compliance with this measure. The barrier should be constructed of material that has a surface weight of at least 1 pound per square foot and has an acoustical rating of at least 25 STC (Sound Transmission Class). This can include a temporary barrier constructed with plywood support on a wood frame, sound curtains supported on a frame, or other comparable material.

Project Component Mitigation Measures Timeframe for
Implementation
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
 Prizes and rewards (bike, carpool, and vanpool)
 Quarterly promotions
 Voluntary Travel Behavior Change Program (includes Commuter Coordinator, annual survey and reporting)  Travel Behavioral Intervention (on-site annual event)  Education, Marketing, and Outreach
 Online HOA Commuter Resource webpage
 Ride-Sharing (carpool matching) Programs (marketing/outreach)  School Pool Programs (marketing/outreach)
 Onsite E-Bike Subsidy Program
The applicant or HOA, as an alternative means of achieving all or a portion of the VMT reductions, has the option to participate in any adopted applicable VMT mitigation fee, bank or exchange program that would allow development projects to offset project VMT impacts by contributing money into a program to fund offsite VMT reducing projects or programs (such as, but not limited to, dedicated bike lanes, community shuttles, transit service improvements, roadway gap closures, or pedestrian network expansion). To be eligible, the mitigation fee, bank, or exchange program would need to meet the following requirements.
 Real/verifiable: Identifies actual projects that would be implemented under the program within a reasonable period of time of the contribution as well as the expected attributable VMT reduction from each project.
 Additional: Projects implemented under the program would not be implemented if not for the financial contribution to the program.  Measurable/Enforceable: Contains VMT reduction metrics that provide for conversion of the financial contribution to the program to an equivalent VMT reduction that can be applied to the project.

The applicant shall implement any presale marketing component of the TDM program commencing upon initial marketing activities. The HOA shall implement the balance of the TDM program commencing upon full occupancy of the residential component of the project.

The Community Development Director may approve modifications to the residential TDM plan proposed by the applicant or the HOA that are consistent with the original findings and conditions approved by the review authority. A request to modify the TDM plan may only be granted if it is demonstrated to be at least as effective as the original TDM plan in furthering the transportation goals of the San Bruno General Plan by promoting and increasing transit use, ridesharing, walking, and bicycling to minimize the number of residents traveling in single-occupant vehicles and improving the mobility and general efficiency of circulation and transportation systems by reducing single-occupant vehicle trips and total VMT within the community and the region.

The residential TDM program shall include annual monitoring and reporting requirements completed by a neutral third party on the effectiveness of the onsite component of the TDM program for the first 5 years after full site buildout. The HOA shall submit an annual report documenting the TDM activities undertaken and their results to the Community Development Director. The Community Development Director or designee shall evaluate the overall effectiveness of all of the TDM activities and may suggest new, modified, or substitute activities that are reasonable, feasible, and appropriate for the residential component of the project, considering the proposed use and its location, to meet the program’s objectives.

Annual reporting requirements include information on the TDM marketing program, site occupancy, resident mode share, work-from-home rates, and use of alternative modes. For the first year after full occupancy, the onsite monitoring report must also include a 24-hour screenline vehicle count across all the residential neighborhood street gateways. This count shall be compared to the trip generation estimates prepared as part of the project EIR and will serve as a guidepost for compliance with the 4 percent onsite reduction target. The HOA may need to supplement the marketing program with other measures if initial monitoring results show limited usage of alternative modes and higher than expected trip counts.

Residential MM-UT-1a: Rehabilitate Sanitary Sewer within Courtland Drive and Whitman Way.

Prior to occupancy of any
residence
Project Sponsor City of San
Bruno
Department of
Public Works
Residential MM-UT-1b: Upgrade Water System Regulator Station 13 In coordination with City of San Bruno Public Works, the proponent of the residential component of the proposed project shall upgrade regulator station RS-13 to meet or exceed the minimum fire flow requirements for the project of 500 gpm. The upgrade will consist of abandoning the existing RS-13, rerouting piping to install a new regulating station in the vicinity of the existing RS-13, with the proper-sized valves, and piping to meet or exceed the minimum fire flow requirement.

Prior to occupancy of any
residence
Project Sponsor City of San
Bruno
Department of
Public Works
DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 298

EXHIBIT C

300 PIEDMONT AVENUE PROJECT FEIR

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 299
FINAL
300 PIEDMONT AVENUE PROJECT

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
P R E P A R E D F O R :

City of San Bruno
567 El Camino Real
San Bruno, CA 94066
P R E P A R E D B Y :

ICF
201 Mission Street, Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94105
April 2024

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 300
ICF. 2024. 300 Piedmont Avenue Project Final Environmental Impact Report.

April. (ICF 104672.0.001.01.005). San Francisco, CA. Prepared for City of San Bruno, San Bruno, CA.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 301

300 Piedmont Avenue Project
Final Environmental Impact Report i April 2024

Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Purpose and Content of this Final EIR.............................................................................. 1-1

1.2 Project Description .......................................................................................................... 1-2

1.3 Major Conclusions of the Environmental Analysis .......................................................... 1-3

1.4 Project Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 1-7

1.5 Organization of the Final EIR ........................................................................................... 1-7 Chapter 2 Comments Received on the Draft EIR ...................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Comment Letter S1: California Department of Transportation District 4 ....................... 2-1

2.2 Comment Letter L1: San Francisco International Airport ................................................ 2-4

2.3 Comment Letter L2: San Mateo Union High School District .......................................... 2-21

2.4 Comment Letter I1: Lawrence Marsili ........................................................................... 2-22

2.5 Comment Letter I2: Jeffery D ......................................................................................... 2-23

2.6 Comment Letter I3: Lisa H ............................................................................................. 2-24

2.7 Comment Letter I4: Robert S ......................................................................................... 2-25

2.8 Comment Letter PC1: Commissioner Harman ............................................................... 2-26

2.9 Comment Letter PC2: Commissioner Kuhn ................................................................... 2-27

2.10 Comment Letter PC3: Commissioner Lethin .................................................................. 2-28

2.11 Comment Letter PC4: Commissioner Durazo ................................................................ 2-29

2.12 Comment Letter PC5: Commissioner Biasotti ............................................................... 2-30

2.13 Comment Letter PC6: Commissioner Madden .............................................................. 2-31 Chapter 3 Responses to Comments.................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 State Agencies .................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1.1 S1, Caltrans ...................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Local Agencies .................................................................................................................. 3-3

3.2.1 L1, SFO ............................................................................................................................. 3-3

3.2.2 L2, SMUHSD ..................................................................................................................... 3-6

3.3 Individuals ........................................................................................................................ 3-6

3.3.1 I1, Lawrence Marsili ......................................................................................................... 3-6

3.3.2 I2, Jeffery D. ..................................................................................................................... 3-7

3.3.3 I3, Lisa H. .......................................................................................................................... 3-7

3.3.4 I4, Robert S. .................................................................................................................... 3-10

3.4 Planning Commission ..................................................................................................... 3-11

3.4.1 PC1, Commissioner Harman .......................................................................................... 3-11

3.4.2 PC2, Commissioner Kuhn ............................................................................................... 3-12

3.4.3 PC3, Commissioner Lethin ............................................................................................. 3-13 DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 302
City of San Bruno

Contents

300 Piedmont Avenue Project
Final Environmental Impact Report ii April 2024

3.4.4 PC4, Commissioner Durazo ............................................................................................ 3-14

3.4.5 PC5, Commissioner Biasotti ........................................................................................... 3-15

3.4.6 PC6, Commissioner Madden .......................................................................................... 3-15 Chapter 4 Revisions to the Draft EIR ................................................................................................ 4-1

4.1 Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Project Description .......................................................................................................... 4-1

4.3 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................ 4-1

4.4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................... 4-2

4.5 Public Services.................................................................................................................. 4-3

4.6 Alternatives Analysis ........................................................................................................ 4-3

4.7 Other CEQA Considerations ............................................................................................. 4-4

4.8 References ....................................................................................................................... 4-5 Attachment 1. Additional Transportation Information
Attachment 2. Revised Arborist Report
DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 303
City of San Bruno

Contents

300 Piedmont Avenue Project
Final Environmental Impact Report iii April 2024

Tables
2-1 List of Commenters and Location of Responses ........................................................................... 2-1 3-1 Updated Tree Removal Quantities ............................................................................................. 3-13

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 304
City of San Bruno

Contents

300 Piedmont Avenue Project
Final Environmental Impact Report iv April 2024

Acronyms and Abbreviations
AB Assembly Bill
AHP Affordable Housing Program
AIA Airport Influence Area
ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BMP best management practice
BMR below market rate
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resource Board
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
City City of San Bruno
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibels
Draft EIR draft environmental impact report
EIR environmental impact report
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
Final EIR final environmental impact report
GHG greenhouse gas
HOA homeowner's association
Leq equivalent sound level
PM2.5 particles less than 2.5 microns in diameter
PM10 particles less than 10 microns in diameter
project 300 Piedmont Avenue Project
project site 300 Piedmont Avenue
project sponsor SummerHill Homes
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation
SB State Bill
SFBAAB San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
SFO San Francisco International Airport
SMUHSD San Mateo Union High School District
TDM Transportation Demand Management
TSPC Traffic, Safety and Parking Committee
VMT vehicle miles traveled

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 305

300 Piedmont Avenue Project
Final Environmental Impact Report 1-1 April 2024

Chapter 1
Introduction
This final environmental impact report (Final EIR) has been prepared by the City of San Bruno (City), as lead agency, in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines (CCR Section 15132). This Final EIR contains responses to comments received on the draft environmental impact report (Draft EIR) for the 300 Piedmont Avenue Project (project). The Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR and this document, which includes comments on the Draft EIR, responses to those comments, and revisions to the Draft EIR.

1.1 Purpose and Content of this Final EIR
The purpose of the responses-to-comments document is to address concerns raised about the environmental effects of the project and the process by which the City conducted the CEQA process.

Section 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines stipulates that responses should pertain to major or significant environmental issues raised by commenters. Under CEQA, the City is required, after completion of a Draft EIR, to consult with and obtain comments from public agencies having jurisdiction by law with respect to the proposed project and provide the general public with an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR.

As required by CEQA, the Draft EIR was made available to the public and regulatory agencies for review and comment during a 45-day period between October 20, 2023 and December 5, 2023. A presentation summarizing the 300 Piedmont Avenue Project and the Draft EIR was provided, and staff were available to answer questions of a general nature at a Planning Commission meeting on October 26, 2023.

As the lead agency, the City is also required to respond to significant environmental issues raised in the review and consultation process. This responses-to-comments document has been prepared to respond to public agency and general public comments received on the Draft EIR, which was circulated for a 45-day public review period between October 20, 2023, and December 5, 2023. A Planning Commission meeting was held on October 26, 2023, to provide information about the Draft EIR, respond to general questions about the Draft EIR analysis, and accept oral comments on the Draft EIR. Consistent with Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Final EIR consists of the following contents:

1. The Draft EIR or a revision of that draft.

2. Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in a summary.

3. A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR.

4. The response of the lead agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process.

5. Any other information added by the lead agency.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 306
City of San Bruno

Introduction

300 Piedmont Avenue Project
Final Environmental Impact Report 1-2 April 2024

1.2 Project Description
SummerHill Homes (project sponsor) is proposing to develop an approximately 40.2-acre site into a new 155-lot single-family, detached-home community with associated open space and infrastructure located at 300 Piedmont Avenue (project site) in the City. The City also proposes to construct new recreational amenities on a portion of the project site. The project would also demolish the former Crestmoor High School and other existing structures on the project site.

In addition, pursuant to a settlement agreement between the City and the San Mateo Union High School District, the owner of the project site, the EIR analyzes a variant to the project that reflects:
(1) dedication of a 6.47-acre portion of the project site’s wooded slope area to the City as publicly accessible open space, which would thereafter be maintained by the City; (2) retention of approximately 7.5 acres of sloped area as private open space; and (3) dedication of an approximately 4.6 acre space to the City for athletic field and recreational supportive uses. Overall, the variant would result in 12.24 acres of publicly accessible open space as compared to the 19.2 acres of publicly accessible open space and would shift maintenance obligations for 6.47 acres of sloped wooded area from the property owner to the City.

The project site currently contains the former and currently unoccupied Crestmoor High School, constructed in 1962, as well as playing fields, parking lots, a storage lot, school district maintenance facilities, and unimproved sloping wooded open space. The San Mateo Union High School District currently leases the playing fields on a short-term basis to private soccer clubs for youth soccer games and practices. The playing fields are improved with natural grass.

The residential component of the project would include 155 homes. The project would result in an effective density of 3.86 dwelling units per gross acre on the 40.2-acre project site. The proposed building heights for the homes would be up to 28 feet (two stories). The residential component of the project would be divided into two neighborhoods with varying lot sizes. One neighborhood would include 63 four-bedroom homes ranging from approximately 1,900 to 2,300 square feet of living space with typical lot sizes of 3,000 square feet. The second neighborhood would include 92 four-bedroom homes ranging from approximately 2,200 square feet to 2,700 square feet of living space with typical lots sizes of 2,850 and 3,375 square feet. In accordance with the City’s Affordable Housing Program (AHP), the project includes 24 on-site below market rate (BMR) homes (8 at low- income level and 16 at moderate-income level) spread throughout the two neighborhoods, with 12 BMR homes in each neighborhood.

The proposed project would include dedication of approximately 6.91 acres of public open space to the City, which the City would own and maintain, as shown Draft EIR Chapter 2, Figure 2-2. The City would also construct improvements within about 5.3 acres of the 6.91 acres of the dedicated open space area in the northern area of the project site, including a sports field with permanent nighttime lighting fixtures. The other 1.61 acres along Courtland Drive would be improved by the City and would be available for recreational supportive uses. Parking would be provided along Courtland Drive, within the recreational parcel, and along the northern extent of the residential ring road.

The field would be striped to allow reconfiguration of fields to accommodate various sizes of fields.

The Crestmoor Fields Master Plan was recently approved by the San Bruno City Council. The field design could use synthetic turf or natural grass and would allow for a maximum of six soccer fields in use at any one time. Another option would include striping for up to two little league baseball DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 307
City of San Bruno

Introduction

300 Piedmont Avenue Project
Final Environmental Impact Report 1-3 April 2024

fields and five soccer fields, allowing for a maximum of two little league games or five soccer games to occur at one time.

The project variant would include dedication of approximately 12.24 acres of land to the City for public open space (approximately 6.47 sloped acres and approximately 4.58 rough graded acres for the playing fields, and 1.19 acres for recreational supportive uses), while the private open space in the sloped wooded areas would be about 7.51 acres. The playing fields and other recreational uses would be the same as under the proposed project, except that the graded area in the dedicated open space for recreation use would be about 1.14 acres smaller than under the proposed project. A vegetation management plan would still be implemented in the portion of the wooded slope area dedicated to the City.

Vehicular circulation would be provided to the project site from Piedmont Avenue at the southern entrance and Courtland Drive at its northern entrance. Interstate 280 (I-280) runs directly east of Courtland Drive, with the San Bruno Chinese Church located between Courtland Drive and I-280 near the northern entrance to the project site. Courtland Drive, a private driveway with a public access easement that would become a public right-of-way of about 2.9 acres, would be reconstructed and realigned to meet the City’s design standards as part of the project. Circulation in the proposed project would be provided via a ring road around the perimeter of the proposed residential lots, with east–west drives throughout. The project variant would be the same as the proposed project, except that under the project variant, Courtland Drive would be a public street parcel with no recreation-supportive improvements. Courtland Drive right-of-way would instead be

2.1 acres.

1.3 Major Conclusions of the Environmental Analysis
The Draft EIR identified the following significant impacts related to the project.  Impact AQ-1: Air Quality (cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant). Project construction activities, such as demolition, rough grading, and material hauling, would generate fugitive dust emissions (i.e., particles less than 2.5 microns in diameter [PM2.5] and particles less than 10 microns in diameter [PM10]). As noted in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) 2022 State CEQA Guidelines, projects implementing the BAAQMD-recommended basic best management practices (BMPs) for construction-related fugitive dust emissions are considered to have a less-than-significant criteria air pollutant impact related to construction-generated fugitive dust emissions (BAAQMD 2023b). As such, before the inclusion of feasible BAAQMD-identified BMPs, the proposed project’s construction- generated fugitive dust emissions would be considered significant, and mitigation would be required. Mitigation measure AQ-1 requires the implementation of BAAQMD’s basic BMPs. Thus, implementation of mitigation measure AQ-1 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level, and both the project and variant’s impact with respect to construction-generated fugitive dust emissions would be less than significant with mitigation.  Impact BIO-1: Biological Resources (candidate, sensitive, or special-status species).

Construction or demolition activity, and operation of the proposed project and project variant may harm or result in mortality to San Francisco dusky-footed woodrats, or in nest abandonment, and is considered a significant impact under CEQA. Most nests are present in the wooded area and could potentially be removed or disturbed by vegetation management work DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 308
City of San Bruno

Introduction

300 Piedmont Avenue Project
Final Environmental Impact Report 1-4 April 2024

during construction. These impacts would be potentially significant. Mitigation measure BIO- 1a would be implemented to reduce the potential for impacts on San Francisco dusky-footed woodrats. Tree removal and project and project variant construction could potentially remove habitat or disturb nests of nesting or migratory birds. Construction impacts would be potentially significant, because of the potential to remove active nests. Impacts would be less than significant after implementing mitigation measure BIO-1b. Tree removal or ground disturbance activities during construction and demolition could disturb active nests and result in mortality of roosting bats. Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1c would reduce impacts under both the project and project variant to less than significant with mitigation.  Impact BIO-5: Biological Resources (local policies or ordinances). Activities such as grading, installation of utilities, and construction of new homes may damage adjacent tree crowns and roots adjacent to the project area, which could potentially damage heritage trees.

This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation measure BIO-5 includes guidelines that would be implemented to mitigate any potential impact on surrounding trees caused by the project or project variant. Through designation of a tree protection zone and modification of activities to reduce potential impacts, these impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
 Impact CUL-2: Cultural Resources (archaeological resources). The presence of two precontact midden deposits within 0.25 mile of the project site indicates increased potential for encountering as-yet undocumented archaeological deposits during construction-related ground disturbance, which would be potentially significant. Implementation of mitigation measure CUL-2a and mitigation measure CUL-2b would reduce this potentially significant impact on archaeological resources during construction of both the project and project variant to less- than-significant with mitigation by ensuring that project activities would not result in the inadvertent destruction of an archaeological resource.
 Impact GEO-5: Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources (unique paleontological resource). While there are no known paleontological resources or unique geologic features on the project site, the site is underlain by the Merced Formation. This geologic unit is known to contain fossils. As a result, ground-disturbing activities such as grading and excavation in areas with native substrate may destroy or damage paleontological resources, which would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measure GEO-5 would ensure that workers are informed of the procedures to follow should they encounter subsurface paleontological resources. It also ensures that work is halted until all appropriate procedures are followed in the event that paleontological resources are discovered. Mitigation measure GEO-5 would reduce impacts from ground-disturbing activities under the project and the project variant. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.  Impact GHG-1: Greenhouse Gas Emissions (greenhouse gas emissions). Even with implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program through mitigation measure TRA-2, the project and project variant would result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to operational greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. The project and project variant would exceed the threshold of 12.4 daily miles per resident, or 15 percent below the regional average vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for the region of 14.6 daily miles per resident. At 14.7 miles per resident, the project would result in a rate of VMT that exceeds the regional average by 0.1 mile per capita and exceeds the threshold by 2.3 miles per capita. There are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce project-generated VMT beyond mitigation measure TRA-2. Thus, the project and project DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 309
City of San Bruno

Introduction

300 Piedmont Avenue Project
Final Environmental Impact Report 1-5 April 2024

variant would not result in a VMT reduction relative to the regional average; rather, it would result in a VMT increase. This impact would be significant and unavoidable.  Impact GHG-2: Greenhouse Gas Emissions (applicable plan, policy, or regulation). The California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2022 Scoping Plan identifies the state’s path to keep California on track to meet its State Bill (SB) 32 GHG reduction target of at least 40 percent below 1990 emissions by 2030, as well as to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 and a reduction in anthropogenic emissions to 85 percent below 1990 levels. The project would not be consistent with CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan, as it would not incorporate all of the Scoping Plan– identified project attributes. Specifically, the project and project variant would not provide residential parking supply at a ratio of less than one parking space per dwelling unit. It would not be feasible to reduce the residential parking supply at the project site, as described in Impact TRA-2. Moreover, the project and project variant would not meet the Scoping Plan–identified affordable housing standard. Thus, the project would be inconsistent with two of the CARB- identified project attributes related to VMT reduction. There are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce project-generated VMT beyond mitigation measure TRA-2. Therefore, the project and project variant would conflict with state, regional, or local plans to achieve the GHG reduction goals mandated by SB 32 for the year 2030 and Assembly Bill (AB) 1279 for the year 2030 and 2045. This impact would be significant and unavoidable.  Impact HAZ-5: Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Airport Land Use Plan). The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for San Francisco International Airport (SFO) indicates the project site’s imaginary surface in the project area is between 162.3 and 200 feet above mean sea level (amsl). Given that the site itself ranges from 380 to 430 feet amsl, the ALUCP indicates the terrain penetrates the airspace surface. As a result, the proposed project and variant may pose airspace safety concerns and a potentially significant impact. Mitigation measure HAZ-5a would apply to the residential component of the project and would require either a finding of no-hazard from the Federal Aviation Administration or documentation that site conditions are such that notification is not required because there would be no safety hazard due to existing shielding. For the recreational component, mitigation measure HAZ-5b requires obtaining a finding of no-hazard from the Federal Aviation Administration due to the height of light standards and the addition of new lighting. These components would be the same under the proposed project and the project variant. As a result, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation.
 Impact NOI-1: Noise (ambient noise). Even though project construction activities are not predicted to exceed the San Bruno Municipal Code standards applicable to project construction, because construction could result in short-term increases in average ambient noise levels exceeding 10 A-weighted decibels (dBA) at nearby residences during worst-case construction noise-generating activities, this impact is considered potentially significant for both the proposed project and project variant. Mitigation measures NOI-1a and NOI-1b require implementation of several measures to reduce noise as experienced at nearby sensitive uses during construction. The mitigation measures are anticipated to reduce the increase in average noise levels at the nearest residences during construction of the project and variant to less than 10 dBA, which is below the significance criteria. As a result, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation.
 Impact TRA-2: Transportation (State CEQA Guidelines). The project would result in a significant impact related to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) if it would lead to VMT per resident higher than 15 percent below the existing regional average of 14.6 DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 310
City of San Bruno

Introduction

300 Piedmont Avenue Project
Final Environmental Impact Report 1-6 April 2024

VMT per resident. Because the City of San Bruno has not adopted separate VMT threshold standards, the EIR uses the OPR-recommended VMT per resident threshold of 15 percent reduction compared to the current regional (nine-county Bay Area) average. Using the C/CAG VMT Estimation Tool, the estimated VMT per resident with the project is estimated to be 14.7 daily miles per resident. This is well above the significance threshold and much closer to the current regional average; therefore, the project would result in a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation measure TRA-2 would require the neighborhood homeowner’s association (HOA) to implement a TDM program in conjunction with the development application. Because a VMT mitigation fee, bank, or exchange program does not currently exist, at this time additional mitigation through financial contribution is not feasible. As a result, the VMT impacts associated with the proposed project and the project variant would be significant and unavoidable.  Impacts TCR-1 and TCR-2: Tribal Cultural Resources (Tribal Cultural Resources). The presence of two precontact midden deposits, one of which contained Native American human remains, within 0.25 mile of the project site indicates increased potential for encountering as- yet undocumented tribal cultural resources deposits during project-related ground disturbance.

This impact would be potentially significant for both the proposed project and variant. Under the proposed project and variant, implementation of mitigation measures CULT-2a and CULT-2b (as described in Draft EIR Section 3.4) would reduce the project and variant impacts on tribal cultural resources to less-than-significant with mitigation.  Impact UT-1: Utilities (relocation of construction of a new or expanded facility). The addition of wastewater from 155 residences on site would substantially increase the volume of wastewater conveyed through sewage pipes by quadrupling the number of homes discharging wastewater into sewer lines. Therefore, there is a potential for additional flows to both exacerbate existing degraded conditions (aging pipes, root intrusion) as well as not to meet fire flow requirements. This impact would be potentially significant. Future water use at the fields would be similar to or less than current use. If turf is synthetic, then water use would decrease.

If turf is natural grass, then water use would likely stay the same with irrigation, restroom use, and other incidental water consumption. However, without the improvement related to the residential development, impacts related to water pressure under both the project and variant would be potentially significant. Mitigation measures UT-1a and UT-1b would be implemented to reduce the impacts to less than significant with mitigation.  Cumulative Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts. Even with implementation of a TDM program through mitigation measure TRA-2, the proposed project and project variant would result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to GHG emissions during operations, and there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact.  Cumulative Transportation Impacts. The proposed project and variant VMT per resident would be 14.7 VMT per resident, which exceeds the threshold of 15 percent below the existing regional average of 14.6 VMT per resident. With implementation of the TDM program under Mitigation Measure TRA-2, alternative modes would be encouraged, the use of single-occupant vehicles would be discouraged, and the impact of additional vehicles generated by the project would be lessened. However, as explained in Impact TRA-2, impacts would be significant and unavoidable. As a result, the proposed project’s and project variant’s contribution would be cumulatively considerable.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 311
City of San Bruno

Introduction

300 Piedmont Avenue Project
Final Environmental Impact Report 1-7 April 2024

1.4 Project Alternatives
The EIR discusses and analyzes the No Project Alternative, Increased Density with ADUs and Open Space and Recreation Alternative, and Reduced Density with Open Space and Recreation Alternative.

Furthermore, the EIR analyzes the impacts of the alternatives and compares the significant impacts of the alternatives to the significant environmental impacts of the project as proposed. These alternatives are described in more detail in Draft EIR Chapter 5, Alternatives.  Increased Density with ADUs and Open Space and Recreation Alternative. The Increased Density with ADUs and Open Space and Recreation alternative would increase housing density to reduce per-capita VMT. This alternative would construct 287 units located in two neighborhoods.
 Reduced Density with Open Space and Recreation Alternative. The Reduced Density with ADUs and Open Space and Recreation alternative would result in 112 units at the project site and include BMR homes spread throughout the two neighborhoods.  No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative compares the impacts of the proposed project to what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the proposed project is not approved and development continues to occur in accordance with existing plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)).

1.5 Organization of the Final EIR
This document addresses substantive comments received during the public review period and consists of five sections.
 Chapter 1, Introduction. Reviews the purpose and contents of the responses-to-comments document.
 Chapter 2, List of Commenters. Lists the public agencies and City of San Bruno Planning Commissioners who submitted and made comments on the Draft EIR.  Chapter 3, Responses to Comments. Contains each comment letter and written responses to the individual comments. Specific comments within each comment letter have been bracketed and enumerated in the margin of the letter. Each commenter has been assigned a discrete comment letter number, as listed in Chapter 2. Generally, the responses provide explanatory information or additional discussion of the text contained in the Draft EIR. In some instances, the response supersedes or supplements the text of the Draft EIR for accuracy or clarification.

This chapter shows revisions to the Draft EIR in response to comments. Where a comment repeats a previous comment, the response refers to the response previously given.  Chapter 4, Other Revisions to the Draft EIR. Provides a listing of the text changes to the Draft EIR that resulted from City-initiated changes. New text that has been added to the Draft EIR is indicated with underlining. Text that has been deleted is indicated with strikethrough.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 312
DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 313
Chapter 2
Comments Received on the Draft EIR
This chapter includes a list of the public agencies, planning commissioners, and individuals who commented on the draft environmental impact report (Draft EIR) (Table 2-1), as well as the actual comment letters submitted. The comment letters have been numbered as shown in Table 2-1 and include letters and emails. The individual comments within each letter have been numbered in the margin. There is a response for each comment in Chapter 3, Responses to Comments.

Table 2-1. List of Commenters
Letter # Commenter
State Agencies
S1 California Department of Transportation District 4
Local Agencies
L1 San Francisco International Airport
L2 San Mateo Union High School District
Individuals
I1 Lawrence Marsili
I2 Jeffery D.

I3 Lisa H
I4 Robert S.

Planning Commission
PC1 Commissioner Harman
PC2 Commissioner Kuhn
PC3 Commissioner Lethin
PC4 Commissioner Durazo
PC5 Commissioner Biasotti
PC6 Commissioner Madden
DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 314

2.1 Comment Letter S1: California Department of
Transportation District 4

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 315
DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 316

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 317

2.2 Comment Letter L1: San Francisco International
Airport

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 318

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 319

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 320

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 321

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 322

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 323

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 324

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 325

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 326

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 327

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 328

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 329

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 330

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 331

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 332

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 333

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 334

2.3 Comment Letter L2: San Mateo Union High
School District

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 335

2.4 Comment Letter I1: Lawrence Marsili

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 336

2.5 Comment I2: Jeffery D

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 337

2.6 Comment I3: Lisa H

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 338

2.7 Comment Letter I4: Robert S

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 339

2.8 Comment PC1: Commissioner Harman

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 340

2.9 Comment PC2: Commissioner Kuhn

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 341

2.10 Comment PC3: Commissioner Lethin

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 342

2.11 Comment PC4: Commissioner Durazo

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 343

2.12 Comment PC5: Commissioner Biasotti

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 344

2.13 Comment PC6: Commissioner Madden

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 345

300 Piedmont Avenue Project
Final Environmental Impact Report 3-1 April 2024

Chapter 3
Responses to Comments
This chapter includes responses for each of the numbered comments identified in the comment letters in Chapter 2, Comments Received on the Draft EIR. The responses also identify if revisions to the draft environmental impact report (Draft EIR) are required. These changes and staff-initiated changes are included in Chapter 4, Text Revisions to the Draft EIR.

3.1 State Agencies

3.1.1 S1, Caltrans
S1-1
The comment does not contain questions or concerns regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis and instead is an introduction to the comment letter. Therefore, no substantive response is required.

S1-2
The comment’s acknowledgement that the Crestmoor, 300 Piedmont Avenue Project (project)’s analysis of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and travel demand is consistent with the Office of Planning and Research’s technical advisory. The acknowledgement that the proposed project would have significant and unavoidable impact with respect to VMT is consistent with the EIR’s analysis; therefore, the comment requires no substantive response.

Regarding recommended mitigation measures to consider along with the proposed Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program in the EIR, the strategies in the proposed TDM program were selected from and quantified using the CAPCOA Handbook mentioned in the comment.

All of the strategies listed as suggestions in the comment were considered but ruled out as mitigation for one or more reasons.
 Increased density. The EIR considers an alternative with increased density as explained in response to comment L1-3.
 Increased location efficiency, increased mixed-use development. These strategies involve a change in the nature of the project and would also conflict with the project objectives to redevelop the site with a residential neighborhood and provide recreation fields. Additionally, a mixed-use development would be inconsistent with the General Plan designation and zoning.

While the proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment and zoning map amendment, these amendments are to modify provisions regarding open space. The residential designation of the site would remain and would not accommodate mixed use. As a result, this is not considered feasible mitigation.
 Improved bicycle network and transit access (increased transit accessibility and bus rapid transit). The nearest transit stop is 0.5 mile away and there are no existing bicycle DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 346
City of San Bruno

Responses to Comments

300 Piedmont Avenue Project
Final Environmental Impact Report 3-2 April 2024

facilities within 0.5 mile. This project alone as a singular project site cannot provide a useful bike or transit network. Shuttles to transit are also impractical for single-family homes in this location given the availability of low-cost parking at regional rail stations and because the ease of driving would likely minimize the demand for shuttles that could be perceived as less convenient due to frequency. Moving the project itself closer to the bicycle network and transit access would conflict with a key project objective of redeveloping the underutilized site of the former Crestmoor High School. As a result, improved bicycle network and transit access through moving the proposed project is not considered feasible mitigation.  Pedestrian network improvements. Pedestrian network improvements are already part of the proposed project. The project would provide sidewalks and crosswalks throughout the two residential neighborhoods and improve the condition of the sidewalks and crosswalks adjacent to the recreation area. As a result, improvement of the pedestrian network does not need to be included as mitigation.

S1-3
The comment does not contain questions or concerns regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis and instead explains the City of San Bruno’s responsibility for project mitigation. Therefore, no substantive response is required.

S1-4
The comment states that a California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) transportation permit is required for the movement of oversized or excessive load vehicles on state roadways.

The comment does not contain questions or concerns regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis and instead explains oversized and excessive load permit requirements and the potential need to develop a Transportation Management Plan with Caltrans. The requirements are noted, and the developer of each project component (i.e., residential and recreational) would be responsible for obtaining all necessary permits and approvals.

S1-5
The comment expresses appreciation for the opportunity to comment and involvement in the environmental review process. The comment does not contain questions or concerns regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis. No substantive response is required.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 347
City of San Bruno

Responses to Comments

300 Piedmont Avenue Project
Final Environmental Impact Report 3-3 April 2024

3.2 Local Agencies

3.2.1 L1, SFO
L1-1
The comment repeats information found in the project description to demonstrate understanding of the project. The comment does not contain questions or concerns regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis. No substantive response is required.

L1-2
Refer to response to comment L1-5.

L1-3
The commenter’s statement regarding the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) contour is consistent with the conclusion in Impact NOI-3 in the Draft EIR. On pages 3.11-27 through 3.11-38, the Draft EIR states, “Because the project site is outside of all airport contours according to the ALUCP (as shown in Appendix F, Noise Technical Report, Figure 6), the project would not conflict with the land use restrictions in the ALUCP.”
The commenter’s statements regarding critical aeronautical surfaces are also generally consistent with the analysis in Impact HAZ-5 on Draft EIR pages 3.8-11 through 3.8-12, save for minor differences in elevation that have no bearing on the impact conclusion. That discussion in the Draft EIR concludes, “Therefore, the proposed project and variant would not conflict with the Airspace Compatibility Policies of the SFO ALUCP.”
The commenter’s statement regarding Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) airspace review is consistent with the analysis in Impact HAZ-5 on Draft EIR pages 3.8-12 through 3.8-13, including mitigation measures HAZ-5a and HAZ-5b, which address FAA airspace review for the residential and recreation components, respectively, of the project.

The commenter’s statements regarding Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) Policy AP-4 and the field lighting are consistent with the analysis on Draft EIR page 3.8-12.

Because the information provided by the commenter is consistent with the information in the Draft EIR, no revisions or additional responses are necessary.

L1-4
Alternative 4 contemplates a project with residences constructed at the maximum density across the project site. As explained on Draft EIR page 4-20, this would include approximately 321 units on the site, one unit more than suggested by the commenter. As explained on pages 4-20 through 4-21 of the Draft EIR, this alternative does not meet a critical objective of the proposed project (i.e., providing recreational fields and other public facilities and amenities to provide recreational opportunities) and would not avoid or substantially reduce a significant impact of the proposed project. Therefore, the alternative does not meet CEQA requirements for alternatives and was, therefore, rejected from further consideration.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 348
City of San Bruno

Responses to Comments

300 Piedmont Avenue Project
Final Environmental Impact Report 3-4 April 2024

Note that Alternative 1 contemplates increased density compared to the proposed project and was carried forward for full evaluation in the Draft EIR. It includes a total of 287 units, as described on Draft EIR page 4-4, constructed within the same neighborhoods as the proposed project. As explained in the Draft EIR, this alternative meets all requirements under CEQA related to alternatives, including meeting most of the basic project objectives, avoiding or substantially reducing a significant impact of the proposed project, and being potentially feasible. The City of San Bruno does have the potential for development of high-density residential projects within its jurisdictional boundaries; however, the proposed project location does not include qualities common to maximum density residential projects. Higher density residential projects are typically found within urban development areas that include easy pedestrian access to commercial opportunities and services, such as alternative modes of transportation (e.g., BART). Therefore, while the Draft EIR does not consider a maximum density alternative as suggested by the commenter, it does bring forward an increased density alternative catering to the limitations of the proposed project site location. The opinions presented by the commenter supporting increased density are included in the record for consideration by decision-makers.

L1-5
The following revisions have been made in response to this comment on pages 3.8-5 through 3.8-6 of the Draft EIR.

The proposed project site is inside Airport Influence Areas A and B as defined by the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport (SFO ALUCP). Each airport/land use compatibility plan (ALUCP) is required to contain policies and criteria to address three key issues: (a) aircraft noise impacts, (b) safety compatibility criteria, and (c) height of structures/airspace protection (Ricondo & Associates 2012).

Note that the project area’s location in Airport Influence Area (AIA) A is already stated elsewhere in the Draft EIR. For example, Draft EIR page 3.10-2 states:

The project site falls within Airport Influence Areas (AIA) A and B of San Francisco International Airport (SFO). Area A includes the entirety of San Mateo County, all of which is overflown by aircraft flying to or from SFO at least once per week at altitudes of 10,000 feet or fewer above mean sea level.

Area B lies within Area A and contains areas exposed to aircraft noise above the 65 decibel (dB) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) contour or lying below critical airspace (City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County 2012).

Therefore, the addition of the information about the project area being within AIA A is not new information. It also does not change any of the impact analysis in the Draft EIR.

The following revision has also been made to page 7-13 of the Draft EIR to correct the author of a reference, consistent with the revision to the author on pages 3.8-5 through 3.8-6 described above.

Ricondo & Associates. 2012. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. Available: Consolidated_CCAG_ALUCP_November-20121.pdf.

The following revisions were made to page 3.8-7 of the Draft EIR in response to this comment.

Airports
The closest airport to the project is SFO, which is located adjacent to San Bruno, just east of Highway 101. SFO is approximately 1.6 miles east of the project site and has a total of four runways (City of San Bruno 2009). The project is inside the Airport Influence Area (AIA) A as defined by the SFO ALUCP. The policy that applies in AIA A is (C/CAG):

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 349
City of San Bruno

Responses to Comments

300 Piedmont Avenue Project
Final Environmental Impact Report 3-5 April 2024

IP-1, Airport Influence Area A – Real Estate Disclosure Area: Within Area A, the real estate disclosure requirements of state law apply. Section 11010 of the Business and Professions Code requires people offering subdivided property for sale or lease to disclose the presence of all existing and planned airports within two miles of the property. The law requires that, if the property is within an “airport influence area” designated by the Airport Land Use Commission, the following statement must be included in the notice of intention to offer the property for sale:

NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY
This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an airport influence area. For that reason, the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (for example, noise, vibration, or odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport annoyances, if any, are associated with the property before you complete your purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to you.

The project is inside the Airport Influence Area (AIA) B as defined by the SFO ALUCP (Sinha 2023).

The policy that applies in AIA B is (C/CAG 2012).

IP-2, Airport Influence Area B – Policy/Project Referral Area: Within Area B, the Airport Land Use Commission (the C/CAG Board) shall exercise its statutory duties to review proposed land use policy actions, including new general plans, specific plans, zoning ordinances, plan amendments and rezonings, and land development proposals. The real estate disclosure requirements in Area A also apply in Area B. For the purposes of this policy, parcels along the edge of the Area B Boundary that are split by the boundary shall be considered as fully being within Area B.

Note that the description of policy IP-2 already includes the real estate disclosure requirement added for AIA A; therefore, this addition does not change any of the analysis or conclusions in the Draft EIR.

The following revisions have been made to pages 3.8-11 through 3.8-12 of the Draft EIR in response to this comment.

Flight hazards include tall objects as well as visual and electronic forms of interference. The project site is inside AIA B as defined by the SFO ALUCP. The critical aeronautical surfaces at the proposed project location are at an elevation of approximately 860 feet amsl (C/CAG 2012). The school site elevation is about 430 feet amsl, and the maximum height of the single-family residences would be 28 feet. Therefore, the elevation height of residences would be below the elevation of the critical aeronautical surfaces. The field elevation is about 380 feet amsl, and the tallest light standard would be 80 feet, meaning that the elevation of the lighting structures would also be below the elevation of the critical aeronautical surfaces identified in the ALUCP. A crane may also be used to install the light standards but would be a temporary use. Therefore, the proposed project and variant would not conflict with the Airspace Compatibility Policies of the SFO ALUCP.

These revisions clarify the analysis and do not change any of the conclusions in the Draft EIR. The City declines to implement the changes the commenter requested to amsl because they are editorial in nature.

L1-6
This comment consists of attachments provided as background to substantive comments in the comment letter. The responses above (L1-2 through L1-5) provide responses to the substantive comments.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 350
City of San Bruno

Responses to Comments

300 Piedmont Avenue Project
Final Environmental Impact Report 3-6 April 2024

3.2.2 L2, SMUHSD
L2-1
The information provided by San Mateo Union High School District (SMUHSD) regarding the leases for the fields at the former Crestmoor High School site is consistent with the information about the No Project Alternative in Draft EIR Section 4.5.1, Description of Alternative. The text on page 4-14 of the draft EIR also explains why the City has determined that the No Project Alternative includes continued leasing of playing fields on a short-term basis under CEQA based on past use by AYSO and Lowen, despite the lack of a renewal provision in the lease. The following text can be found on Draft EIR page 4-14 in Section 4.5.1, Description of Alternative.

San Mateo Union High School District (SMUHSD) currently has a lease agreement of the Crestmoor fields with AYSO and Lowen from July 1, 2023, that expires on June 30, 2024, and use of the fields beyond that date would require separate action of the Board of Trustees (Hawkins pers. comm.).

However, AYSO and Lowen’s use of the recreation fields predated July 1, 2023, and the City is unaware of any intent by the SMUHSD to decline to approve another lease. Additionally, SMUHSD declared Crestmoor High School surplus property in March 2019, and prior to entering into a purchase agreement with the applicant had entered into a contract to sell the property with another developer (SMUHSD 2022). Therefore, should the City deny the project, it is reasonable to assume SMUHSD would continue to try to sell the property. However, actual development of the property is not included in the No Action Alternative because the characteristics, timing, and other details of such a development would be speculative. As a result, given past use by AYSO and Lowen, the No Project Alternative presumes that SMUHSD would continue to lease the playing fields on a short-term basis to private soccer clubs for youth soccer games and practices.

The commenter has not raised a specific issue with the definition of the No Action Alternative, the recreation analysis, or suggested revisions to the Draft EIR. Therefore, no additional response is required. However, the information provided by the commenter is included in the record for consideration by decision-makers.

3.3 Individuals

3.3.1 I1, Lawrence Marsili
I1-1
Construction activity would result in an increase in vehicle and truck trips and vehicular parking demand associated with construction workers. These types of construction-related transportation impacts would be temporary, generally short term, and conducted in accordance with City requirements.

San Bruno Avenue is a designated truck route as provided in Section 7.24.010 of the San Bruno Municipal Code. Additionally, Section 7.24.020 of the code confirms that heavy vehicle restrictions do not apply to "commercial vehicles... or vehicles for hire or advertised for hire coming from an unrestricted street having ingress and egress by direct route to and from a restricted street when necessary for the purpose of making pickups or deliveries of goods, wares and merchandise from or to any building or structure located on the restricted street; for the purpose of delivering materials DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 351
City of San Bruno

Responses to Comments

300 Piedmont Avenue Project
Final Environmental Impact Report 3-7 April 2024

to be used in the actual and bona fide repair, alteration, remodeling or construction of any building or structure upon the restricted street for which a building permit has previously been obtained." A truck routing plan would be required for approval of the construction permit and would be followed during the construction period. As required by Section 7.24.020, the truck routes will be direct routes to and from San Bruno Avenue.

Mitigation is required only for significant impacts under CEQA per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1). No significant impacts have been identified related to potential trucking routes, such as noise or traffic safety. However, the commenter’s suggestion about restricting heavy vehicles to roadways with dividing double yellow lines is noted and included in the record for consideration by decision-makers.

3.3.2 I2, Jeffery D.

I2-1
See response to comment I1-1 regarding the truck-routing concerns. Truck-routing restrictions would not apply to construction workers traveling in passenger vehicles.

Note that traffic volume, insofar as it relates to traffic congestion, is no longer a metric for determining significant transportation impacts under CEQA, as explained on Draft EIR page 3.15-3.

However, the intersection of Madison Avenue and Piedmont Avenue was one of the study intersections analyzed in the transportation analysis. The analysis studied trip assignment through this intersection and conducted an all-way stop control warrant, which found that the current configuration without control is appropriate for the anticipated “Existing + Project” volume of traffic and pedestrian activity. See Attachment 1 for the traffic control warrants.

The proposed project is not expected to increase the prevalence or severity of speeding near the project site. Concerns about existing speeding activity should be brought to the San Bruno Traffic, Safety and Parking Committee.

3.3.3 I3, Lisa H.

I3-1
Refer to response to comment I2-1.

I3-2
Existing noise levels in the project vicinity, including those “below the site,” were measured on April 15, 2023, at the locations presented in Figure 3.11-1 on page 3.11-13 of the Draft EIR. Measured existing noise levels are shown in Table 3.11-8 on page 3.11-14 of the Draft EIR. In addition, topography is considered in the noise evaluation of estimated construction noise levels at nearby existing residences, as described on page 3.11-20 of the Draft EIR.

An analysis of construction vibration is presented on page 3.11-27 of the Draft EIR. As stated in this section and in the Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis included as Appendix F, vibration from construction was evaluated, and the nearest structures would be exposed to vibration levels below the applicable damage and annoyance thresholds.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 352
City of San Bruno

Responses to Comments

300 Piedmont Avenue Project
Final Environmental Impact Report 3-8 April 2024

I3-3
Impacts on property values are economic in nature and are generally outside the scope of CEQA (see State CEQA Guidelines Section 15131) and are, therefore, properly excluded from the EIR. As a result, the cost of homes is also outside the scope of the EIR. Note that the project includes affordable housing, which is discussed in Section 3.12, Population and Housing, of the EIR. Any City of San Bruno housing development projects that include five or more units and all new nonresidential developments throughout the City are subject to the City’s affordable housing program. The proposed project is consistent with these regulations, and any further housing development in the City would be subject to the same requirements.

I3-4
The potential for vegetation management in the sloped area above Madison Avenue to ultimately result in erosion impacts is addressed in Impact GEO-2 under Operation, beginning on page 3.6-8 of the Draft EIR (see also Impact WQ-1, beginning on page 3.9-8 of the Draft EIR). As explained in the impact discussion, “the project design would follow recommendations outlined in the project- specific geotechnical report (Appendix E, Final Geotechnical and Geological Investigation). This would include protecting fill slopes against erosion by hydroseeding or hydromulching with deeply rooted, fast-growing vegetation after construction is complete. If that vegetation would not establish prior to rains, the recommendation is to protect slopes using measures like hay bales and silt fences (Appendix E).”
The project also includes a storm drainage system. As explained on page 3.9-10 of the Draft EIR, “As part of the project, stormwater would be conveyed from multiple points across the residential area and conveyed into a bioretention area in a private storm drain easement within the dedicated open space. The stormwater treatment basins and onsite detention would be sized to contain the runoff so that it would be at a minimum at existing conditions or below them for a 25- year storm.” Additionally, as described in Section 8.1.5 of the report in Appendix E, remedial grading would be conducted on slopes to address instability.

The potential for future instability in the existing landslide areas can be mitigated by minor remedial grading. Prior to grading these areas, the depth of the loose material should be determined with probes and hand-auger borings. Loose/disturbed soil should be excavated by hand so the remaining thickness of the loose/disturbed soil is less than 12 inches. The soil exposed at the excavation subgrade should be moisture-conditioned to near optimum and compacted with a large vibratory plate (Turtle) to at least 90 percent relative compaction. The fill should then be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness, moisture-conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and compacted in accordance with recommendations presented above in Table 5. The surface of the regraded areas should be relatively uniform and should match the adjacent grades on the slope face.

Hydroseeding or hydromulching with deeply rooted, fast-growing vegetation should be performed after construction is complete. If the vegetation will not be established prior to the rainy season, slopes should be protected using measures such as netting, hay bales, and/or silt fences.

Finally, note that not all trees would be removed in this area, and those removed would be eucalyptus (nonnative) and trees that are dead, in declining health, or hazardous, as explained on Draft EIR page 2-13.

The vegetation management plan also provides for ongoing vegetation removal. Eucalyptus trees may be removed from the area subject to the vegetation management plan. Stumps of removed eucalyptus may be treated with herbicides to control resprouting because they can readily resprout when cut, grazed, or burned. Monterey pines, or any other trees, that are dead or in declining health DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 353
City of San Bruno

Responses to Comments

300 Piedmont Avenue Project
Final Environmental Impact Report 3-9 April 2024

should also be considered for removal. Trees that are otherwise healthy can be selected for removal if they are deemed a fire hazard after other methods for fuel reduction (e.g., crown raising) have been considered.

I3-5
Section 3.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR considers impacts on all known biological resources, including wildlife, in the project area. Mitigation measures BIO-1a, BIO-1b, and BIO-1c (described on Draft EIR pages 3.3-7 through 3.3-12) all pertain to the protection of wildlife species and mitigate Impact BIO-1 (described on page 3.3-7) to less-than-significant levels.

I3-6
Construction noise is evaluated based on construction schedule and equipment information, and was determined to be significant before mitigation, as described in Impact NOI-1 beginning on page

3.11-18 of the Draft EIR. Although triple-pane windows are not required, other mitigation is required and would reduce this impact to less than significant. Specifically, mitigation measure NOI- 1a (described on Draft EIR pages 3.11-20 and 3.11-21) would be required, which includes various noise reduction measures be incorporated during project construction to reduce construction noise to the extent feasible. In addition, mitigation measure NOI-1b (as described on Draft EIR page 3.11- 21) would also apply, which would require the implementation of temporary noise barriers if it is determined that 10 decibels (dB) or greater increases over the background ambient noise level are occurring at nearby residences during construction, if feasible. With implementation of these mitigation measures together, noise impacts from project construction were determined to be less than significant. Triple-pane windows would not be appropriate mitigation. First, they are not necessary to reduce impacts to less than significant. Additionally, such a measure would require permanent modifications to existing housing to address a temporary impact, and it is uncertain whether it would be feasible to replace windows on private residences. Lastly, the cost and time to do so are unknown. Therefore, the City declines to include installing triple-pane windows as part of noise mitigation.

I3-7
Regarding the comment related to joyful noise (e.g., noise from typical activities such as children playing or families gathering) affecting the neighbors, this kind of noise could be generated both from the playing fields and the residences. Playing field noise is addressed beginning on page 3.11- 26 of the Draft EIR under Impact NOI-1. As discussed in this analysis, noise from children playing was modeled, and the estimated results indicated that noise from the proposed playing fields is not expected to exceed City of San Bruno noise standards or substantially exceed existing ambient noise levels at the nearest residences to the proposed playing fields. This impact was determined to be less than significant. Regarding joyful noise from residences, the project residences would generally be located farther from existing residences and would also result in less noise from people talking or gathering than the playing field. The EIR focuses on significant impacts of the proposed project, as provided for in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(a). The noise generated by new residences would be less than the less-than-significant noise generated by the playing fields.

I3-8
See responses to comments I1-1 and I2-1.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 354
City of San Bruno

Responses to Comments

300 Piedmont Avenue Project
Final Environmental Impact Report 3-10 April 2024

3.3.4 I4, Robert S.

I4-1
Impact PS-3, beginning on page 3.13-11 of the Draft EIR, addresses the potential for schools to have capacity for students generated as a result of the proposed project. That impact discussion notes that enrollment has been decreasing in recent years and accounts for anticipated future population growth as a result of the proposed project. The Draft EIR also discusses cumulative impacts in Chapter 5, Other CEQA Considerations, which addresses population growth in relation to nearby projects combined with impacts of the proposed project. On page 5-15, the Draft EIR concludes that buildout of the General Plan would result in less-than-significant impacts on schools. Additionally, note that SMUHSD declared Crestmoor High School surplus property in March 2019, as indicated on Draft EIR page 4-14, and the school has been closed since 1980, as indicated on Draft EIR page ES-1.

Therefore, no issues regarding school capacity are anticipated. Additionally, as explained on pages

3.13-4 through 3.13-5 of the Draft EIR, fees are collected to address school facilities. The specific fees for the San Bruno Park School District and San Mateo Union High School District are described on Draft EIR pages 3.13-6 and 3.13-7.

I4-2
The commenter suggests making the project site into a park or potentially a soccer stadium with seating and a running track. To be carried forward for evaluation in the Draft EIR, one requirement for an alternative is that it must meet the most basic project objectives (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(a)). The following are objectives of the proposed project, as listed on pages 2-5 and 2-6 of the Draft EIR.
 Redevelop an underutilized site with a residential neighborhood that provides a variety of home sizes at a density that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.  Provide housing at a range of income levels (including low- and moderate-income households) that would assist the City in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) targets.  Provide housing at a range of income levels (including low- and moderate-income households) that would assist the City of San Bruno in meeting its RHNA targets.  Provide new single-family detached homes that would provide housing for families at a variety of income levels (including low- and moderate-income households) in the city.  Provide a variety of home sizes at a range of sales prices and at a density that is complementary with the existing surrounding neighborhood.
 Develop enough residential units to have an economically viable and feasible project.

By eliminating the residential component, this alternative would not fully meet the basic objectives of the project and, therefore, is not considered a reasonable alternative to the project. The commenter suggests picnic tables. Note, as well, that the latest conceptual design of the recreational component includes two plazas with picnic tables, as well as some seating areas, as shown on Figure 2-5 of the Draft EIR.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 355
City of San Bruno

Responses to Comments

300 Piedmont Avenue Project
Final Environmental Impact Report 3-11 April 2024

3.4 Planning Commission

3.4.1 PC1, Commissioner Harman
PC1-1
As suggested by the commenter, the VMT evaluation in the Draft EIR was conducted consistent with current guidance, as described on pages 3.15-15 through 3.15-16 of the Draft EIR. The transportation analysis team does not know where future residents will relocate from and, thus, cannot make assumptions about the No Project Alternative as suggested in the comment. However, in finding that VMT impacts of the project would be significant and unavoidable, the Draft EIR also notes the following on page 3.15-18 to articulate a similar sentiment to the commenter regarding the site-specific and regional perspectives on VMT.

Within the nine-county Bay Area, San Mateo County is a good place to build housing from a VMT perspective. Jobs are abundant and thus, commute lengths for people who live in the county are generally shorter than elsewhere in the region. However, the project consists of low-density single- family homes located in a primarily single-use neighborhood with few convenient walking or biking options to access shopping, work, education, or other opportunities. The project is also not located near any high-quality transit lines, nor does it add a mix of land uses or amenities that could reduce the number of vehicle trips or trip lengths for the existing or future residents of the neighborhood.

These environmental characteristics result in project trips being made almost exclusively by car, and so, even though trip lengths may be shorter than the regional average, the share of trips made by car (instead of walk, bike, or transit) prevents the site from complying with state goals to reduce VMT below current levels.

Regarding Alternative 1, note that the State CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR identify an “environmentally superior alternative,” other than the No Project Alternative, among the alternatives discussed in the EIR (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)). While the Draft EIR determines that Alternative 1 is the environmentally superior alternative on page 4-16, the City is not required to adopt it. Rather, if a proposed project would result in significant environmental impacts that would not be avoided or substantially lessened by mitigation measures, the City must consider any environmentally superior alternatives identified in the EIR and find that they are “infeasible” before approving the proposed project if it decides to approve the proposed project (Public Resources Code Sections 21002, 21081(a)(3); State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3)).

Thus, if the City decides to adopt the proposed project, it would first be required to make findings pursuant to CEQA that the environmentally superior alternative(s) identified in the EIR, such as Alternative 1, are “infeasible.” The reasons for such findings would need to be explained in the City’s decision and would need to be supported by substantial evidence. For example, if an alternative was rejected on the basis that it fails to meet certain project objectives, then the City would need to provide evidence of this failure. Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 states that, “‘[f]easible’ means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” A determination of feasibility, therefore, necessarily involves a series of judgment calls concerning potential costs, environmental effectiveness and potential environmental side effects, social policy considerations, technical realities, and potential time constraints. As a result, input such as that provided by the commenter is included in the record for consideration by decision-makers and may be the kind of input that can be considered at the time of decision-making in deciding whether any of the alternatives are infeasible.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 356
City of San Bruno

Responses to Comments

300 Piedmont Avenue Project
Final Environmental Impact Report 3-12 April 2024

PC1-2
Recreational impacts as framed in Appendix G of the 2023 State CEQA Guidelines relate to the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks such that substantial deterioration occurs, and that construction or expansion of a recreational facility would adversely affect the environment. These impacts are discussed in Section 3.14, Recreation, of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR analyzes potential game relocations based on the reduction in field size during project operation on pages 3.14-6 and

3.14-7. This impact was determined to be less than significant. The general concern about the loss of two fields as a result of the project is noted and included in the record for consideration by decision- makers.

3.4.2 PC2, Commissioner Kuhn
PC2-1
Recreational impacts as framed in Appendix G of the 2023 State CEQA Guidelines relate to the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks such that substantial deterioration occurs, and that construction or expansion of a recreational facility would adversely affect the environment. These impacts are discussed in Section 3.14, Recreation, of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR analyzes potential game relocations based on the reduction in field size during project operation on pages 3.14-6 and

3.14-7. This impact was determined to be less than significant.

PC2-2
Note that traffic volume, insofar as it relates to traffic congestion, is no longer a metric for determining significant transportation impacts under CEQA, as explained on Draft EIR page 3.15-3.

PC2-3
The proposed project is not expected to increase the prevalence or severity of speeding near the project site. As indicated in the comment, concerns about existing speeding activity should be brought to the San Bruno Traffic, Safety and Parking Committee.

PC2-4
Refer to response to comment I4-1. As discussed throughout Draft EIR pages 3.13-11 through 3.13- 12, impact PS-3 evaluates the capacity of nearby school facilities to accommodate a student population beyond the growth anticipated under the project and finds the impact to be less than significant.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 357
City of San Bruno

Responses to Comments

300 Piedmont Avenue Project
Final Environmental Impact Report 3-13 April 2024

3.4.3 PC3, Commissioner Lethin
PC3-1
Since the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant provided the City with a revised Arborist Report prepared in January 2024. It is included in this Final EIR as Attachment 1. The applicant has also updated its tree removal plans as shown in Table 3-1. The revisions made to the Draft EIR to reflect this update are provided in Chapter 4, Revisions, of this Final EIR.

Table 3-1 Updated Tree Removal Quantities
Tree Category Draft EIR Quantity Removed Updated Quantity Removed Heritage Tree 162 182
Non-Heritage Tree 88 89
Total 250 271
The proposed project and the project variant would require removal of 271 trees, about 182 of which are heritage trees. The Draft EIR addresses impacts on heritage trees under Impact BIO-5 (described on page 3.3-13) and mitigation measure BIO-5 (described on pages 3.3-14 and 3.3-15).

As explained under Impact BIO-5, the applicant has indicated that 315 replacement trees would be provided for the project and project variant, which would be in accordance with the recommendations of the City. The project would obtain a tree removal permit and would, therefore, not conflict with the San Bruno Tree Ordinance. Any subsequent removal of trees as part of vegetation management or ongoing maintenance of the site would also be subject to San Bruno Tree Ordinance requirements, and permits would be obtained as needed. With mitigation, this impact is reduced to less-than-significant levels, and the updated tree counts do not change the less-than- significant determination in the Draft EIR.

Additionally, not all trees would be removed in this area, and those removed would be eucalyptus (nonnative) and trees that are dead, in declining health, or hazardous, as explained on Draft EIR page 2-13.

The vegetation management plan also provides for ongoing vegetation removal. Eucalyptus trees may be removed from the area subject to the vegetation management plan. Stumps of removed eucalyptus may be treated with herbicides to control resprouting because they can readily resprout when cut, grazed, or burned. Monterey pines, or any other trees, that are dead or in declining health should also be considered for removal. Trees that are otherwise healthy can be selected for removal if they are deemed a fire hazard after other methods for fuel reduction (e.g., crown raising) have been considered.

PC3-2
The noise analysis considered the project site’s topography. For example, regarding noise measurements during soccer games, the Draft EIR states the following on page 3.11-15.

Inspection of Appendix D-10 of the Noise Technical Report (included in Appendix F, Noise Technical Report, of this EIR) indicates that, during the 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. hours of Saturday, April 15, when soccer games were taking place, the measured ambient noise levels at the nearest residence to the north (monitoring site LT-4), were unchanged. This is believed to be due to the considerable grade separation (approximately 40 feet) between the soccer fields and nearest residences to the north.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 358
City of San Bruno

Responses to Comments

300 Piedmont Avenue Project
Final Environmental Impact Report 3-14 April 2024

For calculating construction noise, the Draft EIR explains the following on page 3.11-18.

Calculations assume a standard spherical spreading loss of 6 dB per doubling of distance for maximum noise levels and a conservative 10 dBA offset to account for the substantial intervening vegetation and topography existing between the project site and nearest residences.

The Draft EIR explains the following on page 3.11-20.

Although the predicted average noise level of 63 dBA includes a 10 dB offset to account for the combination of vegetation and topography between the proposed residential construction area and the nearest residences, the area of the proposed residential construction is fairly flat and elevated relative to the neighboring residences. As a result, topographic shielding at the nearest residences during site grading activities occurring in more central areas of the site will be substantially greater than 10 dBA.

For the recreation and open space component, the Draft EIR states the following on page 3.11-22.

For the recreational and open space component, it is expected that the worst-case construction phase in terms of noise generation would be during grading. At the residences located to the immediate north of the proposed playing fields (at a distance of approximately 50 feet), using the Table 3.11-11 data and assuming 15 dBA of attenuation provided by intervening topography, predicted maximum noise levels would be approximately 61 to 70 dBA L max. Although construction noise would be temporary in nature, these estimated noise levels from construction activity could substantially exceed baseline ambient noise levels at the nearest residences to the north (monitoring sites LT-3 and LT-4 in Table 3.11-8).

The Draft EIR then explains the following later on the same page.

Although the predicted average noise level of 69 dBA includes a 15 dB offset to account for the combination of vegetation and topography between the proposed residential construction area and the nearest residences, the area of the proposed recreational and open-space construction is fairly flat and elevated relative to the neighboring residences. As a result, topographic shielding at the nearest residences during site grading activities occurring farther south from the northern project site boundary would be substantially greater than 15 dBA.

PC3-3
As illustrated in Figure 2-7 and Figure 2-8 of the Draft EIR, as indicated for Parcel M, the proposed project would provide 5.3 acres in the playing field area, while the project variant would provide

4.58 acres in the playing field area. Note that the City’s conceptual design, as shown in Figure 2-5, accounts for the playing field area as shown in Figure 2-7 for the proposed project. The applicant has submitted the stormwater basin location with its application, placing it adjacent to the recreation area. This is the reason why the City is evaluating these locations for the stormwater basin under the proposed project and the project variant.

3.4.4 PC4, Commissioner Durazo
PC4-1
As illustrated in Figure 2-7 and Figure 2-8 of the Draft EIR, the stormwater basin would be maintained by the homeowner’s association (HOA) under the proposed project and the project variant. As indicated on Draft EIR page 2-12, “The proposed project would treat stormwater with low impact development measures and would include a large bioretention area at the northwest end of the project site within the public open space dedicated to the City before being discharged to an DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 359
City of San Bruno

Responses to Comments

300 Piedmont Avenue Project
Final Environmental Impact Report 3-15 April 2024

existing storm sewer main along Keefe Court.” Regarding the project variant, Draft EIR page 2-12 states, “The project variant would include a primary stormwater treatment basin located within a triangular-shaped 0.75-acre parcel that would be owned and maintained by the HOA.”

3.4.5 PC5, Commissioner Biasotti
PC1-5
Planning staff and the EIR consultant took notes of both public and Planning Commission comments at the Planning Commission hearing, and they are responded to in this Final EIR consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a).

3.4.6 PC6, Commissioner Madden
PC6-1
The commenter states that the project would not involve pile driving, and that neighbors may mostly hear other construction noises, such as noise from vehicle back-up alarms. The commenter is correct that the project would not involve pile driving, which is one of the noisiest kinds of construction activity. As discussed on pages 3.11-18 through 3.11-20 of the Draft EIR, construction equipment (shown in Table 3.11-11) would generate noise that may be audible at the nearest residences, although it is not expected to exceed the quantitative noise standards contained in the City of San Bruno Municipal Code (i.e., individual construction equipment is not expected to result in noise levels greater than 85 A-weighted decibels (dBA) equivalent sound level (Leq) at a distance of 100 feet). Intervening topography would help reduce construction noise at many neighboring residences, but noise from construction activities (including back-up alarms, which are required for safety) would likely still be audible at the nearest sensitive land uses. Because a 10-dB over ambient increase may occur during construction, construction noise impacts were determined to be significant, and mitigation measures NOI-1a and NOI-1b would be required to reduce construction noise impacts to less-than-significant levels. Refer also to response to comment I3-6.

PC6-2
See response to comment I2-1 regarding haul routes. Regarding the potential to damage or dirty pavement, the City as a general condition of its Grading Permit requires that, “The Contractor shall maintain the streets, sidewalks and all other public rights-of-way in a clean, safe and usable condition. All spills of soil, rock or construction debris shall be removed from the public right of way throughout construction and upon completion of the project. All adjacent property, private or public, shall be maintained in a clean, safe and usable condition.”1 Therefore, damage to roadways would be repaired, and roadways would be kept clean.

PC6-3
Refer to response to comment I2-1.

1 City of San Bruno. 2019. Grading Permit Conditions.
https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/973/Grading-Permit---General-Conditions-PDF. Accessed January 2, 2024.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 360
City of San Bruno

Responses to Comments

300 Piedmont Avenue Project
Final Environmental Impact Report 3-16 April 2024

PC6-4
Regarding future field use, the Draft EIR states the following on page 2-7.

However, at this time, the City has no certain future users and therefore the parameters and characteristics of this additional use (e.g., intensity, time of day, day of week) cannot be defined at this time.

Specific to transportation, the Draft EIR explains the following on page 3.15-14.

Although it is foreseeable that the existing leagues that use the fields would continue to use the field once improved, the City also anticipates that other groups would use the facilities in the future, thereby potentially increasing use of the facilities. This could result in additional trips to the site at other times of the day and week. However, at this time, the City has no certain future users and therefore the parameters and characteristics of this additional use (e.g., intensity, time of day, day of week) cannot be defined at this time and cannot be further analyzed. Trip generation associated with the recreation/open space area includes trips made by users, spectators, and maintenance and management personnel. Because the number and timing of trips associated with the recreation/open space area is already captured in background trips, the recreation/open space area was not added into the travel demand analysis. The analysis in this EIR represents the level of recreation activity expected, based on existing and past use and is a conservative analysis from a VMT perspective. If fewer sports games were scheduled for the site, VMT associated with the recreation/open space area could be lower than existing levels.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 361

300 Piedmont Avenue Project
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-1 April 2024

Chapter 4
Revisions to the Draft EIR
This section includes revisions identified by the City of San Bruno (City) as needed to clarify the draft environmental impact report (EIR), in addition to revisions described in Chapter 3 of this Final EIR in response to comments on the Draft EIR. None of these revisions results in new or more severe environmental impacts.

4.1 Executive Summary
Table ES-1 was revised to correct a typographical error.

Impacts TCR-1 and TRCTCR-2: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is (a) listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR or in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k), or (b) determined by the lead agency to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1? Potentially significant

4.2 Project Description
The following revision was made to the discussion under Section 2.3.5, Landscaping, to reflect updated tree removal numbers provided by the applicant.

Under both the proposed project and project variant, approximately 250271 trees would be removed, and 315 trees would be planted.

While tree removal would increase compared to that analyzed in the Draft EIR, the increase is small and does not change the analysis under Impact BIO-5, which concludes that compliance with the heritage tree ordinance and Mitigation Measure BIO-5 would reduce impacts to less than significant.

4.3 Biological Resources
The following revision was made to the discussion under Impact BIO-5, beginning on page 3.3-13 of the Draft EIR, to reflect updated tree removal numbers provided by the applicant and as provided in Attachment 2.

Trees on the site that qualify as protected heritage trees under the city’s heritage tree ordinance would be removed as part of the project. According to the most recent landscape plan, for the residential component of both the proposed project and the project variant, about 271250 trees would be removed from the site, about 182162 of which are heritage trees.

While tree removal would increase compared to that analyzed in the Draft EIR, the increase is small and does not change the analysis, which concludes that compliance with the heritage tree ordinance and Mitigation Measure BIO-5 would reduce impacts to less than significant.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 362
City of San Bruno

Revisions to the Draft EIR

300 Piedmont Avenue Project
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-2 April 2024

The following revisions were made to the discussion under Impact BIO-5 to correct typographical errors:

While the residential area is adjacent to natural areas, the proposed project and variant contain a 70- foot area zoned as defensible space. Plant palettes for the residential component contain some native plants (e.g., rRosa Ccalifornica) but also contain numerous nonnative plants (e.g., pPittosporum tobira, lLomandra confertifolia, 3.3-13Nerium oldeander). As a result, there is likely a conflict with policy ERC-10. However, the site already contains nonnative plants ( Deodar cedarCedrus deodara, Platanus × hispanica, Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Pinus radiata, and Festuca perennis). Therefore, there would be no environmental impact resulting from the conflict with this General Plan policy.

4.4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The following revision was made on pages 3.8-5 through 3.8-6 in response to comment L1-5.

The following revisions were made to page 3.8-7 of the Draft EIR in response to comment L1-5.

The project is inside the Airport Influence Area (AIA) B as defined by the SFO ALUCP (Sinha 2023).

The policy that applies in AIA B is (C/CAG 2012).

IP-2, Airport Influence Area B – Policy/Project Referral Area: Within Area B, the Airport Land Use Commission (the C/CAG Board) shall exercise its statutory duties to review proposed land use policy actions, including new general plans, specific plans, zoning ordinances, plan amendments and rezonings, and land development proposals. The real estate disclosure requirements in Area A also apply in Area B. For the purposes of this policy, DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 363
City of San Bruno

Revisions to the Draft EIR

300 Piedmont Avenue Project
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-3 April 2024

parcels along the edge of the Area B Boundary that are split by the boundary shall be considered as fully being within Area B.

The following revisions have been made to pages 3.8-11 through 3.8-12 of the Draft EIR in response to comment L1-5.

4.5 Public Services
The last paragraph on page 3.13-11 was revised to correct a typographical error.

This indicates that the addition of 31 students after this substantial decrease in study student enrollment would be within the student count that can be accommodated by existing facilities.

4.6 Alternatives Analysis
The following revision was made on page 4-2 to Section 4.3 of the Draft EIR to include an unintentionally omitted significant impact to the list of the proposed project’s and project variant’s significant impacts.

The following significant impacts were identified for the proposed project and project variant.  Impact AQ-2: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is a nonattainment area for an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
 Impact BIO-1: A substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The following information was added to the evaluation of Alternative 3 on page 4-20 of the Draft EIR to account for the unintentional omission of Impact AQ-2 from the list of significant impacts.

It is not clear if Alternative 3 would avoid or substantially reduce any significant impacts of the proposed project.
 Impact AQ-2: Alternative 3 would have the same project site as the proposed project and would require the same kind of ground disturbance as the proposed project, resulting in similar fugitive dust impacts as the proposed project.
 Impact BIO-1, Impact BIO-5: Alternative 3 would have the same project site as the proposed project and would require the same kind of structure removal and vegetation removal as the proposed project, resulting in similar impacts to the proposed project.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 364
City of San Bruno

Revisions to the Draft EIR

300 Piedmont Avenue Project
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-4 April 2024

The following information was added to the evaluation of Alternative 4 on page 4-21 of the Draft EIR to account for the unintentional omission of Impact AQ-2 from the list of significant impacts.

Additionally, it is not clear if Alternative 4 would avoid or substantially reduce any significant impacts of the proposed project.
 Impact AQ-2: Alternative 4 would have the same project site as the proposed project and would require the same kind of ground disturbance as the proposed project, resulting in similar fugitive dust impacts as the proposed project.
 Impact BIO-1, Impact BIO-5: Alternative 4 would have the same project site as the proposed project and require the same kind of structure removal and vegetation removal as the proposed project, resulting in similar impacts to the proposed project.

The following information was added to the evaluation of Alternative 5 on page 4-22 of the Draft EIR to account for the unintentional omission of Impact AQ-2 from the list of significant impacts.

Additionally, it is not clear if Alternative 5 would avoid or substantially reduce any significant impacts of the proposed project.
 Impact AQ-2: Alternative 5 would have the same project site as the proposed project and would require the same kind of ground disturbance as the proposed project, resulting in similar fugitive dust impacts as the proposed project.
 Impact BIO-1, Impact BIO-5: Alternative 5 would have the same project site as the proposed project and require the same kind of structure removal and vegetation removal as the proposed project, resulting in similar impacts to the proposed project.

4.7 Other CEQA Considerations
The first paragraph on page 5-8 was revised to clarify that this is a general statement rather than a statement or conclusion about the impacts of the proposed project.

As discussed in Section 3.2, BAAQMD’s emissions thresholds (Table 3.2-6) represent the average daily emissions that a project may generate, contributing to a cumulative impact on regional air quality. Therefore, exceedances of the BAAQMD project-level thresholds would indicate that impacts would be cumulatively considerable for project activities in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). As discussed under Impact AQ-2 in Section 3.2, project construction and operation would not generate regional criteria pollutant emissions in excess of applicable BAAQMD thresholds.

Section 5.3, Significant and Unavoidable Impacts , starting on page 5-19, was revised to correct an error regarding Impact NOI-1. That impact is less than significant with mitigation, as explained in Section 3.11, Noise.

State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b) requires EIRs to include a discussion of the significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented. The following impacts are considered significant and unavoidable; that is, no feasible mitigation is available to reduce the project’s impacts to a less-than-significant level.  Impact GHG-1 (project and cumulative): Generation of greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.  Impact GHG-2 (project and cumulative): Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.  Impact NOI-1 (project): Generation of increased ambient noise levels in the project vicinity in excess of applicable standards.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 365
City of San Bruno

Revisions to the Draft EIR

300 Piedmont Avenue Project
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-5 April 2024

 Impact TRA-2 (project and cumulative): Conflict or be inconsistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b).

4.8 References
The following revision was made to page 7-13 of the Draft EIR to correct the author of a reference, consistent with the revision to the author on pages 3.8-5 through 3.8-6 described above in response to comment L1-5.

Ricondo & Associates. 2012. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. Available: Consolidated_CCAG_ALUCP_November-20121.pdf.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 366
DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 367
Attachment 1
Additional Transportation Information
DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 368
DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 369
Project Crestmoor
Major Street Whitman Way Scenario Existing Plus Project Minor Street Courtland Drive Peak Hour PM
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 18 0 0 137 North/South
Through 0 0 53 107 x East/West
Right 102 0 52 0
Total 120 0 105 244
Intersection Geometry
1 3

8.2 Approach with Worst Case Delay WB
244
Stopped Delay (seconds per vehicle)
Total Vehicles on Approach
Number of Approach Lanes for Minor Street
Worst Case Delay for Minor Street
Not Met
Existing Plus Project
Limiting Value
Condition Satisfied?
Warrant Met
Warrant 3A, Peak Hour
NO
Total Approaches
Peak Hour Delay on
Minor Approach
(vehicle-hours)
Peak Hour Volume
on Minor Approach
(vph)
Peak Hour Entering
Volume Serviced
(vph)
Met Not Met

0.6 120 469
4 100 650
DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 370
Project Crestmoor
Major Street Whitman Way Scenario Existing Plus Project Minor Street Courtland Drive Peak Hour PM
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 18 0 0 137 North/South
Through 0 0 53 107 x East/West
Right 102 0 52 0
Total 120 0 105 244
1 1
NO
Number of Approach Lanes
* Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volume of Both Approches.

Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach.

Traffic Volume (VPH) * 349 120
Major Street Minor Street Warrant MetWhitman Way Courtland Drive 0 100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Minor Street Higher Volume Approach - VPH
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Warrant 3B, Peak Hour
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.

Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans, 2014 150*
100*
2 or More Lanes & 2 or More Lanes
1 Lane & 1 Lane
2 or More Lanes & 1 Lane
DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 371

1. Courtland / Rosewood 2. Piedmont / Madison 3. Crestmoor / Piedmont Total in a 12-month period 5 0 0 0
Or
C.1 Major Street Entering Vehicles (Both Approaches) 300 280 75 169 AND C.2 Minor Street Entering Vehicles, Pedestrians, and Bicycles (Both Approaches) 200 33 11 36 AND C2. Minor Street Peak Hour Vehicle Delay (seconds) 30 10 (EB) 9 (EB) 9 (WB) Or
C3. Major Street 85th-percentile Speed 40 30 (NB) 30 (NB) 30 (SB) AND C3.(C1 Major Street Vehicular Volume) 210 280 75 169 AND C3. (C2 Minor Street Veh, Ped, Bike Volume) 140 33 11 36 AND C3. (C2 Minor Street Delay) 21 10 (EB) 9 (EB) 9 (WB)
Or
B. Crashes in 12-month period susceptible to correction 4 0 0 0 AND C.1 Major Street Entering Vehicles (Both Approaches) 240 280 75 169 AND C.2 Minor Street Entering Vehicles, Pedestrians, and Bicycles (Both Approaches) 160 33 11 36 AND C2. Minor Street Peak Hour Vehicle Delay (seconds) 24 10 (EB) 9 (EB) 9 (WB) * Values that meet the minimum requirement are in bold
Minimum Value
Warrant B - Crash History
Warrant C - Eight Hour Volume
Warrant D - Combination of Above
Location
CAMUTCD Langugae: Condition B: Five or more reported crashes in a 12-month period that are susceptible to correction by a multi-way stop installation. Such crashes include right-turn and left-turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions.

CAMUTCD Langugae:

Condition C1: The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day; AND Condition C2: The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersection from the minor street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor-street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the highest hour.

Condition C3: If the 85th-percentile approach speed of the major-street traffic exceeds 40 mph, the minimum vehicular volume warrants are 70 percent of the values provided in Items 1 and 2.

CAMUTCD Langugae:

Condition D: Where no signal criterion is satisfied, but where Criteria B, C1., and C2 are all satisfied to 80 percent of the minimum values. Criterion C3 is excluded from this condition.

All Way Stop Control Results
* Values that meet the minimum requirement are in
bold
* Values that meet the minimum requirement are in bold
DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 372
DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 373
Attachment 2
Revised Arborist Report
DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 374
DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 375

Arborist Report

300 Piedmont Avenue
San Bruno, CA

Prepared for:

SummerHill Homes
777 South California Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94304

Prepared by:

HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
2250 Ninth St. Suite 112
Berkeley, CA 94710

June 7, 2022
Revised January 2024

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 376
Arborist Report
300 Piedmont Avenue
San Bruno, CA

Table of Contents

Page

Introduction and Overview 1

Tree Assessment Methods 1

Description of Trees 2

City of San Bruno Heritage Tree Status 6

Suitability for Preservation 6

Evaluation of Impacts & Recommendation for Action 8

Tree Preservation Guidelines 9

List of Tables

Table 1. Species present and tree condition. 2

Table 2. Suitability for preservation. 7

Exhibits

Tree Assessment Plan

Tree Assessment Form

Tree Disposition

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 377
Arborist Report
300 Piedmont Avenue
San Bruno, CA

Introduction and Overview
SummerHill Homes is planning to redevelop the subject property located at 300 Piedmont Avenue in San Bruno CA. HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company, was asked to prepare an Arborist Report for this project for submittal to the City of San Bruno. The property consists of an unoccupied high school campus with associated buildings, parking lots, sports fields, and landscaping.

This report provides the following information:

1. An assessment of the health, structural condition, protected status, and suitability for preservation of the trees located on and adjacent to the proposed project area based on a visual inspection from the ground.

2. An assessment of the trees that would be preserved and removed based on preliminary development plans.

3. Preliminary guidelines for tree preservation during the design, construction, and maintenance phases of development.

Tree Assessment Methods
Trees were assessed on May 11, 12, and 16, 2022. The survey was limited to trees greater than 3 in. diameter. Chain-link fencing generally defined the project area. “Forest areas” were present on the east and west sides of the site. Trees located approximately 15 - 20 feet beyond the forest area edge were included. The assessment procedure was a visual assessment from the ground, consisting of the following steps:

1. Identifying the tree species.

2. Attaching a numerically coded metal tag to the trunk of each tree.

3. Recording the tree’s location on a map.

4. Measuring the trunk diameter at a point 54-inches above grade.

5. Evaluating the health and structural condition using a scale of 0 – 5:
5 - A healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of signs and symptoms of disease, with good structure and form typical of the species.
4 - Tree with slight decline in vigor, small amount of twig dieback, or minor structural defects that could be corrected.
3 - Tree with moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback, thinning of crown, poor leaf color, moderate structural defects that might be mitigated with regular care. 2 - Tree in decline, epicormic growth, extensive dieback of medium to large branches, significant structural defects that cannot be abated.
1 - Tree in severe decline, dieback of scaffold branches and/or trunk; most of foliage from epicormic shoots (secondary shoots that arise along the trunk and branches); extensive structural defects that cannot be abated.
0 – Tree is dead.

6. Commenting on the presence of defects in structure, insects or diseases and other aspects of development.

7. Evaluating suitability for preservation as low, moderate and high.

Some trees located in “forest areas” were inaccessible. Such trees were included in the assessment and tagged on the fence or nearby branches. Assessment of trunk diameter, tree health and structural condition was limited to what could be observed from the school site.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 378
Description of Trees
Three hundred sixty-one (361) trees representing 21 species were evaluated (Table 1). Coast live oak and toyon are native to the San Bruno area. Some trees of these species may be indigenous to the site. Other trees were generally ornamental, non-native species commonly observed in the region.

Among the 361 trees, 22 were near the southeast corner were identified as potentially being off-site.

These trees were included in the assessment because either the property line was unclear or they were close to the property line. Overall, 29 (8%) trees were in good condition, 97 (27%) were fair, 225 (62%) were poor, and ten (3%) were dead (Table 1).

Descriptions of each tree are found in the Tree Assessment, and approximate locations are plotted on the Tree Assessment Map (see Exhibits).

Table 1. Species present and tree condition.
300 Piedmont Avenue. San Bruno CA.

Common Name Scientific Name Condition Total
Dead
(0)
Poor
(1-2)
Fair
(3)
Good
(4-5)

Blackwood acacia Acacia melanoxylon - 1 6 - 7
Blue Atlas cedar Cedrus atlantica 'Glauca' - 7 13 7 27
Lawson false cypress Chamaecyparis lawsoniana - 1 1 1 3 Japanese cedar Cryptomeria japonica - - 1 - 1
Bronze loquat Eriobotrya deflexa 1 - 1 1 3
Lemon-scented gum Eucalyptus citriodora - - 1 - 1
Blue gum Eucalyptus globulus - 1 - - 1
Manna gum Eucalyptus viminalis - 2 2 - 4
Toyon Heteromeles arbutifolia - 2 1 - 3
Glossy privet Ligustrum lucidum - 17 - - 17
Cajeput paperbark tree Melaleuca quinquenervia - 1 3 - 4 Myoporum Myoporum laetum 1 20 - - 21
Olive Olea europaea - - 1 - 1
Monterey pine Pinus radiata 7 82 14 5 108
Victorian box Pittosporum undulatum - 11 - - 11
London plane Platanus x hispanica - 20 2 2 24
White poplar Populus alba 1 4 2 - 7
Plum Prunus domestica - 1 - - 1
Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia - 53 43 13 109
Cork oak Quercus suber - 2 5 - 7
Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia - - 1 - 1
Total 10 225 97 29 361

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 379
T
he former school site was located near the top of a ridge between Interstate 280 to the east and a residential neighborhood on the other sides. Most of the trees and associated canopy cover were located along the property boundary and adjacent to roadways. Several long, irregular rows were present between sports fields, or in planters in parking areas.

Coast live oak and Monterey pine were the most frequently occurring species, each with approximately 30% of the population. One hundred and nine (109) coast live oaks were present along the edges of the site (Photo 1). Many younger trees were growing within the hedgerow south of the running track. The oaks varied in development from young to mature with trunk diameters ranging from 4 to 30 in. Most individuals were young to semi-mature with fewer mature specimens leading to an average diameter of 10 in. Thirteen (12%) trees were in good condition, 43 (39%) were fair, and 53 (49%) were poor. Trees generally had rounded or vase form with multiple attachments arising between 5 and 9 feet. Many trees a history of pruning including crown-raising and rounding over.

Trees in poor and fair condition were
characterized by past branch failures,
trunk wounds and poor structure. Several
were growing through fences at edges of
the site.

One hundred and eight (108) Monterey
pine were present, most along the
undeveloped edges of the site.

Diameters ranged from 5 to 59 inches,
with an average of 28 inches. Many
trees were over-mature with
overextended branches and pine bark
beetle infestation. Condition was poor
overall (82 trees, or 76%). Several of the
larger trees in poor condition were
growing at the front of school buildings
(Photo 2). Trees #1, 2, 25, 216, 217
311, and 313 were dead. Fourteen
pines were fair. Pines #100, 303, 317,
355 and 357 were younger, vigorous
trees in good condition, with diameters
from 8 to 18 inches.

Twenty-seven (27) blue Atlas cedars
were growing in rows or groups around
the campus (Photo 3, page 4). About
half were in fair condition (13 trees), with
the rest divided evenly between poor and
good (7 trees each). Trees were mature
and multi-stemmed, with trunk diameters
from 6 to 28 inches. Overall the cedars
were some of the most vigorous trees on
site.

Photo 1. Coast live oak #242 was the largest of its
species on site, with trunk diameters of 30 and 14
inches. View is from the southwest.

Photo 2. Monterey pines #5 – 1 (L to R) were
growing near the front of the school. Pines #1 and 2
at right were dead. London plane #67 is visible at left (red arrow).

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 380

T
wenty-four (24) London planes were present, many growing in rows along parking lots at the south end of campus. Most of these were in poor structural condition (20 trees), having been pollarded in the past (Photo 4). Trees were young to semi-mature, with diameters ranging from 8 to 18 inches. Planes #177 and 178 were in fair condition; #176 and 179 were good.

Photo 3. Blue Atlas cedars #38 – 34 (R to L) were growing on a slope north of the main school building. Japanese cedar #39 is at left (yellow arrow).

Photo 4 (right). London
planes #63 and 64 at right
had been pollarded (inset
below) and not maintained.

Trees had many extended
weak branch attachments
from the reaction growth.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 381
T
wenty-one (21) myoporum were growing in hedges and along slopes between playing fields. Nearly all were in poor condition, multiple attachments at the base and very sparse crowns (20 trees).

Myoporum #97 was dead.

Seventeen (17) glossy privet were present, most of them crowded together in a raised planter adjacent to an old community pool in an open courtyard. All were in poor condition, with stem decay and history of limb removal. Stem sizes ranged from 7 to 16 inches.

Eleven (11) Victorian box were growing in hedges around a play field. All were multi-stemmed with trunks from 1 to 6 inches. Many showed branch dieback and several had yellowing foliage. Condition was poor.

Seven blackwood acacia were assessed. Six acacias were in fair condition; tree #20 was poor.

Several vigorous trees were growing in raised planters in a school courtyard. Stems sizes ranged from 3 to 8 inches. None of the acacia were in good condition.

Seven white poplar were growing near slopes crowded with other trees at the northwest side of the site. All had a narrow fastigiate form. The poplars were young, with diameters from 7 to 10 inches.

Poplars #234 and 239 were fair, and #233, 235, 241 and 359 were poor. Tree #237 was dead.

Seven cork oak were growing in planters in school courtyards. Five were in fair condition. Oaks #131 and 132 were in poor condition with sparse crowns. Trees were semi-mature, with trunks from 11 to 17 inches.

No other species was represented by more than four trees. Included in this group were:

 Manna gum #221, 224, 229, and 231 were growing in a wooded area to the northwest of the playing fields. Diameters ranged from 5 to 38 inches. Trees #224 and 231 were fair; #221 was poor, and #229 was suppressed and in very poor condition.

 Semi-mature cajeput paperbark trees #152 – 155 were growing together in a small courtyard.

Diameters ranged from 16 – 20 inches. All had multiple or codominant attachments and raised crowns. #152, 153 and 155 were fair; #154 was poor. It was leaning and very crowded by the other trees.

 Lawson false cypress #249, 251 and 258 were growing along Courtland Drive. Tree #251 was in good condition with trunk diameters from 12 to 18 inches and a vigorous crown. Tree #249 was in fair condition with trunks from 10 to 22 inches and sparser foliage. Lawson cypress #258 was 23 inches. It was in poor condition with dieback and history of limb removal.

 Bronze loquat #151 and 157 were growing in small outdoor courtyards within the school building. Loquat #151 was in good condition and #157 was fair. Both were 11 inches. Loquat #156 had a 9 inch diameter and was dead.

 Toyon #173 (very poor), 340 (fair) and 354 (poor) were growing in crowded conditions on slopes or near fences. Diameters ranged from 6 to 12 inches. None of the toyon were in good condition.

 Blue gum #281 was growing near a fence on Courtland Drive. It was 26 inches and had been topped, resulting in a sparse small crown. It was in poor condition.

 Olive #159 had codominant stems of 3 and 5 inches. It was in fair condition and crowded by other trees in a school courtyard.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 382
 C
hinese elm #160 was nearby in the same courtyard. It was a young tree of 3 inches in fair condition. It was leaning northeast.

 Plum #89 was in poor condition and crowded by shrubs. It had codominant stems of 6 inches.

 Japanese cedar #39 was in fair condition and had codominant stems of 13 and 16 inches. It was growing on a slope and had a strong corrected lean. (Photo 3).

 Lemon-scented gum #68 had a diameter of 37 inches, located in a parking lot planting area near Courtland Drive. Its base was pillowing over a curb and it was in fair condition with a vigorous crown.

City of San Bruno Heritage Tree Status
San Bruno has several criteria to determine if a tree has Heritage status:

 Any native bay (Umbellularia californica), buckeye (Aesculus species), oak (Quercus species), redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), or pine (Pinus radiata) tree that has a diameter of 6 in. or more measured at 54 in. above natural grade;

 Any tree or stand of trees designated by resolution of the city council to be of special historical value or of significant community benefit;

 A stand of trees, the nature of which makes each dependent on the others for survival; or

 Any other tree with a trunk diameter of 10 in. or more, measured at 54 in. above natural grade.

The City's Heritage Tree Ordinance declares such trees, whether located on City or private property, to be an asset to the community at large and provides penalties for removing or improperly pruning these trees. In addition, all public trees are protected. A permit is required for the pruning or removal of any Heritage trees. Based on my observations, 268 of the 361 trees assessed met these criteria (see Tree Assessment Form).

Trees removed with a valid tree removal permit shall be replaced in accordance with the recommendation of the City Arborist. Tree replacement shall be a minimum of either two 24-inch box size trees or one 36-inch box size tree for each Heritage tree removed. A $450 refundable deposit is also required for each tree removal. If a Heritage tree is not replaced, there is an in-lieu fee of $450 per tree removed.

Suitability for Preservation
Trees that are preserved on sites where development or other improvements are planned, must be carefully selected to make sure that they may survive construction impacts, adapt to a new environment and perform well in the landscape. Our goal is to identify trees that have the potential for long-term health, structural stability and longevity. Evaluation of suitability for preservation considers several factors:

 Tree health
Healthy, vigorous trees are better able to tolerate impacts such as root injury, demolition of existing structures, changes in soil grade and moisture, and soil compaction than are non- vigorous trees. Trees in good condition are in better health than those in poor condition.

 Structural integrity
Trees with significant amounts of wood decay and other structural defects that cannot be corrected are likely to fail. Such trees should not be preserved in areas where damage to DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 383
peopl
e or property is likely. Defects such as codominant or multiple stems, lean and other deviations from the vertical, heavy branches and decay are problematic and may increase the potential for a tree to fail. For example, London plane #58 displayed major structural defects and decay. I do not recommend this tree for preservation.

 Species response
There is a wide variation in the response of individual species to construction impacts and changes in the environment. In our experience, coast live oak and London plane are tolerant of construction impacts, particularly if trees are irrigated properly. Blue atlas cedar are moderately tolerant. Monterey pine, blackwood acacia and blue gum have poor tolerance of construction impacts.

 Tree age and longevity
Old trees, while having significant emotional and aesthetic appeal, have limited physiological capacity to adjust to an altered environment. Young trees are better able to generate new tissue and respond to change.

 Species invasiveness
Species which spread across a site and displace desired vegetation are not always appropriate for retention. This is particularly true when indigenous species are displaced. The California Invasive Plant Inventory Database (www.cal-ipc.org) lists species identified as being invasive. San Bruno is part of the Central West Floristic Province. Myoporum is listed as having moderate invasive potential; blackwood acacia, blue gum, glossy privet, and olive have a limited invasive potential. Victorian box is on the watch list.

Each tree was rated for suitability for preservation based upon its age, health, structural condition and ability to safely coexist within a development environment (Table 2).

Table 2. Tree suitability for preservation.
300 Piedmont Avenue. San Bruno CA.

High Trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site. Twenty-four (24) trees were rated as having high suitability for preservation: 13 coast live oaks, seven blue Atlas cedars, London planes #176 and #179, bronze loquat #151, and Lawson false cypress #251.

Moderate Trees in fair health and/or possessing structural defects that may be abated with treatment. Trees in this category require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life-spans than those in the “high” category.

Seventy-three (73) trees were rated as having moderate suitability for preservation: 41 coast live oaks, 13 blue Atlas cedars, five cork oaks, four Monterey pines, three cajeput paperbark trees, London planes #177 and #178, bronze loquat #157, Chinese elm #160, Japanese cedar #39, Lawson false cypress #249, and toyon #340.

Low Trees in poor health or possessing significant defects in structure that cannot be abated with treatment. These trees can be expected to decline regardless of management. The species or individual tree may possess either characteristics that are undesirable in landscape settings or be unsuited for use areas. Two hundred fifty-four trees (254) were rated as having low suitability for preservation:

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 384
97 Monterey pines, 55 coast live oaks, 20 myoporum, 20 London planes, 17 glossy privet, 11 Victorian box, seven blackwood acacia, six white poplar, seven blue Atlas cedar, four manna gum, cork oak #131 and #132, toyon #173 and #354, blue gum #281, cajeput paperbark tree #154, Lawson false cypress #258, lemon-scented gum #68, olive #159, and plum #89.

Note: Table does not include Monterey pines #1, 2, 25, 216, 217, 311, 313; myoporum #97; bronze loquat #156; and white poplar #237. These trees were dead.

We consider trees with high suitability for preservation to be the best candidates for preservation during development. We do not generally recommend retention of trees with low suitability for preservation in areas where people or property will be present. Retention of trees with moderate suitability for preservation depends upon the intensity of proposed site changes.

Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations for Action
Appropriate tree retention develops a practical match between the location and intensity of construction activities and the quality and health of trees. The tree assessment was the reference point for tree condition and quality. Impacts from the proposed project were assessed using the Conceptual Site Plan SP1.0 (SummerHill Homes, March 7, 2022; #2021-262) and the 300 Piedmont Avenue Tree Overlay Plan (CBG Civil Engineers, January 8, 2024).

The site plan proposes demolition of the school buildings and grounds, and construction of 155 new residential lots with connecting streets A though J within the development. The Courtland Drive alignment would remain generally in place except in the northeast corner of the site. The entire roadway will be widened. A C3 stormwater treatment area would be constructed on the hillside to the northwest. Outer areas of the property and wooded hillsides would become Open Space maintained by a homeowners association. Northern and western portions of the site would be dedicated to the City as Open Space. The site will be redeveloped from the western edge of Courtland Drive to approximately the existing perimeter road and fence lines to the north, west and south. Potential impacts to trees will be severe. Activities such as grading, installation of utilities and construction of new homes may damage adjacent tree crowns and roots adjacent to the project area.

Based on my assessment of trees and evaluation of the plans, 271 trees would be removed, 182 of them Heritage. Ninety (90) would be preserved, including 86 Heritage trees. Trees to be preserved are located at the edges of the site. Disposition status of individual trees is shown in the Tree Disposition Form, see Exhibits).

The almost uniformly poor condition of Monterey pines on the hillsides severely limits efforts to preserve trees. Pines in poor condition can be expected to decline and die. As a result, failure potential will increase. There were numerous unsurveyed trees outside the immediate project area that were also dying or in poor condition. Any trees that could fall onto developed areas should be removed.

Successful retention of all trees to be preserved is predicated on strict adherence to the Tree Preservation Guidelines (page 9). Some amount of canopy and root pruning may be required for these trees during construction.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 385
Tree Preservation Guidelines
The goal of tree preservation is not merely tree survival during development but maintenance of tree health and beauty for many years. Trees retained on sites that are either subject to extensive injury during construction or are inadequately maintained become a liability rather than an asset. The response of individual trees will depend on the amount of excavation and grading, the care with which demolition is undertaken, and the construction methods. Coordinating any construction activity inside the Tree Protection Zone can minimize these impacts.

Design recommendations

1. Establish a Tree Protection Zone around each tree to be preserved. For trees outside the project area, the Tree Protection Zone shall be the existing fence line on all sides.

2. Ensure adequate but not excessive water is supplied to on-site trees to be preserved; in most cases occasional irrigation will be required. Avoid directing runoff toward trees.

3. Use only herbicides safe for use around trees and labeled for that use, even below pavement.

Pre-demolition and pre-construction treatments and recommendations

1. Trees to be preserved may require pruning to provide clearance for construction activities. All pruning shall be done by a State of California Licensed Tree Contractor (C61/D49). All pruning shall be done by Certified Arborist or Certified Tree Worker in accordance with the Best Management Practices for Pruning (International Society of Arboriculture, 2002) and adhere to the most recent editions of the American National Standard for Tree Care Operations (Z133.1) and Pruning (A300).

2. The project’s security fence shall define the Tree Protection Zone. Fences are to remain until all grading and construction is completed. Where demolition must occur close to trees, such as removing curb and pavement, install trunk protection devices such as winding silt sock wattling around trunks or stacking hay bales around tree trunks.

3. All tree work shall comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as California Fish and Wildlife code 3503-3513 to not disturb nesting birds. To the extent feasible tree pruning and removal should be scheduled outside of the breeding season. Breeding bird surveys should be conducted prior to tree work. Qualified biologists should be involved in establishing work buffers for active nests.

4. Any approved grading, construction, demolition or other work within the Tree Protection Zone should be monitored by the Consulting Arborist.

5. Prior to grading or trenching, trees may require root pruning outside the Tree Protection Zone.

Any root pruning required for construction purposes shall receive the prior approval of, and be supervised by, the Consulting Arborist.

6. All grading within the dripline of trees shall be done using the smallest equipment possible. The equipment shall operate perpendicular to the tree and operate from outside the Tree Protection Zone. Any modifications must be approved and monitored by the Consulting Arborist.

7. Roots should be cut with a saw to provide a flat and smooth cut. If roots 2 inches and greater in diameter are encountered during site work and must be cut to complete the construction, the Consulting Arborist must be consulted to evaluate effects on the health and stability of the tree and recommend treatment.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 386
R
ecommendations for tree protection during construction

1. Any approved grading, construction, demolition or other work within the Tree Protection Zone should be monitored by the Consulting Arborist.

2. All contractors shall conduct operations in a manner that will prevent damage to trees to be preserved.

3. Tree protection devices are to remain until all site work has been completed within the work area. Fences or other protection devices may not be relocated or removed without permission of the Consulting Arborist.

4. Construction trailers, traffic and storage areas must remain outside Tree Protection Zone at all times.

5. Any root pruning required for construction purposes shall receive the prior approval of and be supervised by the Consulting Arborist. Roots should be cut with a saw to provide a flat and smooth cut. Removal of roots larger than 2 inches in diameter should be avoided.

6. If roots 2 inches and greater in diameter are encountered during site work and must be cut to complete the construction, the Consulting Arborist must be consulted to evaluate effects on the health and stability of the tree and recommend treatment.

7. C3 area and western edge of site grading: Trees to be removed at top of slope shall be cut at or just above the base. Leave remaining root systems or portions of roots in place to help stabilize hillside and minimize erosion on slopes below grading areas.

8. Any brush clearing required within the Tree Protection Zone shall be accomplished with hand-operated equipment.

9. Trees to be removed shall be felled so as to fall away from Tree Protection Zone and avoid pulling and breaking of roots of trees to remain. If roots are entwined, the Consulting Arborist may require first severing the major woody root mass before extracting the trees, or grinding the stump below ground.

10. All down brush and trees shall be removed from the Tree Protection Zone either by hand, or with equipment sitting outside the Tree Protection Zone. Extraction shall occur by lifting the material out, not by skidding across the ground.

11. Prior to grading or trenching, trees may require root pruning outside the Tree Protection Zone. Any root pruning required for construction purposes shall receive the prior approval of, and be supervised by, the Consulting Arborist.

12. Spoils from trench, footing, utility or other excavation shall not be placed within the Tree Protection Zone, neither temporarily nor permanently.

13. All grading within the dripline of trees shall be done using the smallest equipment possible.

The equipment shall operate perpendicular to the tree and operate from outside the Tree Protection Zone. Any modifications must be approved and monitored by the Consulting Arborist.

14. If injury should occur to any tree during construction, it should be evaluated as soon as possible by the Consulting Arborist so that appropriate treatments can be applied.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 387

15. N
o excess soil, chemicals, debris, equipment or other materials shall be dumped or stored within the Tree Protection Zone.

16. Any additional tree pruning needed for clearance during construction must be performed by a Certified Arborist and not by construction personnel.

Maintenance of impacted trees
Our procedures included assessing trees for observable defects in structure. This is not to say that trees without significant defects will not fail. Failure of apparently defect-free trees does occur, especially during storm events. Wind forces, for example, can exceed the strength of defect-free wood causing branches and trunks to break. Wind forces coupled with rain can saturate soils, reducing their ability to hold roots, and blow over defect-free trees. Although we cannot predict all failures, identifying those trees with observable defects is a critical component of enhancing public safety.

Furthermore, trees change over time. Our inspections represent the condition of the tree at the time of inspection. As trees age, the likelihood of failure of branches or entire trees increases. Annual tree inspections are recommended to identify changes to tree health and structure. In addition, trees should be inspected after storms of unusual severity to evaluate damage and structural changes.

Initiating these inspections is the responsibility of the client and/or tree owner.

Preserved trees will experience a physical environment different from that pre-development. As a result, tree health and structural stability should be monitored. Occasional pruning, fertilization, mulch, pest management, replanting and irrigation may be required. In addition, provisions for monitoring both tree health and structural stability following construction must be made a priority.

If you have any questions about my observations or recommendations, please contact me.

HortScience | Bartlett Consulting

Pam Nagle
Consulting Urban Forester
ISA Certified Arborist #WE-9617A
Registered Consulting Arborist #805
ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 388

Exhibits

Tree Assessment Plan

Tree Assessment Form

Tree Disposition

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 389
39 38
37 36
35 34
33 32 31
30 29
28 27
26 25
21 22
23 24
20 19 18 17 16 15 13 14
12 161 11
10 9
8 7
6 5
4 3 2 1
156
157
158
159
160
40 41
42 43
44 45
46 47
48 49 50
51 52 53
54 55 56
57 58
59 60
61 67
66 65
64 63
62 68
69 72
86 85
87 89
88 90
91 92
101
93 102
103
104
105
106
107
108
119
120
121
122 123
124 125 126
127
128
129 133
134
150
151
152
153
154
155
162 170 171 175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184 185
186
187
188 189 190
191
192
193
194
201
200
199
198
197
196
195
202
203
204
205
206 207
208
209
210 211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218 219
220
221
222
223
234 235
236
237
238
239
240 241
242
243 244
245 246
247
248
249
250
251
252
281
280
279
278 277
276
253 260 261 262 263 275 274 273
282
283 284
285
286
287 288
289 290
291 292
301
300
299 298
302
303 304
305
306
318 317
316
307 308 309
310 311
312 313
314
315
319
320
321
325
326
322 323 324
327
328
329
330
331
332 333 334 335 336
337 338 339 340 341 342
343 344 345 346
347
353
348
349
350
351 352
355 354
356 357
358 359 360
361 70 71
73 74
Tree Assessment Plan
300 Piedmont Avenue
San Bruno, CA

May 2022
325 Ray Street
Pleasanton, California 94566
Phone 925.484.0211
Fax 925.484.0596

Prepared for:

SummerHill Homes
Palo Alto, CA

Notes:

 Base map provided by: Google Earth

 Numbered tree locations are approximate.

 No Scale
DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 390
Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Heritage
Tree?
Condition
0=dead
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
1 Monterey pine 30 - 0 - Topped at ~30'; dead.
2 Monterey pine 27 - 0 - 1-sided to W.; dead.
3 Monterey pine 39 Yes 2 Low Correcting bow E; at base; history of limb removal; overextended 4 Monterey pine 32 Yes 2 Low Correcting lean E.; ov erextended limbs; history of limb removal; sparse.
5 Monterey pine 59 Yes 2 Low Multiple attachments at 7'; history of limb removal; trunks sweep S; and correct; crowded; pine pitch canker prevalent among 6 Monterey pine 40 Yes 2 Low Overextended branc hes; sparse; heavy sap bleeding on trunk. 7 Monterey pine 27 Yes 2 Low Overextended branches; narrow raised crown; crowded. 8 Monterey pine 27 Yes 2 Low Trunk bows E; at base and corrects; high raised crown; overextended branches; crowded.
9 Monterey pine 31 Yes 2 Low Multiple narrow attachments at ~20'; overextended branches; 10 Monterey pine 41 Yes 2 Low Large upward la teral over road; overextended branches. 11 Monterey pine 29 Yes 2 Low Raised cr own; overextended branches; sparse. 12 Monterey pine 42 Yes 2 Low History of limb removal; overextended branches; extensive branch dieback; sparse.
13 London plane 14 Yes 2 Low In unmaintained lawn planter; abandoned pollard w/decay at 14 London plane 11 Yes 2 Low In 8' unmaintained lawn planter; corrected lean E.; abandoned pollard w/ attachments at 8'; vigorous.
15 London plane 10 Yes 2 Low In 8' unmaintained lawn planter; sinuous trunk; abandoned pollard w/ attachments at 9'; branch dieback.
16 London plane 8 No 2 Low In 8' unmaintained lawn planter; abandoned pollard w/ attachments at 7'; poor form and structure.
17 London plane 17 Yes 2 Low In 8' unmaintained lawn planter; abandoned pollard w/ attachments at 8'; vigorous sprouts.
18 London plane 16 Yes 2 Low In 8' unmaintained lawn planter; abandoned pollard w/ attachments at 8'; less dense crown.

Tree Assessment
300 Piedmont Avenue
San Bruno, CA
May 2022 (Comments updated Sept. 2023)
DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 391
Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Heritage
Tree?
Condition
0=dead
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
300 Piedmont Avenue
San Bruno, CA
May 2022 (Comments updated Sept. 2023)
19 London plane 17 Yes 2 Low In unmaintained lawn; abandoned pollard w/ attachments at 8'. 20 Blackwood acacia 6,6,5 No 2 Low In unmaintained lawn; multiple attachments at base; vigorous low oval crown.
21 Monterey pine 34 Yes 2 Low Raised crown; 1-sided to S.; overextended branches; crowded. 22 Monterey pine 30 Yes 1 Low Codominant stems at 10'; history of limb removal; overly raised crown; low live crown ratio; very sparse; crowded.
23 Monterey pine 35 Yes 2 Low Overly raised crow n; history of limb removal; poor form and structure.
24 Monterey pine 24 Yes 2 Low Overly raised cr own; overextended branches; low live crown ratio.
25 Monterey pine 33 - 0 - Codominant stems at 7'; dead. 26 Monterey pine 35 Yes 2 Low Raised crown; 1-si ded to S.; leans N.E.; overextended branches; vigorous.
27 Monterey pine 26 Yes 2 Low On slope; over ly raised crown; overextended branches. 28 Monterey pine 28 Yes 1 Low On slope; leans N. E.; overly raised crown; little live foliage. 29 Monterey pine 33 Yes 2 Low On slope; over ly raised crown; overextended branches. 30 Monterey pine 38,36 Yes 2 Low At top of slope; c odominant stems at 3'; pine pitch canker at union; overly raised crown; crowded.
31 Blue atlas cedar 28,9 Yes 3 Moderate In mulch bed; multiple narrow attachments w/ seams; slightly thin crown; crowded.
32 Blue atlas cedar 19,14,10 Yes 3 Moderate In raise mulch bed; cavity N; side; multiple attachments at 3,5'; slightly thin crown; roots escaping below low wood retaining wall. 33 Blue atlas cedar 19,9,8,5,5 Yes 3 Moderate In raise mulch bed w/ deck; multiple attachments at 2'; slightly thin crown; crowded.
34 Blue atlas cedar 19,19,17,1
6,11,11,11
Yes 4 High On slope; multiple attachments at 2'; limb failure S; side; large spreading crown; vigorous.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 392
Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Heritage
Tree?
Condition
0=dead
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
300 Piedmont Avenue
San Bruno, CA
May 2022 (Comments updated Sept. 2023)
35 Blue atlas cedar 18,16,16,1
6,15,15,14
,13,13
Yes 4 High On slope; multiple attachments 1'; basal cavity S.E.; large spreading crown; vigorous.
36 Blue atlas cedar 24,22,19,1
5,13,12,10
,10,5,5
Yes 3 Moderate On slope; multiple attachments at 1'; history of limb failure; history of limb removal S; side; vigorous; large spreading crown. 37 Blue atlas cedar 38,12,10,1
0,10,10,10
Yes 3 Moderate On slope; multiple attach ments at 3'; narrow attachments w/ fused stems; large vigorous crown.
38 Blue atlas cedar 36,25,12,6
,6
Yes 3 Moderate On slope; multiple narrow atta chments at 1' w/ fused stems; large vigorous crown.
39 Japanese cedar 16,13 Yes 3 Moderate On slope; strong co rrecting lean S.E.; codominant stems at 1'; vigorous.
40 Monterey pine 42 Yes 2 Low In unmaintained lawn; large surface roots with mechanical damage; overextended branches; poor form and structure; thin crown.
41 Monterey pine 33 Yes 2 Low In unmaintained lawn; large surface roots with mechanical damage; overextended branches; thin crown.
42 Monterey pine 42 Yes 2 Low In unmaintained lawn; large surface roots with mechanical damage; overextended branches; more vigorous.
43 Monterey pine 28 Yes 2 Low In unmaintained lawn; large surface roots with mechanical damage; 1-sided to S.; overextended branches; sparse.
44 Monterey pine 39 Yes 2 Low In unmaintained lawn ; leans and 1-sided to N.E.; overly raised crown; overextended branches; crowded.
45 Monterey pine 46 Yes 2 Low In unmaintained la wn; leans and 1-sided to S.E.; overextended branches; sparse; crowded.
46 Monterey pine 41 Yes 2 Low In unmaintained lawn; crown bows and 1-sided to N.W.; overextended branches; crowded.
47 Monterey pine 41 Yes 2 Low In unmaintained lawn; crown bows and 1-sided to N.; overextended branches; crowded.
48 Monterey pine 37 Yes 1 Low On steep slope; lar ge buttress roots E.; seams E; and W; trunk; overly raised crown; overextended branches.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 393
Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Heritage
Tree?
Condition
0=dead
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
300 Piedmont Avenue
San Bruno, CA
May 2022 (Comments updated Sept. 2023)
49 Monterey pine 48 Yes 2 Low On slope; multiple narrow attachments at 6'; leans S.W.; overextended branches; vigorous.
50 Coast live oak 5,5,4 No 3 Moderate Multiple attachm ents arise from base; cut stem growing through fence; rounded crown; vigorous.
51 Blue atlas cedar 25,15,15,1
2,12,12,6
Yes 4 High In unmaintained lawn; multiple narrow attachments at 1'; large spreading crown; vigorous.
52 Monterey pine 39 Yes 2 Low In unmaintained lawn; 1-sided and leans to S.; history of limb removal; vigorous.
53 Monterey pine 50 Yes 2 Low In unmaintained la wn w/ mechanically damaged surface roots; large limb removals S.E.; branch dieback E; side; vigorous. 54 Blue atlas cedar 25,12,5 Yes 4 High In unmaintained lawn; basal limb removals S.E.; multiple narrow attachments at 5'; vigorous crown.
55 London plane 13 Yes 2 Low In unmaintained lawn; codominant stems at 7'; abandoned pollard w/ attachments at 8' + overextended branches; slight lean E.
56 London plane 9 No 2 Low In unmaintained lawn; multiple attachments/abandoned pollard at 8'; slight lean E.
57 London plane 10 Yes 2 Low In unmaintained lawn; multiple attachments/abandoned pollard at 7'; overextended branches.
58 London plane 11 Yes 1 Low In unmaintained lawn; strong lean N.E.; 5' trunk wound S.W; w/ decay; vigorous w/ suckers at base.
59 London plane 9 No 2 Low In unmaintained lawn; leans N.E ; multiple attachments at 8'; abandoned pollard above.
60 London plane 11 Yes 2 Low In unmaintained lawn; suckers at base; correcting lean N.E.; abandoned pollard at 9'.
61 London plane 9 No 2 Low In unmaintained lawn; correcting lean N.E.; multiple attachments at 8' w/ abandoned pollard above.
62 London plane 10 Yes 2 Low In unmaintained lawn; 4' from hydrant; history of limb removal; abandoned pollard at 9'.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 394
Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Heritage
Tree?
Condition
0=dead
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
300 Piedmont Avenue
San Bruno, CA
May 2022 (Comments updated Sept. 2023)
63 London plane 15 Yes 2 Low In unmaintained lawn; codominant stems at 6'; history of limb removal; abandoned pollard at 8,9'; vigorous.
64 London plane 8 No 2 Low In unmaintained lawn; corre cting lean N.E.; codominant stems at 6'; abandoned pollard above.
65 London plane 9 No 2 Low In unmaintained lawn; abandoned pollard at 7'. 66 London plane 11 Yes 2 Low In unmaintained lawn planter narrowing to 6'; history of limb removal; abandoned pollard at 8'.
67 London plane 10 Yes 2 Low In unmaintained lawn end planter; codominant stems at 7'; abandoned pollard at 8'.
68 Lemon-scented
gum
37 Yes 3 Low In corner planting bed; base pillows over curb; multiple narrow attachments at 2'; large vigorous crown.
69 Blue atlas cedar 17,17,13,1
2,7
Yes 4 High In corner planting bed; surface roots; vase form; vigorous. 70 Blue atlas cedar 28 Yes 3 Moderate Multiple attachments 2' w/ multiple narrow attachments at 4'; fused lower stems; rounded crown; crowded by #71.
71 Blue atlas cedar 19,14,8,6 Yes 3 Moderat e Codominant stems at 1.5'; multip le attachments above; crowded; both vigorous.
72 Coast live oak 12,10,9 Yes 3 Moderate 2' from fence; codominant stems at 3' w/ seam; vase form; crowded.
73 Coast live oak 21,13 Yes 4 High Codominant stems at 3' w/ seam; large vase form. 74 Coast live oak 13,4 Yes 3 Moderate At top of slope; ex posed surface roots; codominant stems at 4'; stems lean on fence; ver
y crowded.
75 Coast live oak 8,2 Yes 2 Low At top of slope; sparse; very crowded. 76 Coast live oak 7 Yes 2 Low At top of slope; leans on fence; very crowded by shrubs. 77 Coast live oak 5 No 2 Low At top of slope; l eans S.; high crown; crowded by shrubs. 78 Coast live oak 6 Yes 2 Low At top of slope; l eans S.; branches growing into fence; high crown; crowded.
79 Victorian box 5,3 No 2 Low On slope; branch dieback; crowded; yellowing foliage. 80 Victorian box 4,2,2 No 2 Low On slope; multiple attachments arise from base; yellowing folia
ge; crowded.
81 Coast live oak 7 Yes 2 Low On slope; leans N.E.; very crowded.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 395
Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Heritage
Tree?
Condition
0=dead
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
300 Piedmont Avenue
San Bruno, CA
May 2022 (Comments updated Sept. 2023)
82 Victorian box 6,3,3,3,3,3 No 2 Low On slope; multiple attachments arise from base; very crowded; yellowing foliage.
83 Coast live oak 7,6,6,4,4,4
,4
Yes 2 Low Tagged on branch; On slope; multiple attachments arise from base; crowded.
84 Victorian box 5,3,3,3,3,2
,2,2
No 2 Low On slope at fence; multiple attachments at 1'; branch dieback; yellowing foliage.
85 Coast live oak 13,4 Yes 2 Low On slope at fence; codominant stems at 1'; vase form; crowded. 86 Coast live oak 8,6,4 Yes 3 Moderate At fence; multiple attachments arise from base; raised crown; branching thru fence; crowded by shrubs; vigorous.
87 Coast live oak 6 Yes 2 Low Leans N.; engulfed in shrubs. 88 Coast live oak 7,5,5,3,3,3
,3
Yes 2 Low Leans S.; fused stems and base growing through fence; engulfed in shrubs.
89 Plum 6,6 No 2 Low Codominant stems at 3.5'; crowded by shrubs. 90 Blue atlas cedar 26 Yes 3 Moderate On slope; asphalt at base; slightly thin crown. 91 Myoporum 7,6 No 2 Low Leans N.; codominant stems at 1'; sparse. 92 Myoporum 6,4,3 No 2 Low Leans E.; multiple atta chments arise from base; failing stem; en
gulfed in shrubs.
93 Myoporum 5,4,4,3,3 No 2 Low Leans N.E.; multiple attachments at base; crowded by shrubs. 94 Myoporum 5,4,4,3,3,3 No 2 Low Leans N.E.; multiple attachments arise from base; engulfed in ivy; crowded.
95 Monterey pine 17 Yes 2 Low Codominant stems at 3' w/ 2' included bark; high crown; crowded by shrubs; engulfed in ivy; vigorous.
96 Monterey pine 13 Yes 2 Low Engulfed in ivy; slight lean S.; high crown; vigorous; crowded. 97 Myoporum 7 - 0 - Leans S.; engulfed in shrubs; dead. 98 Monterey pine 13 Yes 2 Low Engulfed in ivy; sinuous trunk; high crown; crowded. 99 Monterey pine 4,3 No 2 Low Codominant stems at base; stems fused for 4'; engulfed in shrubs;
young tree.
100 Monterey pine 8 Yes 4 Moderate Engulfed in i vy; crowded by shrubs; vigorous; good young tree.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 396
Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Heritage
Tree?
Condition
0=dead
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
300 Piedmont Avenue
San Bruno, CA
May 2022 (Comments updated Sept. 2023)
101 Myoporum 6,2 No 1 Low Engulfed in ivy; very high sparse crown. 102 Myoporum 10,7,5,5,4 Yes 1 Low On slope; multiple a ttachments w/ decay at base; very sparse. 103 Myoporum 7,7,6,4,4,4
,4
No 1 Low On slope; multiple attachments arise from base; very sparse. 104 Myoporum 7,3,2 No 1 Low On slope; multiple atta chments arise from base; leans N.E.; all but dead.
105 Myoporum 6,2,2 No 1 Low On slope; multiple atta chments arise from base; failing stems; very sparse.
106 Myoporum 7,6,5,1 No 1 Low On slope; engulfed in ivy; multiple attachments arise from base; 2 fused stems; high sparse crown.
107 Myoporum 9,6,6,4 No 1 Low On slope; multiple attachments arise from base; group of decayed stems; high sparse crown.
108 Myoporum 6,5,5,4,3,3
,2
No 1 Low On slope; multiple attachments arise from base; engulfed in shrubs and ivy; high sparse crown.
109 Myoporum 6,3 No 1 Low On slope; trunk failed to E.; sparse. 110 Myoporum 6,5,5,4 No 1 Low On slope; multiple attachments arise from base; leans S.; crowded.
111 Myoporum 7,7 No 1 Low On slope; codominant st ems at base w/ extensive basal decay; sparse.
112 Myoporum 6,6,4,4,3,3
,3,3
No 1 Low On slope; multiple attachment s arise from base; decayed stems; branch dieback; sparse.
113 Monterey pine 6 Yes 3 Low On slope; base at #114; vigorous young tree. 114 Myoporum 7 No 1 Low On slope; base at #113; ivy on trunk; high crown. 115 Monterey pine 10 Yes 3 Low On slope; good form and structure; in shrubs; vigorous. 116 Myoporum 6,5,5,3,3 No 1 Low On slope; multiple attachments arise from base; sparse. 117 Myoporum 7,7,6 No 1 Low On slope; multiple atta chments arise from base; leans N.; in shrubs; hi
gh sparse crown.
118 Myoporum 6,6,3,3,2,2 No 1 Low On slope; multiple attachments arise from base; leans N.; engulfed in shrubs; high sparse crown.
119 Coast live oak 5 No 4 High At fence; codominant stems at 6'; vigorous; good young tree.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 397
Tree
No.

6.5'; vigorous; suppressed by #131.
121 Coast live oak 30 Yes 2 Low At fence; N; base in asphalt; S; base embedding in fence; large vase form; branch dieback; sparse crown.
122 Cork oak 17 Yes 3 Moderate In raised planter; multiple attachments at 3'; slight correcting lean S.
123 Cork oak 12,10 Yes 3 Moderate Codominant stems at 2.5'; raised crown. 124 Cork oak 11 Yes 3 Moderate In raised planter; mu ltiple attachments at 5'; sinuous trunk; crowded by acacia sapling.
125 Blackwood acacia 6,4,4,4,3 No 3 Low In raised planter; multiple attachments arise from base; large shrub form.
126 Blackwood acacia 7,6,6,6,6 No 3 Low In raised planter; multiple attachments arise from base; shrub form; vigorous; crowded.
127 Blackwood acacia 8,6,5 No 3 Low In raised planter; mu ltiple attachments arise from base; vigorous; crowded.
128 Blackwood acacia 7 No 3 Low In raised pl anter; shrub form; crowded; vigorous. 129 Blue atlas cedar 14 Yes 4 High In raised planter; multiple attachments at 4'; vase form. 130 Cork oak 14 Yes 3 Moderate In raised planter; multiple attachments at 4'; raised crown; vase form; sli
ghtly sparse.
131 Cork oak 9,8,6,6 Yes 2 Low In raised planter; multiple attachments at 1'; vase form; very sparse.
132 Cork oak 16,8,7 Yes 2 Low In raised planter; mult iple attachments at 2.5'; very sparse. 133 Cork oak 11,8,7 Yes 3 Moderate Codominant stems at 1'; raised crown; slightly sparse. 134 Glossy privet 13 Yes 2 Low In raised planter; codom inant stems at 5'; history of limb failure; correctin
g lean S.W.; crowded.
135 Glossy privet 8,6,3 No 2 Low In raised planter; multiple attachments at 3'; suppressed. 136 Glossy privet 8 No 2 Low In raised planter; multiple attachments at 5'; crowded. 137 Glossy privet 10 Yes 2 Low In raised planter; c odominant stems at 4'; trunk decayed; raised crown; crowded.
138 Glossy privet 6,6 No 2 Low In raised planter; codominant stems at 3.5'; history of limb removal; vase form; crowded.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 398
Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Heritage
Tree?
Condition
0=dead
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
300 Piedmont Avenue
San Bruno, CA
May 2022 (Comments updated Sept. 2023)
139 Glossy privet 8 No 2 Low In raised planter; mult iple attachments at 4.5'; crowded; sparse. 140 Glossy privet 8 No 1 Low In raised planter; codom inant stems at 4'; history of limb removal w/ decay; sparse; basal cavity.
141 Glossy privet 9 No 2 Low In raised planter; c odominant stems at 4' w/ removed stem; crowded; sparse.
142 Glossy privet 7 No 2 Low In raised planter; codom inant stems at 5'; raised crown; sparse. 143 Glossy privet 9 No 2 Low In raised planter; multip le attachments at 5' w/ decay; history of limb removal; sparse.
144 Glossy privet 7 No 2 Low In raised planter; mult iple attachments at 4.5'; history of limb removal; sparse; crowded.
145 Glossy privet 7 No 2 Low In raised planter; mult iple attachments at 5'; history of limb removal; 1-sided to N.E.
146 Glossy privet 8 No 2 Low In raised planter; mult iple attachments at 5' w/ decay; crowded. 147 Glossy privet 12 Yes 2 Low In raised planter; mu ltiple attachments at 5.5'; raised crown; branch dieback; crowded.
148 Glossy privet 7 No 1 Low In raised planter; codomi nant stems at 4'; history of limb removal; branch dieback; very crowded.
149 Glossy privet 9 No 2 Low In raised planter; multip le narrow attachments at 4'; raised crown; crowded.
150 Glossy privet 16 Yes 2 Low In raised planter; multip le attachments at 4.5'; raised crown; stem decay; crowded.
151 Bronze loquat 11 Yes 4 High No tag; Multiple attachments 5'; raised crown; vigorous. 152 Cajeput paperbark
tree
18 Yes 3 Moderate Multiple attachments at 6.5'; raised crown; 1-sided to N.E.; crowded.
153 Cajeput paperbark
tree
17 Yes 3 Moderate Codominant stems at 6' w/ seam and narrow attachment; high raised crown; crowded.
154 Cajeput paperbark
tree
16 Yes 2 Low Leans S.; 8" removed stem N.; very crowded.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 399
Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Heritage
Tree?
Condition
0=dead
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
300 Piedmont Avenue
San Bruno, CA
May 2022 (Comments updated Sept. 2023)
155 Cajeput paperbark
tree
20 Yes 3 Moderate Codominant stems at 2', fused to 10'; leans S.W.; high raised crown; crowded.
156 Bronze loquat 9 - 0 - In raised 4x4' planter; dead. 157 Bronze loquat 11 Yes 3 Moderate Codominant stems at 6'; 1-sided to S.; raised crown; some trunk decay S; side.
158 Blackwood acacia 8 No 3 Low Good form and stru cture w/ central leader; vigorous; crowded. 159 Olive 5,3 No 3 Low Codominant stems at 4'; very crowded. 160 Chinese elm 3 No 3 Moderate Tagged on cross brace; leans N.E.; good young tree. 161 Monterey pine 39 Yes 2 Low Multiple attachments at 7'; history of limb removal; overextended branches; some branch dieback.
162 Victorian box 5,3,3,2,1,1 No 2 Low On slope; multiple attachments at 2'; shrub form; branch dieback; crowded.
163 Victorian box 5,5,4,3,2,2 No 2 Low On slope; multiple attachments at 2'; shrub form; branch dieback; crowded.
164 Coast live oak 4 No 3 Moderate On slope at fence; c odominant stems arise from base; vase form; vi
gorous.
165 Victorian box 6,6,3,3,2 No 2 Low On slope; multiple attachments at 2'; shrub form; branch dieback; crowded.
166 Coast live oak 6,6,5 Yes 2 Low On slope; multiple attachments arise from base; leans W.; crowded.
167 Victorian box 5,5,3,2,2 No 2 Low On slope; multiple attachments at 2'; shrub form; branch dieback; crowded.
168 Victorian box 6,3,3,3,2,2
,1
No 2 Low On slope w/ history of limb removal at base; branch dieback; crowded.
169 Victorian box 6,3,3,3 No 2 Low On slope; multiple attachments at 2'; shrub form; branch dieback; crowded; leans E.
170 Victorian box 6,5,4,2,2,2 No 2 Low On slope; multiple attachments at 1'; raised crown; leans E.; crowded.
171 Coast live oak 5 No 2 Low Tagged on fence; At f ence on slope; high sparse crown; very crowded.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 400
Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Heritage
Tree?
Condition
0=dead
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
300 Piedmont Avenue
San Bruno, CA
May 2022 (Comments updated Sept. 2023)
172 Coast live oak 8 Yes 2 Low Tagged on fence; Codominant stems at 6'; 1-sided to W.; sparse; very crowded.
173 Toyon 10 Yes 1 Low Tagged on fence; On slope; codominant stems at 4'; branch dieback; very crowded.
174 Coast live oak 10,5,4 Yes 4 High On slope; good form and structure; vigorous; crowded. 175 Coast live oak 9,5,3 Yes 3 Moderate Multiple attachment s arise from base; codominant stems at 7.5'; slight lean W.; crowded.
176 London plane 16 Yes 4 High Multiple attachments at 12'; otherwise good form and structure; large vigorous crown.
177 London plane 16 Yes 3 Moderate High vase crown; crowded. 178 London plane 13 Yes 3 Moderate Codominant stems at 9'; slightly crowded. 179 London plane 18 Yes 4 High Codominant stems at 7'; large vase crown. 180 Coast live oak 26 Yes 3 Moderate Tag on fence; on slope; multiple branch attachments at 3'; narrow attachments at 4'; slightly sparse E.; crowded; Overhang from site fence: ~15'.
181 Coast live oak 8 Yes 2 Low On slope; codominant stems at 4.5'; narrow form; sparse; crowded; Overhan
g from site fence: ~2'.
182 Coast live oak 10 Yes 2 Low On slope; codominant stems at 3' w/ seam; 1-sided to S.W.; sparse; Overhang from site fence: ~15'.
183 Coast live oak 6,5,4,3,1 Yes 2 Low 3' from utility pole; multiple attachments arise at base; crowded; slightly sparse.
184 Coast live oak 6,3 Yes 1 Low Tag on fence; on slope; codominant stems at 3'; leans W.; sparse; Overhang from site fence: ~3'.
185 Coast live oak 12,8 Yes 1 Low Tag on fence; on slope; leans S.W.; codominant stems at 4.5' w/ seam; crowded and suppressed; Overhang from site fence: ~12'. 186 Blue atlas cedar 25,16 Yes 3 Moderate Tag on fence; on slope; codominant stems at 3.5' w/ smaller fused stems; large vase form; Overhang from site fence: ~4'. 187 Coast live oak 10,10,8,
8,8,5,3
Yes 4 High Multiple attachments arise from base; vase form; full vigorous crown.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 401
Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Heritage
Tree?
Condition
0=dead
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
300 Piedmont Avenue
San Bruno, CA
May 2022 (Comments updated Sept. 2023)
188 Coast live oak 7 Yes 3 Moderate Tag on fence; sinuous trunk; leans S; w/ branches on fence; vigorous; Overhang from site fence: ~3'.
189 Coast live oak 6,6,5 Yes 3 Moderate At fence; mult iple attachments at 1'; leans S.; vigorous. 190 Monterey pine 38 Yes 2 Low Tag on fence; engulfed in ivy; history of limb removal; high crown; Overhang from site fence: ~18'.
191 Coast live oak 7,6 Yes 2 Low Tag on branch; on slope; codominant stems at 3'; branches through fence; Overhang from site fence: ~7'.
192 Monterey pine 5 No 3 Low Tag on fence; gr owing against fence; vigorous young tree; Overhang from site fence: ~2'.
193 Monterey pine 39 Yes 2 Low Tag on fence; on slope; history of limb removal; stub cuts; poor form and structure; Overhang from site fence: ~21'.
194 Monterey pine 13 Yes 1 Low Tag on fence; leans N.E.; topped; history of limb removal w/ stub cuts; Overhang from site fence: ~1.
195 Monterey pine 38 Yes 2 Low Tag on fence; on slope; history of limb removal w/ stub cuts; Overhang from site fence: ~16'.
196 Monterey pine 25 Yes 2 Low Tag on fence; multiple attachments at 20'; poor form and structure; history of limb removal w/ stub cuts; Overhang from site fence: ~15'.
197 Monterey pine 24 Yes 1 Low Tag on fence; leans S.W.; poor form and structure; egregious stub cuts; Overhang from site fence: ~15'.
198 Monterey pine 18 Yes 1 Low Tag on fence; co rrecting lean N.E.; overly raised crown; overextended branches over site; Overhang from site fence:
~17'.
199 Monterey pine 32 Yes 2 Low Tag on fence; ve ry sinuous trunk; poor form and structure; vigorous; Overhang from site fence: ~17'.
200 Monterey pine 29 Yes 1 Low Tag on fence; on slope; history of limb removal; overextended branching over site; extremely sparse; Overhang from site fence:
~18'.
201 Monterey pine 45 Yes 3 Low Tag on fence; 0n slope; history of limb removal w/ stub cuts S; side; vigorous; Overhang from site fence: ~15'.
202 Monterey pine 55 Yes 2 Low Tag on fence; multip le attachments at 4'; upright form; very sparse; Overhang from site fence: ~17'.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 402
Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Heritage
Tree?
Condition
0=dead
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
300 Piedmont Avenue
San Bruno, CA
May 2022 (Comments updated Sept. 2023)
203 Coast live oak 6,4,4 Yes 2 Low Tag on stem; growing through fence; leans S.; vigorous. 204 Monterey pine 32 Yes 2 Low Tag on fence; leans S. E.; multiple attachments at 15'; poor form and structure; Overhang from site fence: ~16'.
205 Monterey pine 27 Yes 2 Low Tag on fence; overly raised crown; multiple attachments at 35'; sparse; Overhang from site fence: ~5'.
206 Coast live oak 7 Yes 3 Moderate Tag on fence; sinuous trunk; vigorous; Overhang from site fence:
~1'.
207 Monterey pine 16 Yes 1 Low Tag on fence; on slope; leans E.; overextended branches; Overhang from site fence: ~9'.
208 Monterey pine 38,12 Yes 2 Low Tag on fence; on slope; failed downhill tree leaning against; codominant stems at 6.5'; some stub cuts; vigorous; Overhang from site fence: ~12'.
209 Monterey pine 42 Yes 2 Low Tag on fence; multiple attachments at 6'; history of limb failure; corrected lean S.E; Overhang from site fence: ~12'.
210 Coast live oak 6,4,4,3 Yes 3 Low Tag on fence; mu ltiple attachments at base; growing through fence; Overhang from site fence: ~4'.
211 Monterey pine 30 Yes 2 Low No tag; history of limb removal; leans N.E.; vigorous; Overhang from site fence: ~9'.
212 Monterey pine 32 Yes 2 Low No tag; history of limb removal; raised crown; overextended branches; Overhang from site fence: ~20'.
213 Monterey pine 38 Yes 1 Low Tag on fence; leans S.E.; all but dead; Overhang from site fence:
~15'.
214 Monterey pine 22 Yes 2 Low Tag on fence; mult iple attachments at ~35'; sinuous stems; correcting lean N.
215 Monterey pine 24 Yes 3 Low No tag; upright fo rm; good form and structure; slightly thin. 216 Monterey pine 26 - 0 - Tag on fence; overextended branches; dead. 217 Monterey pine 26 - 0 - Tag on f ence; overextended branches; dead. 218 Monterey pine 28 Yes 2 Low Tag on fence; overextended branches; sparse; pine bark beetle damage.
219 Monterey pine 22 Yes 2 Low Tag on fence; low live crown ratio; very high sparse crown. 220 Coast live oak 5 No 2 Low Tagged on branch; engulfed in poison oak; leans S.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 403
Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Heritage
Tree?
Condition
0=dead
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
300 Piedmont Avenue
San Bruno, CA
May 2022 (Comments updated Sept. 2023)
221 Manna gum 38 Yes 2 Low Tag on fence; leans S.E .; multiple attachments at ~40'; Overhang from site fence: ~35'.
222 Coast live oak 16 Yes 3 Moderate Tag on fence; mult iple attachments at 6'; slightly sparse; suppressed; Overhang from site fence: ~20'.
223 Coast live oak 10,7,4 Yes 2 Low No tag; multip le attachments at 2'; very suppressed. 224 Manna gum 19,8 Yes 3 Low Tag on fence; codomi nant stems arise from base w/ narrow attachment; crowded; Overhang from site fence: ~15'.
225 Coast live oak 5,3,3,2,2 No 2 Low Tag on fence; on slope; multiple branch attachments at 3'; narrow attachments at 4'; slightly sparse E.; crowded; Overhang from site fence: ~15'.
226 Coast live oak 6,4 Yes 2 Low At fence; codominant stems arise from base; vase form; leans E.; crowded.
227 Coast live oak 8 Yes 2 Low At fence; multiple attachments at 3.5'; leans E.; crowded. 228 Monterey pine 32 Yes 2 Low Tag on fence; engulfed in poison oak; overextended branches; Overhang from site fence: ~15'.
229 Manna gum 5,5 No 1 Low On fence line; codominant stems at 1'; growing through fence; very sparse; suppressed.
230 Monterey pine 23 Yes 1 Low Tag on fence; codominant stems w/ narrow attachment at 4.5'; very high crown; Overhang from site fence: ~12'.
231 Manna gum 6 No 3 Low On fence line; at f ence; good form and structure; young tree. 232 Monterey pine 30 Yes 2 Low Tag on fence; codominant stems at ~30'; overextended branches; crowded; Overhang from site fence: ~18'.
233 White poplar 7 No 2 Low Tag on fence; very narrow high crown; multiple narrow attachments at ~35'; crowded.
234 White poplar 6,4 No 3 Low Codominant stems w/ narrow attachment at 2.5'; high narrow crown.
235 White poplar 7 No 2 Low Tag on fence; engulfed in poison oak; high narrow crown; Overhang from site fence: ~3.
236 Monterey pine 25 Yes 2 Low Tag on fence; leans S.E; against fence; engulfed in ivy and poison oak; overextended branches.
237 White poplar 10 - 0 - Tag on fence; engulfed in ivy and poison oak; dead.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 404
Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Heritage
Tree?
Condition
0=dead
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
300 Piedmont Avenue
San Bruno, CA
May 2022 (Comments updated Sept. 2023)
238 Monterey pine 37 Yes 2 Low Tag on fence; cr own weighted S.E.; engulfed in ivy; Overhang from site fence: ~25'.
239 White poplar 15,5,3,2,2 Yes 3 Low At fence; multiple attachments arise from base; tall narrow form. 240 Monterey pine 17 Yes 3 Low Tag on fence; not accessible; Pyramidal form; good central leader; vigorous.
241 White poplar 6,2,2,2,2,1
,1,1
No 2 Low Growing though fence; multiple narrow attachments at 2'; narrow upright form.
242 Coast live oak 30,14 Yes 4 High Multiple attachments at 3 and 4'; very wide spreading crown w/ branching to ground S; side; vigorous specimen tree.
243 Coast live oak 14,12 Yes 3 Moderate Suppressed by pine; Overhang from site fence: ~12'. 244 Monterey pine 20 Yes 3 Low Tag on branch; narrow codominant stem union at 5'; Overhang from site fence: ~5'.
245 Coast live oak 12,5 Yes 2 Low Codominant stems at 1'; very suppressed and 1-sided to S. 246 Coast live oak 19 Yes 4 High At fence; multip le attachments at 4'; wide vigorous crown. 247 Coast live oak 7,5 Yes 2 Low Tag on fence; codomi nant stems at 3' w/ removed stem; very suppressed by #246.
248 Monterey pine 6 Yes 3 Low Off-site. Tag on fence; at fence; codominant stems at 3'; vigorous young tree.
249 Lawson false
cypress
22,16,10 Yes 3 Moderate Multiple attachments at 3'; typical spreading crown; sparse w/ branch dieback E; side.
250 Coast live oak 6 Yes 4 High Off-site. Codominant stems at 5' w/ 6" seam; oval crown; good young tree.
251 Lawson false
cypress
18,13,12,1
2 Yes 4 High Codominant stems at 3'; ty pical form and structure; more vigorous.
252 Coast live oak 7 Yes 2 Low Off-site. At fence; leans W.; crowded by shrubs. 253 Coast live oak 23 Yes 3 Moderate Tag on fence; wide slightly sparse crown. 254 Coast live oak 7 Yes 2 Low At fence; growi ng through fence; 1-sided to W.; vigorous. 255 Coast live oak 11 Yes 3 Moderate Off-site. At fence; multiple attachments at 6'; slight lean W.; vi
gorous.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 405
Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Heritage
Tree?
Condition
0=dead
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
300 Piedmont Avenue
San Bruno, CA
May 2022 (Comments updated Sept. 2023)
256 Coast live oak 13 Yes 3 Moderate Off-site. At fence; growing through fence; wide rounded vigorous crown.
257 Coast live oak 11 Yes 3 Moderate Off-site. At fence; codominant stems at 4'; vigorous crown. 258 Lawson false
cypress
23 Yes 2 Low Off-site. Correcting lean S.; codominant stems at 6'; history of limb removal; extensive branch dieback.
259 Coast live oak 7,2 Yes 2 Low Off-site. On fence line; growing through fence; 1-sided to W.; slightly sparse.
260 Coast live oak 11,7 Yes 2 Low Off-site. Tagged on branch; at fence; leans S.; codominant stems at 4'; very crowded.
261 Coast live oak 11,7 Yes 2 Low Off-site. Tagged on branch; at fence; leans S.; codominant stems at 4'; very crowded.
262 Coast live oak 13 Yes 3 Moderate Off-site. At fence; leans W.; multiple attachments at 8'. 263 Coast live oak 15 Yes 2 Low Off-site. At fence; leans W.; multiple attachments at 8'. 264 Coast live oak 15 Yes 2 Low Off-site. At fence; tagged on branch; multiple attachments at 9'; sparse; crowded.
265 Coast live oak 15,12 Yes 3 Moderate Off-site. At fence; tagged on fence; codominant stems at 3'; narrow; crowded.
266 Coast live oak 11,6,3 Yes 2 Low Off-site. At fence; tagged on fence; multiple attachments at 3'; branch dieback; crowded and suppressed.
267 Coast live oak 8 Yes 2 Low Off-site. At fence; slight lean S.; narrow; crowded. 268 Coast live oak 11 Yes 2 Low Off-site. At fence; high narrow crown; sparse; crowded. 269 Coast live oak 12 Yes 2 Low Off-site. At fence; 1-sided to W.; sparse. 270 Coast live oak 9 Yes 2 Low Off-site. At fence; codominant stems at 5'; very crowded. 271 Coast live oak 12,9 Yes 2 Low Off-site. At fence; codominant stems at 3'; sparse; very crowded. 272 Coast live oak 7 Yes 2 Low Off-site. At fence; codominant stems at 5.5'; narrow; sparse. 273 Coast live oak 13 Yes 2 Low Off-site. At fence; growing through fence at base; codominant stems at 4.5'; large stem removal E; side.
274 Coast live oak 8,6,6,5 Yes 2 Low Off-site. At fence; multiple attachments at base; leans W.; crowded.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 406
Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Heritage
Tree?
Condition
0=dead
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
300 Piedmont Avenue
San Bruno, CA
May 2022 (Comments updated Sept. 2023)
275 Coast live oak 9,9,4 Yes 3 Moderate Off-site. At fence; branches through fence; vigorous. 276 Coast live oak 9,7,5 Yes 2 Low Off-site. At fence; branches through fence; vigorous. 277 Coast live oak 5,4 No 2 Low Tagged on fence; at fence; branches through fence; vigorous. 278 Coast live oak 4,3,3 No 2 Low Tagged on branch; mult iple attachments at base; low shrubby form.
279 Monterey pine 6 Yes 3 Low At fence; young vigorous tree. 280 Coast live oak 5,2,2 No 2 Low Tagged on fence; mu ltiple attachments at base; sparse. 281 Blue gum 26 Yes 2 Low Tagged on fence; topped; at fence; slightly sparse. 282 Coast live oak 16,13,5,4 Yes 2 Low Multiple attachments at base; growing through fence; wide crown; crowded by #283.
283 Coast live oak 15 Yes 3 Moderate At fence; multiple attachments at 6'; crowded. 284 Coast live oak 10 Yes 3 Moderate Tagged on fence; codominant stems at 4'; crowded; sparse. 285 Blue atlas cedar 19,13,7,7,
4 Yes 3 Moderate Tagged on fence; multiple attachments at 3'; vase form; crowded. 286 Blue atlas cedar 13,5,4 Yes 3 Moderate Tagged on fence; on slope, multiple attachments at 3'; narrow u
pright crown; crowded.
287 Monterey pine 26,22 Yes 2 Low Tagged on fence; on slope, multiple attachments at 4'; overextended branches; large vase form; sparse; crowded. 288 Monterey pine 30 Yes 2 Low Tagged on fence; codominant stems at 10'; upright form. 289 Coast live oak 7 Yes 4 High Tagged on fence; on slope; codominant stems at 3'; vigorous. 290 Coast live oak 12 Yes 4 High Tagged on fence; on slope; multiple attachments at 12'; vigorous u
pper crown.
291 Monterey pine 30 Yes 2 Low Tagged on fence; engulfed in poison oak; high crown. 292 Coast live oak 6 Yes 4 High Tagged on fence; on slope; 3' from #291; central leader bows S.; vi
gorous.
293 Coast live oak 5,5 No 3 Moderate Tagged on fence; on slope; codominant stems at 3'; crowded. 294 Monterey pine 22 Yes 1 Low Tagged on fence; on slope; overextended branches; all but dead.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 407
Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Heritage
Tree?
Condition
0=dead
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
300 Piedmont Avenue
San Bruno, CA
May 2022 (Comments updated Sept. 2023)
295 Coast live oak 7,6 Yes 3 Moderate Tagged on fence; on slope; 2 stems arise from base; sparse. 296 Coast live oak 7 Yes 2 Low Tagged on fence; on slope; leans N.; sparse; crowded. 297 Monterey pine 24 Yes 2 Low Tagged on fence; on slope; very high crown; engulfed in poison oak.
298 Coast live oak 6 Yes 3 Moderate Tagged on fence; on slope; codominant stems at 8'; crowded; surrounded by dead brush.
299 Coast live oak 12 Yes 3 Moderate Tagged on fence; on slope; codominant stems at 9'; crown weighted S.; crowded.
300 Coast live oak 10 Yes 4 High Tagged on fence; on slope; codominant stems at 12'; vigorous oval crown.
301 Coast live oak 18,14 Yes 4 High On slope; codom inant stems at 3' w/ seam; vigorous. 302 Coast live oak 17,12,10,8
,8,8
Yes 3 Moderate Tagged on fence; multiple attachments arise from base; wide vase form.
303 Monterey pine 10 Yes 4 Low Off-site. Strong central leader; vigorous young tree. 304 Coast live oak 6 Yes 2 Low Off-site. Tagged on branch; growing through fence; crowded by pine.
305 Coast live oak 7,6 Yes 3 Moderate Off-site. Tagged on branch; at fence; branches through fence; codominant stems at 4'; vigorous.
306 Monterey pine 27 Yes 3 Moderate Possibly offsit e; Tagged on fence; on slope; correcting lean N.; codominant stems at ~30' w/narrow attachment; vigorous. 307 Coast live oak 20, 14,
13,8,8,5
Yes 4 High Possibly offsite; Tagged on branch; on slope; multiple attachments arise from 1'; very wide spreading crown.
308 Monterey pine 30 Yes 3 Low Possibly offsite; Tagged on fence; on slope; topped in past at ~40'; slight lean N.
309 Coast live oak 6,5,4 Yes 3 Moderate Possibly offsite; On slope; multiple attachments at 3'; crowded. 310 Blue atlas cedar 8,7 Yes 2 Low Possibly offsite; Tagged on branch; on slope; 1-sided to N.; suppressed by #311.
311 Monterey pine 40 Yes - - Possibly offsite; On slope; dead.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 408
Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Heritage
Tree?
Condition
0=dead
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
300 Piedmont Avenue
San Bruno, CA
May 2022 (Comments updated Sept. 2023)
312 Blue atlas cedar 10 Yes 2 Low Off-site. On slope; 1-sided to N.; extremely suppressed by dead pines.
313 Monterey pine 40 Yes - - Possibly offsite; T agged on shrub at fence; upright vase form. 314 Blue atlas cedar 5,4,3 Yes 1 Low Possibly offsite; Tagged on fence; on slope; suppressed; very sparse.
315 Coast live oak 8,7 Yes 3 Moderate Possibly offsite; Tagged on fence; on slope; codominant stems at 4'; high crown.
316 Blue atlas cedar 14 Yes 4 High Off-site. Tagged on fence; on slope; strong central leader; pyramidal form; crowded.
317 Monterey pine 12 Yes 4 Moderate Possibly offs ite; Tagged on fence; on slope; strong central leader; vigorous.
318 Coast live oak 6,3 Yes 3 Moderate Possibly offs ite; Tagged on fence; on slope; sinuous trunk; codominant stems at 2'; crowded.
319 Monterey pine 16 Yes 3 Moderate Possibly offs ite; Tagged on fence; on slope; strong central leader; slightly sparse.
320 Coast live oak 11 Yes 3 Moderate Possibly offsite; Tagged on branch; at fence; correcting lean N.E.; codominant stems at 6.5'; slightly sparse.
321 Blue atlas cedar 13,8,6,6 Yes 2 Low Possibly offsite; Tagged on fence; on slope; multiple attachments at 2'; thin crown; crowded.
322 Coast live oak 12 Yes 3 Moderate Possibly offsite; At fence; sinuous trunk; slightly sparse. 323 Coast live oak 13 Yes 3 Moderate Possibly offsite; At fence; multiple attachments at 4.5'; sparse ; crowded.
324 Coast live oak 11,10 Yes 3 Moderate Possibly offsite; On slope; codominant stems arise from base; wide crown; slightly sparse.
325 Coast live oak 8 Yes 2 Low Offsite. At fence; leans N.; history of limb removal; sinuous trunk; poor form and structure.
326 Monterey pine 17,15 Yes 2 Low Possibly offsite; Tag on fence; on slope; multiple branch attachments at 3'; narrow attachments at 4'; slightly sparse E.; crowded; Overhang from site fence: ~15'.
327 Monterey pine 32 Yes 2 Low No tag; engulfed in poison oak; lost top; overextended branches.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 409
Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Heritage
Tree?
Condition
0=dead
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
300 Piedmont Avenue
San Bruno, CA
May 2022 (Comments updated Sept. 2023)
328 Monterey pine 26 Yes 2 Low No tag; engulfed in poison oak; high crown. 329 Coast live oak 12 Yes 3 Moderate On slope; codominant stems; at 7'; 1-sided to N.; crowded; a little sparse.
330 Monterey pine 16 Yes 2 Low On slope; leans S.E.; high raised crown; crowded. 331 Blue atlas cedar 9,8,7,3 Yes 3 Moderate On slope; mult iple attachments at 3'; thin crown; crowded. 332 Monterey pine 14 Yes 2 Low On slope; extremely high crown; low live crown ratio; 1-sided to N.
333 Blue atlas cedar 6 No 2 Low On slope; stem failure W; side; history of limb removal; leans N.; crowded.
334 Coast live oak 11 Yes 2 Low On slope; leans N.E.; codominant stems at 6'; crowded. 335 Blue atlas cedar 7 No 2 Low On slope; raised crown; leans away from oak. 336 Coast live oak 4,3,3,3,3,3
,3
No 3 Low On slope; 2' from curb; multiple attachments arise from base; vi
gorous shrub form.
337 Blue atlas cedar 23,16,7,7,
6,6,5
Yes 2 Low On slope; engulfed in poison oak; multiple attachments at 1'; history of limb removal w/ stub cuts E; side; sparse.
338 Coast live oak 24,22,12 Yes 2 Low At fence; growing th rough it; multiple attachments at 2'; leans E.; vigorous.
339 Monterey pine 26 Yes 2 Low Tagged on fence; leans E.; engulfed in ivy and poison oak; high crown; overhang from site fence: ~4'.
340 Toyon 10,6 Yes 3 Moderate Tagged on fence; multiple attachments arise from base; vigorous; crowded.
341 Monterey pine 30 Yes 2 Low Tagged on fence; on slope; engulfed in ivy and poison oak; slight lean N.; high crown.
342 Coast live oak 6 Yes 3 Moderate Tagged on fence; on slope; codominant stems at 6'; leans E.; crowded.
343 Monterey pine 32 Yes 2 Low Tagged on fence; on slope; engulfed in ivy and poison oak; high vase crown; overhang from site fence: ~6-8'.
344 Monterey pine 28 Yes 2 Low Tagged on fence; on slope; very high crown; crowded; overhang from site fence: ~6-8'.
345 Monterey pine 28 Yes 3 Low Tagged on fence; on slope; some stub cuts; more vigorous.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 410
Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Heritage
Tree?
Condition
0=dead
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
300 Piedmont Avenue
San Bruno, CA
May 2022 (Comments updated Sept. 2023)
346 Monterey pine 30 Yes 3 Low Tagged on fence; on sl ope; multiple attachments at 10'; vigorous; crowded; 1 lateral overhang from site fence: ~5.
347 Blackwood acacia 6 No 3 Low Tagged on fence; on slope; strong central leader; high crown; crowded.
348 Monterey pine 23 Yes 2 Low Tagged on fence; on slope; leans.N.E.; high crown; crowded; 1 lateral overhang from site fence: ~10.
349 Coast live oak 12 Yes 3 Moderate Tagged on fence; on slope; codominant stems at 15'; vigorous upper crown; crowded.
350 Monterey pine 15 Yes 2 Low Tagged on fence; at top of slope; leans E.; ivy mid trunk; high crown; overhang from site fence: ~12-15'.
351 Monterey pine 11 Yes 2 Low Tagged on fence; on slope; high crown; overhang from site fence: ~4'.
352 Monterey pine 24 Yes 2 Low Tagged on fence; on slope; engulfed in poison oak; slight lean N.E.; sparse; overhang from site fence: ~4'.
353 Monterey pine 14 Yes 2 Low Tagged on fence; on slope; strong central leader; vigorous; overhang from site fence: ~6-8'.
354 Toyon 12,12,8,6 Yes 2 Low Tagged on fence; on sl ope; multiple attachments arise from base; decayed stems; sparse.
355 Monterey pine 15 Yes 4 Low Tagged on fence; on slope; strong central leader; vigorous; overhang from site fence: ~5'.
356 Monterey pine 20 Yes 2 Low Tagged on fence; at fence and curb; pine pitch canker; 1-sided to W.; history of limb removal; 1 stem dead.
357 Monterey pine 18 Yes 4 Low Tagged on fence; at fence; strong central leader; vigorous. 358 Coast live oak 8 Yes 3 Moderate No tag, not accessibl e; On slope; slight lean S.E.; very crowded. 359 White poplar 7 No 2 Low No tag, not accessibl e; At fence; high narrow crown; overhang from site fence: ~3'.
360 Coast live oak 16 Yes 3 Moderate No tag, not accessi ble; Multiple attachments; vigorous; overhang from site fence: ~11'.
361 Coast live oak 12 Yes 3 Moderate No tag, not accessibl e; Multiple attachments at 6'; overhang from site fence: ~5'.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 411
Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Heritage
Tree?
Condition
0=dead
5=excellent
Disposition Notes
1 Monterey pine 30 - 0 Remove Dead. Within grading limits 2 Monterey pine 27 - 0 Remove Dead. Within grading limits 3 Monterey pine 39 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
4 Monterey pine 32 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
5 Monterey pine 59 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
6 Monterey pine 40 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
7 Monterey pine 27 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
8 Monterey pine 27 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
9 Monterey pine 31 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
10 Monterey pine 41 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
11 Monterey pine 29 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
12 Monterey pine 42 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
13 London plane 14 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
14 London plane 11 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
15 London plane 10 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
16 London plane 8 No 2 Remove Within grading limits
17 London plane 17 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
18 London plane 16 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
19 London plane 17 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
20 Blackwood acacia 6,6,5 No 2 Remove Within grading limits 21 Monterey pine 34 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
22 Monterey pine 30 Yes 1 Remove Within grading limits
23 Monterey pine 35 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
24 Monterey pine 24 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
25 Monterey pine 33 - 0 Remove Dead. Within grading limits 26 Monterey pine 35 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
27 Monterey pine 26 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
28 Monterey pine 28 Yes 1 Remove Within grading limits
29 Monterey pine 33 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
30 Monterey pine 38,36 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits 31 Blue atlas cedar 28,9 Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits 32 Blue atlas cedar 19,14,10 Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits 33 Blue atlas cedar 19,9,8,5,5 Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits 34 Blue atlas cedar 19,19,17,16,
11,11,11
Yes 4 Remove Within grading limits
35 Blue atlas cedar 18,16,16,16,
15,15,14,13,
13 Yes 4 Remove Within grading limits
36 Blue atlas cedar 24,22,19,15,
13,12,10,10,
5 ,5
Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits
Tree Disposition
300 Piedmont Avenue
San Bruno, CA
January 2024
DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 412
Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Heritage
Tree?
Condition
0=dead
5=excellent
Disposition Notes
Tree Disposition
300 Piedmont Avenue
San Bruno, CA
January 2024
37 Blue atlas cedar 38,12,10,10,
10,10,10
Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits
38 Blue atlas cedar 36,25,12,6,6 Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits 39 Japanese cedar 16,13 Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits 40 Monterey pine 42 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
41 Monterey pine 33 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
42 Monterey pine 42 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
43 Monterey pine 28 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
44 Monterey pine 39 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
45 Monterey pine 46 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
46 Monterey pine 41 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
47 Monterey pine 41 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
48 Monterey pine 37 Yes 1 Remove Within grading limits
49 Monterey pine 48 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
50 Coast live oak 5,5,4 No 3 Remove Within grading limits 51 Blue atlas cedar 25,15,15,12,
12,12,6
Yes 4 Remove Within grading limits
52 Monterey pine 39 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
53 Monterey pine 50 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
54 Blue atlas cedar 25,12,5 Yes 4 R emove Within grading limits 55 London plane 13 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
56 London plane 9 No 2 Remove Within grading limits
57 London plane 10 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
58 London plane 11 Yes 1 Remove Within grading limits
59 London plane 9 No 2 Remove Within grading limits
60 London plane 11 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
61 London plane 9 No 2 Remove Within grading limits
62 London plane 10 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
63 London plane 15 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
64 London plane 8 No 2 Remove Within grading limits
65 London plane 9 No 2 Remove Within grading limits
66 London plane 11 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
67 London plane 10 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
68 Lemon-scented
gum
37 Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits
69 Blue atlas cedar 17,17,13,12,
7 Yes 4 Remove Within grading limits
70 Blue atlas cedar 28 Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits 71 Blue atlas cedar 19,14,8,6 Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits 72 Coast live oak 12,10,9 Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 413
Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Heritage
Tree?
Condition
0=dead
5=excellent
Disposition Notes
Tree Disposition
300 Piedmont Avenue
San Bruno, CA
January 2024
73 Coast live oak 21,13 Yes 4 Remove Within grading limits 74 Coast live oak 13,4 Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits 75 Coast live oak 8,2 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits 76 Coast live oak 7 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
77 Coast live oak 5 No 2 Remove Within grading limits
78 Coast live oak 6 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
79 Victorian box 5,3 No 2 Remove Within grading limits
80 Victorian box 4,2,2 No 2 Remove Within grading limits 81 Coast live oak 7 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
82 Victorian box 6,3,3,3,3,3 No 2 Remove Within grading limits 83 Coast live oak 7,6,6,4,4,4,4 Y es 2 Remove Within grading limits 84 Victorian box 5,3,3,3,3,2,2,
2 No 2 Remove Within grading limits
85 Coast live oak 13,4 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits 86 Coast live oak 8,6,4 Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits 87 Coast live oak 6 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
88 Coast live oak 7,5,5,3,3,3,3 Y es 2 Remove Within grading limits 89 Plum 6,6 No 2 Remove Within grading limits
90 Blue atlas cedar 26 Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits 91 Myoporum 7,6 No 2 Remove Within grading limits
92 Myoporum 6,4,3 No 2 Remove Within grading limits
93 Myoporum 5,4,4,3,3 No 2 Remove Within grading limits 94 Myoporum 5,4,4,3,3,3 No 2 Re move Within grading limits 95 Monterey pine 17 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
96 Monterey pine 13 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
97 Myoporum 7 - 0 Remove Dead. Within grading limits
98 Monterey pine 13 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
99 Monterey pine 4,3 No 2 Remove Within grading limits
100 Monterey pine 8 Yes 4 Remove Within grading limits
101 Myoporum 6,2 No 1 Remove Within grading limits
102 Myoporum 10,7,5,5,4 Yes 1 Remove Within grading limits 103 Myoporum 7,7,6,4,4,4,4 No 1 Re move Within grading limits 104 Myoporum 7,3,2 No 1 Remove Within grading limits
105 Myoporum 6,2,2 No 1 Remove Within grading limits
106 Myoporum 7,6,5,1 No 1 Remove Within grading limits
107 Myoporum 9,6,6,4 No 1 Remove Within grading limits
108 Myoporum 6,5,5,4,3,3,2 No 1 Re move Within grading limits 109 Myoporum 6,3 No 1 Remove Within grading limits
110 Myoporum 6,5,5,4 No 1 Remove Within grading limits
111 Myoporum 7,7 No 1 Remove Within grading limits
DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 414
Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Heritage
Tree?
Condition
0=dead
5=excellent
Disposition Notes
Tree Disposition
300 Piedmont Avenue
San Bruno, CA
January 2024
112 Myoporum 6,6,4,4,3,3,3,
3 No 1 Remove Within grading limits
113 Monterey pine 6 Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits
114 Myoporum 7 No 1 Remove Within grading limits
115 Monterey pine 10 Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits 116 Myoporum 6,5,5,3,3 No 1 Remove Within grading limits 117 Myoporum 7,7,6 No 1 Remove Within grading limits
118 Myoporum 6,6,3,3,2,2 No 1 Re move Within grading limits 119 Coast live oak 5 No 4 Remove Within grading limits
120 Coast live oak 5 No 3 Remove Within grading limits
121 Coast live oak 30 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits 122 Cork oak 17 Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits
123 Cork oak 12,10 Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits
124 Cork oak 11 Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits
125 Blackwood acacia 6,4,4,4,3 No 3 Remove Within grading limits 126 Blackwood acacia 7,6,6,6,6 No 3 Remove Within grading limits 127 Blackwood acacia 8,6,5 No 3 Remove Within grading limits 128 Blackwood acacia 7 No 3 Remove Within grading limits 129 Blue atlas cedar 14 Yes 4 Remove Within grading limits 130 Cork oak 14 Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits
131 Cork oak 9,8,6,6 Yes 2 Rem ove Within grading limits 132 Cork oak 16,8,7 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
133 Cork oak 11,8,7 Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits
134 Glossy privet 13 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits 135 Glossy privet 8,6,3 No 2 Remove Within grading limits 136 Glossy privet 8 No 2 Remove Within grading limits
137 Glossy privet 10 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits 138 Glossy privet 6,6 No 2 Remove Within grading limits 139 Glossy privet 8 No 2 Remove Within grading limits
140 Glossy privet 8 No 1 Remove Within grading limits
141 Glossy privet 9 No 2 Remove Within grading limits
142 Glossy privet 7 No 2 Remove Within grading limits
143 Glossy privet 9 No 2 Remove Within grading limits
144 Glossy privet 7 No 2 Remove Within grading limits
145 Glossy privet 7 No 2 Remove Within grading limits
146 Glossy privet 8 No 2 Remove Within grading limits
147 Glossy privet 12 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits 148 Glossy privet 7 No 1 Remove Within grading limits
149 Glossy privet 9 No 2 Remove Within grading limits
150 Glossy privet 16 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 415
Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Heritage
Tree?
Condition
0=dead
5=excellent
Disposition Notes
Tree Disposition
300 Piedmont Avenue
San Bruno, CA
January 2024
151 Bronze loquat 11 Yes 4 Remove Within grading limits 152 Cajeput paperbark
tree
18 Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits
153 Cajeput paperbark
tree
17 Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits
154 Cajeput paperbark
tree
16 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
155 Cajeput paperbark
tree
20 Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits
156 Bronze loquat 9 - 0 Remove Dead. Within grading limits 157 Bronze loquat 11 Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits 158 Blackwood acacia 8 No 3 Remove Within grading limits 159 Olive 5,3 No 3 Remove Within grading limits
160 Chinese elm 3 No 3 Remove Within grading limits
161 Monterey pine 39 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits 162 Victorian box 5,3,3,2,1,1 No 2 Remove Within grading limits 163 Victorian box 5,5,4,3,2,2 No 2 Remove Within grading limits 164 Coast live oak 4 No 3 Remove Within grading limits
165 Victorian box 6,6,3,3,2 No 2 Remove Within grading limits 166 Coast live oak 6,6,5 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits 167 Victorian box 5,5,3,2,2 No 2 Remove Within grading limits 168 Victorian box 6,3,3,3,2,2,1 N o 2 Remove Within grading limits 169 Victorian box 6,3,3,3 No 2 Remove Within grading limits 170 Victorian box 6,5,4,2,2,2 No 2 Remove Within grading limits 171 Coast live oak 5 No 2 Remove Within grading limits
172 Coast live oak 8 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits 173 Toyon 10 Yes 1 Remove Within grading limits
174 Coast live oak 10,5,4 Yes 4 Remove Within grading limits 175 Coast live oak 9,5,3 Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits 176 London plane 16 Yes 4 Remove Within grading limits
177 London plane 16 Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits
178 London plane 13 Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits
179 London plane 18 Yes 4 Remove Within grading limits
180 Coast live oak 26 Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits 181 Coast live oak 8 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits 182 Coast live oak 10 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits 183 Coast live oak 6,5,4,3,1 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits 184 Coast live oak 6,3 Yes 1 Remove Within grading limits 185 Coast live oak 12,8 Yes 1 Remove Within grading limits 186 Blue atlas cedar 25,16 Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 416
Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Heritage
Tree?
Condition
0=dead
5=excellent
Disposition Notes
Tree Disposition
300 Piedmont Avenue
San Bruno, CA
January 2024
187 Coast live oak 10,10,8,
8,8,5,3
Yes 4 Remove Within grading limits
188 Coast live oak 7 Yes 3 Preserve At edge of grading
189 Coast live oak 6,6,5 Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits 190 Monterey pine 38 Yes 2 Preserve At edge of grading
191 Coast live oak 7,6 Yes 2 Remove At edge of grading
192 Monterey pine 5 No 3 Remove Within grading limits
193 Monterey pine 39 Yes 2 Preserve At edge of grading
194 Monterey pine 13 Yes 1 Remove Within grading limits 195 Monterey pine 38 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits 196 Monterey pine 25 Yes 2 Preserve At edge of grading
197 Monterey pine 24 Yes 1 Preserve At edge of grading
198 Monterey pine 18 Yes 1 Remove Within grading limits 199 Monterey pine 32 Yes 2 Preserve At edge of grading
200 Monterey pine 29 Yes 1 Remove Within grading limits 201 Monterey pine 45 Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits 202 Monterey pine 55 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits 203 Coast live oak 6,4,4 Yes 2 Preserve At edge of grading 204 Monterey pine 32 Yes 2 Preserve At edge of grading
205 Monterey pine 27 Yes 2 Preserve At edge of grading
206 Coast live oak 7 Yes 3 Remove At edge of grading
207 Monterey pine 16 Yes 1 Remove Within grading limits 208 Monterey pine 38,12 Yes 2 Remove At edge of grading 209 Monterey pine 42 Yes 2 Remove At edge of grading
210 Coast live oak 6,4,4,3 Yes 3 Remove At edge of grading 211 Monterey pine 30 Yes 2 Preserve At edge of grading
212 Monterey pine 32 Yes 2 Preserve At edge of grading
213 Monterey pine 38 Yes 1 Remove At edge of grading
214 Monterey pine 22 Yes 2 Remove At edge of grading
215 Monterey pine 24 Yes 3 Remove At edge of grading
216 Monterey pine 26 - 0 Remove Dead.
217 Monterey pine 26 - 0 Remove Dead.
218 Monterey pine 28 Yes 2 Remove At edge of grading
219 Monterey pine 22 Yes 2 Remove At edge of grading
220 Coast live oak 5 No 2 Remove Within grading limits
221 Manna gum 38 Yes 2 Remove At edge of grading
222 Coast live oak 16 Yes 3 Remove At edge of grading
223 Coast live oak 10,7,4 Yes 2 Remove At edge of grading 224 Manna gum 19,8 Yes 3 Preserve At edge of grading
225 Coast live oak 5,3,3,2,2 No 2 Preserve At edge of grading DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 417
Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Heritage
Tree?
Condition
0=dead
5=excellent
Disposition Notes
Tree Disposition
300 Piedmont Avenue
San Bruno, CA
January 2024
226 Coast live oak 6,4 Yes 2 Preserve At edge of grading 227 Coast live oak 8 Yes 2 Preserve At edge of grading
228 Monterey pine 32 Yes 2 Preserve At edge of grading
229 Manna gum 5,5 No 1 Remove Within grading limits
230 Monterey pine 23 Yes 1 Preserve At edge of grading
231 Manna gum 6 No 3 Remove Within grading limits
232 Monterey pine 30 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits 233 White poplar 7 No 2 Remove Within grading limits
234 White poplar 6,4 No 3 Remove Within grading limits
235 White poplar 7 No 2 Remove Within grading limits
236 Monterey pine 25 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits 237 White poplar 10 - 0 Remove Dead. Within grading limits 238 Monterey pine 37 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits 239 White poplar 15,5,3,2,2 Yes 3 R emove Within grading limits 240 Monterey pine 17 Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits 241 White poplar 6,2,2,2,2,1,1,
1 No 2 Remove Within grading limits
242 Coast live oak 30,14 Yes 4 Pres erve Outside project area 243 Coast live oak 14,12 Yes 3 Pres erve Edge of project area 244 Monterey pine 20 Yes 3 Preserve Edge of project area 245 Coast live oak 12,5 Yes 2 Preserve Edge of project area 246 Coast live oak 19 Yes 4 Preserve Edge of project area 247 Coast live oak 7,5 Yes 2 Preserve Edge of project area 248 Monterey pine 6 Yes 3 Preserve Off-site. Edge of project area 249 Lawson false
cypress
22,16,10 Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits
250 Coast live oak 6 Yes 4 Preserve Off-site. Edge of project area 251 Lawson false
c
ypress
18,13,12,12 Yes 4 Remove Within grading limits
252 Coast live oak 7 Yes 2 Preserve Off-site. Edge of project area 253 Coast live oak 23 Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits 254 Coast live oak 7 Yes 2 Preserve Edge of project area 255 Coast live oak 11 Yes 3 Preserve O ff-site. Edge of project area 256 Coast live oak 13 Yes 3 Preserve O ff-site. Edge of project area 257 Coast live oak 11 Yes 3 Preserve O ff-site. Edge of project area 258 Lawson false
cypress
23 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
259 Coast live oak 7,2 Yes 2 Preserve Off-site. Edge of project area 260 Coast live oak 11,7 Yes 2 Preserve Off-site. Edge of project area 261 Coast live oak 11,7 Yes 2 Preserve Off-site. Edge of project area 262 Coast live oak 13 Yes 3 Preserve O ff-site. Edge of project area DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 418
Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Heritage
Tree?
Condition
0=dead
5=excellent
Disposition Notes
Tree Disposition
300 Piedmont Avenue
San Bruno, CA
January 2024
263 Coast live oak 15 Yes 2 Preserve O ff-site. Edge of project area 264 Coast live oak 15 Yes 2 Preserve O ff-site. Edge of project area 265 Coast live oak 15,12 Yes 3 Preserve Off-site. Edge of project area 266 Coast live oak 11,6,3 Yes 2 Preserve Off-site. Edge of project area 267 Coast live oak 8 Yes 2 Preserve Off-site. Edge of project area 268 Coast live oak 11 Yes 2 Preserve O ff-site. Edge of project area 269 Coast live oak 12 Yes 2 Preserve O ff-site. Edge of project area 270 Coast live oak 9 Yes 2 Preserve Off-site. Edge of project area 271 Coast live oak 12,9 Yes 2 Preserve Off-site. Edge of project area 272 Coast live oak 7 Yes 2 Preserve Off-site. Edge of project area 273 Coast live oak 13 Yes 2 Preserve O ff-site. Edge of project area 274 Coast live oak 8,6,6,5 Yes 2 Preserv e Off-site. Edge of project area 275 Coast live oak 9,9,4 Yes 3 Preserve Off-site. Edge of project area 276 Coast live oak 9,7,5 Yes 2 Preserve Off-site. Edge of project area 277 Coast live oak 5,4 No 2 Remove Within grading limits 278 Coast live oak 4,3,3 No 2 Remove Within grading limits 279 Monterey pine 6 Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits
280 Coast live oak 5,2,2 No 2 Remove Within grading limits 281 Blue gum 26 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
282 Coast live oak 16,13,5,4 Yes 2 R emove Within grading limits 283 Coast live oak 15 Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits 284 Coast live oak 10 Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits 285 Blue atlas cedar 19,13,7,7,4 Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits 286 Blue atlas cedar 13,5,4 Yes 3 R emove Within grading limits 287 Monterey pine 26,22 Yes 2 Preserve Edge of project area 288 Monterey pine 30 Yes 2 Preserve Edge of project area 289 Coast live oak 7 Yes 4 Preserve Edge of project area 290 Coast live oak 12 Yes 4 Preserve Edge of project area 291 Monterey pine 30 Yes 2 Preserve Edge of project area 292 Coast live oak 6 Yes 4 Preserve Edge of project area 293 Coast live oak 5,5 No 3 Preserve Edge of project area 294 Monterey pine 22 Yes 1 Preserve Edge of project area 295 Coast live oak 7,6 Yes 3 Preserve Edge of project area 296 Coast live oak 7 Yes 2 Preserve Edge of project area 297 Monterey pine 24 Yes 2 Preserve Edge of project area 298 Coast live oak 6 Yes 3 Preserve Edge of project area 299 Coast live oak 12 Yes 3 Preserve Edge of project area 300 Coast live oak 10 Yes 4 Preserve Edge of project area 301 Coast live oak 18,14 Yes 4 Pres erve Edge of project area DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 419
Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Heritage
Tree?
Condition
0=dead
5=excellent
Disposition Notes
Tree Disposition
300 Piedmont Avenue
San Bruno, CA
January 2024
302 Coast live oak 17,12,10,8,8,
8 Yes 3 Preserve Edge of project area
303 Monterey pine 10 Yes 4 Preserve Off-site. Edge of project area 304 Coast live oak 6 Yes 2 Preserve Off-site. Edge of project area 305 Coast live oak 7,6 Yes 3 Preserve Off-site. Edge of project area 306 Monterey pine 27 Yes 3 Preserve Edge of project area 307 Coast live oak 20, 14,
13,8,8,5
Yes 4 Preserve Edge of project area
308 Monterey pine 30 Yes 3 Preserve Edge of project area 309 Coast live oak 6,5,4 Yes 3 Preserve Edge of project area 310 Blue atlas cedar 8,7 Yes 2 Preserve Edge of project area 311 Monterey pine 40 - 0 Remove Dead. Possibly off-site. Edge of
project area.
312 Blue atlas cedar 10 Yes 2 Preserve Off-site. Edge of project area 313 Monterey pine 40 - 0 Remove Dead. Possibly off-site. Edge of project area.
314 Blue atlas cedar 5,4,3 Yes 1 Prese rve Possibly off-site. Edge of project area.
315 Coast live oak 8,7 Yes 3 Preserve Possibly off-site. Edge of project area.
316 Blue atlas cedar 14 Yes 4 Preserve Off-site. Edge of project area 317 Monterey pine 12 Yes 4 Preserve Possibly off-site. Edge of project area.
318 Coast live oak 6,3 Yes 3 Preserve Possibly off-site. Edge of project area.
319 Monterey pine 16 Yes 3 Preserve Possibly off-site. Edge of project area.
320 Coast live oak 11 Yes 3 Preserve Possibly off-site. Edge of project area.
321 Blue atlas cedar 13,8,6,6 Yes 2 Prese rve Possibly off-site. Edge of project area.
322 Coast live oak 12 Yes 3 Preserve Possibly off-site. Edge of project area.
323 Coast live oak 13 Yes 3 Preserve Possibly off-site. Edge of project area.
324 Coast live oak 11,10 Yes 3 Preserve Possibly off-site. Edge of project area.
325 Coast live oak 8 Yes 2 Preserve Off-site. Edge of project area 326 Monterey pine 17,15 Yes 2 Preserve Possibly off-site. Edge of project area.
327 Monterey pine 32 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits 328 Monterey pine 26 Yes 2 Preserve Edge of project area 329 Coast live oak 12 Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits 330 Monterey pine 16 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 420
Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Heritage
Tree?
Condition
0=dead
5=excellent
Disposition Notes
Tree Disposition
300 Piedmont Avenue
San Bruno, CA
January 2024
331 Blue atlas cedar 9,8,7,3 Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits 332 Monterey pine 14 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits 333 Blue atlas cedar 6 No 2 Remove Within grading limits 334 Coast live oak 11 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits 335 Blue atlas cedar 7 No 2 Remove Within grading limits 336 Coast live oak 4,3,3,3,3,3,3 N o 3 Remove Within grading limits 337 Blue atlas cedar 23,16,7,7,6,6
,5
Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
338 Coast live oak 24,22,12 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits 339 Monterey pine 26 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits 340 Toyon 10,6 Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits
341 Monterey pine 30 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits 342 Coast live oak 6 Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits 343 Monterey pine 32 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits 344 Monterey pine 28 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits 345 Monterey pine 28 Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits 346 Monterey pine 30 Yes 3 Preserve Edge of project area 347 Blackwood acacia 6 No 3 Remove Edge of project area 348 Monterey pine 23 Yes 2 Preserve Edge of project area 349 Coast live oak 12 Yes 3 Remove Edge of project area 350 Monterey pine 15 Yes 2 Remove Edge of project area
351 Monterey pine 11 Yes 2 Remove Edge of project area
352 Monterey pine 24 Yes 2 Preserve Edge of project area 353 Monterey pine 14 Yes 2 Remove Edge of project area
354 Toyon 12,12,8,6 Yes 2 Remove Within grading limits
355 Monterey pine 15 Yes 4 Remove Edge of project area
356 Monterey pine 20 Yes 2 Remove Edge of project area
357 Monterey pine 18 Yes 4 Remove Edge of project area
358 Coast live oak 8 Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits 359 White poplar 7 No 2 Remove Within grading limits
360 Coast live oak 16 Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits 361 Coast live oak 12 Yes 3 Remove Within grading limits DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 421
300 Piedmont Avenue Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Errata
Introduction
The City of San Bruno (City) published the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 300 Piedmont Avenue Project (project) on April 9, 2024. The Final EIR will be used to support the City’s decision with respect to the project.

This Errata document includes minor clarifications and corrections to the Final EIR that were identified following the publication of the Final EIR. Revisions presented in this Errata document do not present significant new information that would deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on a significant environmental impact of the proposed project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an impact. Additionally, information clarified in this Errata document does not present a new feasible project alternative or mitigation measure that is considerably different from what was previously analyzed in the Final EIR. All of the information in this document merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the Final EIR. Because the clarifications or corrections in this document are not considered to be “significant new information,” as set forth in Section 10588.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, recirculation of the Final EIR is not required.

Errata Items and Revisions to the Final EIR
This section describes errata items and shows revisions for the Final EIR. The revisions are shown in the following section. Revisions included in this Errata document are shown in double underlined text or double strikethrough text to distinguish from revisions included in the original Final EIR that are show in underlined text or strikethrough text. The following revisions make minor updates to acreages described in the EIR.

Draft EIR Page 1-4
This EIR also evaluates a variant to the proposed project. In the variant, the residential component of the project would be unchanged, and the City would still develop a portion of the City-owned acreage into recreational facilities, including a multiuse field with permanent lighting. The differences between the project and the variant would be that the primary stormwater treatment basin for the residential project would be located within a triangular-shaped 0.75-acre parcel on private property as opposed to a location within an easement on City-owned property. Additionally, the project variant would include dedication of approximately 12.2412.19 acres of land to the City for public open space, while the private open space would be about 7.51 acres (i.e., a total of

12.2412.19 acres of publicly accessible open space).

Draft EIR Page 2-1
In addition, pursuant to a settlement agreement between the City of San Bruno and the San Mateo Union High School District, the owner of the project site, the EIR analyzes a variant to the project that reflects: (1) dedication of a 6.476.42-acre portion of the project site’s wooded slope area to the DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 422
City as publicly accessible open space, which would thereafter be maintained by the City; (2) retention of approximately 7.5 acres of sloped area as private open space; and (3) dedication of a smaller space to the City for athletic field and recreational supportive uses. Overall, the variant would result in 12.2412.19 acres of publicly accessible open space as compared to the 19.2 acres of publicly accessible open space and would shift maintenance obligations for 6.476.42 acres of sloped wooded area from the property owner to the City.

Draft EIR Page 2-7
The project variant would include dedication of approximately 12.2412.19 acres of land to the City for public open space (approximately 6.476.42 sloped acres and approximately 4.58 rough graded acres for the playing fields, and 1.19 acres for recreational supportive uses), while the private open space in the sloped wooded areas would be about 7.51 acres. The playing fields and other recreational uses would be the same as under the proposed project, except that the graded area in the dedicated open space for recreation use would be about 1.14 acres smaller than under the proposed project. A vegetation management plan would still be implemented in the portion of the wooded slope area dedicated to the City.

Draft EIR Page 2-12
Vehicular circulation would be provided to the project site from Piedmont Avenue at the southern entrance and Courtland Drive at its northern entrance. Courtland Drive, a private driveway with a public access easement that would become a public right-of-way of about 2.92.55 acres, would be reconstructed and realigned to meet the City’s design standards as part of the project. Public parking would be provided as shown in Figure 2-5 within the parcel for recreational uses, along Courtland Drive, and on the south side of the recreational parcel along the northern extent of the residential ring road.

Draft EIR Page 3.14-6
The recreational fields would be reduced in size under the proposed project and variant compared to existing conditions. The project proposes the replacement of the existing eight fields with six multi-use fields, restroom facilities, equipment storage, picnic area, parking lot, field lighting, and additional amenities. The proposed project would include dedication of approximately 6.91 acres of public open space to the City, which the City would own and maintain, as shown on Figure 2-2 in Chapter 2, Project Description. The City would also construct improvements within about 5.3 acres of the 6.91 acres of the dedicated open space area in the northern area of the project site, including the sports field and lighting. As of the writing of this Draft EIR, the configuration of the fields has not been finalized. However, it is anticipated the field design would allow for a maximum of six soccer fields in use at any one time. Another option would include striping for up to two little league baseball fields and five soccer fields, allowing for a maximum of two little league games or five soccer games to occur at one time, as seen on Figure 2-5 of Chapter 2. The City also intends to develop various recreation, recreation-supporting amenities, and/or parking on about 1.61 acres adjacent to Courtland Drive. Additionally, the proposed project includes 12.29 acres of publicly accessible open space. The project variant includes 12.2412.19acres of dedicated open space, 4.58 acres of which are playing field space. The project variant also includes 1.19 acres of recreational supportive area along Courtland Drive and 6.476.42 acres of wooded slopes, both of which are included in the dedicated open space acreage total. The project variant also proposes 7.51 acres of DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 423
private open space. The proposed project and project variant include neighborhood community spaces, which include amenities such as a tot lot and areas with a more passive design.

Draft EIR Page 3.14-8 [Footnote Omitted]
Currently there are 191 acres of recreational space for public use located in San Bruno, 10 acres of which include the Crestmoor High School multi-use sports fields, which would be redeveloped under the proposed project. The proposed project includes 6.91 acres of dedicated open space,

5.3 acres of which are playing field space with a playing field capacity of six fields. The proposed project also includes 12.29 acres of publicly accessible planned unit permit open space. The project variant includes 12.2412.19 acres of dedicated open space, 4.58 acres of which are playing field space with the capacity for five fields (or six fields of reduced size). The project variant also includes

1.19 acres of recreational supportive area and 6.476.42 acres of wooded slopes, both of which are included in the dedicated open space acreage total. The project variant also proposes 7.51 acres of private open space.
[] The project includes the construction of 155 single-family detached homes, which is expected to increase the community’s population by 388 residents.

Draft EIR Pages 3.18-10 through 3.18-11
Under the proposed project, the homeowner's association would be responsible for maintaining all streets in the neighborhoods, stormwater treatment areas and infrastructure, architectural street lighting, common area landscaping, and front yard landscaping; and the City would be responsible for maintenance of the dedicated area containing the recreational facilities and the area along Courtland Drive for recreational supportive uses. The homeowner’s association would manage the wooded slopes. Under the variant, the City (or the homeowner’s association) would be responsible for the maintenance of the portion of the dedicated 6.476.42 acres, which includes sloped areas and fire management within the dedicated sloped areas. Under the variant, the homeowner’s association would maintain 7.51 acres of wooded slope. The vegetated area west of the residential development would be maintained but would not change the slope, and maintenance would increase fire prevention, thus reducing the risk of fire and postfire impacts. The variant would have the same design aspects as described for the proposed project and would therefore have the same impacts.

The project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of postfire slope instability or drainage changes, and there would be no impact.

Draft EIR Page 3.10-3
Guiding Policy OSR-B: Recognize
the balance between maintenance
and preservation of open space
uses and the potential for wildland
fires and flooding.

CONSISTENT. The project includes dedication of approximately 6.91 acres of public open space to the City, which would include 5.3 acres of playing field space. The City also intends to develop various recreation, recreation supporting amenities, and/or parking on approximately 1.61 acres east of Courtland Drive. The project also includes management of vegetation adjacent to these open space uses. The variant would include dedication of approximately

12.2412.19 acres to the City, with 4.58 acres for the playing fields and 1.19 acres for recreation supporting amenities.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 424
Implementing Policy OSR-4:

Undertake a program to add 20
acres of parkland to the City
system over the next 20 years.

Seize opportunities to develop
and/or maintain parks and
recreation facilities within existing
residential neighborhoods through
acquisition or preservation of
former school facilities.

CONSISTENT. The project includes dedication of approximately 6.91 acres of public open space, which would include recreational uses, to the City and maintain recreational use on the site. The variant includes dedication of approximately 12.2412.19 acres of open space (4.58 acres of which would be for playing field space, and 1.19 acres of which would be for recreational supportive uses). The project site is currently an unoccupied high school campus and is surrounded by single-family residences.

Draft EIR Page 3.10-14
Implementing Policy OSR-8: During
reuse of the former Crestmoor
High School site (designated for
single-family residential
development), preserve the
existing playing fields for
recreational use per direction of
the General Plan Update
Committee.

CONSISTENT AFTER PROPOSED AMENDMENT (PROPOSED
PROJECT). The project proposes amendment of Policy OSR-8 to replace the current policy with the following text: “A private development project for reuse of the Crestmoor site shall dedicate the following areas to the City (the Dedicated Property) at the approximate locations shown in Figure 5-2 (i) approximately 5.3 acres of unimproved property located west of Courtland Drive, intended for future use primarily for soccer and playing fields; and (ii) approximately 1.61 acres of unimproved property located east of Courtland Drive intended for future use for recreation-supportive improvements, such as public parking and other improvements.

Minor deviations to these locations and acreages requested by an applicant for private development to accommodate project design shall be permitted so long as the Dedicated Property can accommodate the approximate configuration shown for soccer fields and public parking as in Figure 5-2 and the Dedicated Property totals approximately 6.91 acres.

Sloped areas on the Crestmoor Site, totaling approximately 12.29 acres, in the approximate area shown on Figure 5-2 (Open Space Area), shall be preserved in an unimproved state (subject to improvements required for safety and maintenance) and made publicly accessible for open space and recreational uses as part of any private development project proposed for the Crestmoor Site.”

INCONSISTENT (VARIANT) While the proposed project would include dedication of approximately 6.91 acres of public open space to the City and retain approximately 12.29 acres of privately owned, publicly accessible open space, the variant would include dedication of approximately 12.2412.19 acres of land to the City for public open space and retain approximately 7.51 acres of privately owned open space. The playing fields and other recreational uses would be the same as with the proposed project, except that the graded area within the dedicated open space that could be improved by the City and used by these facilities would be about 1.14 acres smaller than with the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, without to an amendment of the General Plan, the variant would not be consistent with Implementing Policy OSR-8. However, the inconsistency would not result in an environmental impact because it would not have any physical consequences to the environment.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 425
Final EIR Page 1-2
In addition, pursuant to a settlement agreement between the City and the San Mateo Union High School District, the owner of the project site, the EIR analyzes a variant to the project that reflects:
(1) dedication of a 6.476.42-acre portion of the project site’s wooded slope area to the City as publicly accessible open space, which would thereafter be maintained by the City; (2) retention of approximately 7.5 acres of sloped area as private open space; and (3) dedication of an approximately 4.6 acre space to the City for athletic field and recreational supportive uses. Overall, the variant would result in 12.2412.19 acres of publicly accessible open space as compared to the

19.2 acres of publicly accessible open space and would shift maintenance obligations for 6.476.42 acres of sloped wooded area from the property owner to the City.

Final EIR Page 1-3
The project variant would include dedication of approximately 12.2412.19 acres of land to the City for public open space (approximately 6.476.42 sloped acres and approximately 4.58 rough graded acres for the playing fields, and 1.19 acres for recreational supportive uses), while the private open space in the sloped wooded areas would be about 7.51 acres. The playing fields and other recreational uses would be the same as under the proposed project, except that the graded area in the dedicated open space for recreation use would be about 1.14 acres smaller than under the proposed project. A vegetation management plan would still be implemented in the portion of the wooded slope area dedicated to the City.

2.1 acres.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 426
RESOLUTION NO. 2024 – 04

A RESOLUTI

ON OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN

BRUNO RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT WHICH MODIFIES PROVISIONS IN THE

OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION ELEMENT AND OTHER CONFORMING

AMENDMENTS AND CHANGING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE

DIAGRAM DESIGNATION AND AMENDING THE ZONING MAP FOR A

PORTION OF THE PROPERTY FROM

LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PARKS/OPEN SPACE
FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF 300 PIEDMONT AVENUE
(A.K.A. THE CRESTMOOR PROJECT)
(APN: 019-170-020) (GPA24-001, ZC24-001)
WHEREAS, the S
an Mateo Union High School District ("District") is the owner of that certain 40.2 acre site located at 300 Piedmont Avenue in the City of San Bruno, commonly known as the site of the former Crestmoor High School, and more particularly described as Assessor's Parcel Number 019-170-020 (the "Property"), and SummerHill Homes LLC ("Applicant) is the applicant for the development of the Property; and
WHEREAS, the Di
strict desires to sell the Property and has entered into a purchase and sale agreement with Applicant, who desires to develop a residential subdivision with 155 new single family homes with associated roadways and infrastructure on the Property (collectively, the "Residential Project"), and; WHEREAS, in or
der to develop the Residential Project, Applicant has submitted an application to the City of San Bruno for approval of the following: (1) a Vesting Tentative Tract Map (TM22-001); (2) a Planned Unit Permit (PUP22-001); (3) an Architectural Review Permit (AR22-006); (4) a Tree Removal Permit; (5) a Density Bonus request; and (6) an Affordable Housing Plan; and

WHEREAS, P
olicy OSR-8 of the City's General Plan provides that, “During reuse of the former Crestmoor High School site (designated for single-family residential development), preserve the existing playing fields for recreational use per direction of the General Plan Update Committee,” and for many years, the playing fields on the Property were leased by the City of San Bruno and open to the public for use and were maintained and managed by the City of San Bruno pursuant to the lease; and; WHEREAS, in order to address the City’s goal of maintaining playing fields on the site, the Applicant is dedicating a portion of the property to the City of San Bruno for recreational open space, and;
WHEREAS, on November 18, 2022, San Bruno entered into a Settlement, Release, and Tolling Agreement Extension (“Agreement”) with the District which included, among other terms, that the San Bruno City Council initiate a General Plan Amendment to modify provisions contained in the General Plan regarding the preservation of open space and playing fields at the Property, including but not limited to Policy OSR-8; and
DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA ATTACHMENT 8
427
WHEREAS, on December 13, 2022, the San Bruno City Council, on its own action, initiated the General Plan Amendment to modify provisions in the Open Space and Recreation Element of the General Plan, change the General Plan Land Use Diagram designation for an approximately 5.3 acre portion of the Property to Parks/Open Space, and make other conforming amendments pursuant to the terms of the Agreement to be processed concurrently with the City’s review of the Project; and

WHEREAS, on May 7, 2024, prior to adoption of this Resolution, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2024-03 recommending that the San Bruno City Council certify an environmental impact report dated April 2024, and adopt CEQA findings and facts, a statement of overriding considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the Residential Project and the City Council initiated General Plan Amendments; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to properties within a 1,000 foot radius of the project site on April 26, 2024, and duly posted in the San Mateo Daily Journal on Saturday, April 27, 2024; and
WHEREAS, on May 7, 2024, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on the Residential Project and General Plan Amendment and on said date, the Public Hearing was opened, held and closed.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Bruno, based on facts in the staff report, written and oral testimony, and exhibits presented:

1. With respect to the General Plan Amendment, the Planning Commission hereby finds:
a. T he General Plan Amendment is internally consistent with the 2009 General Plan.
b. The public interest and necessity, convenience and general welfare require adoption of the proposed amendments.

2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the San Bruno City Council amend the Open Space and Recreation Element of the General Plan to replace policy OSR-8 in its entirety with the following text and include the figure referred to in the updated policy OSR-8 as Figure 5-2, and attached to this resolution as Exhibit A for reference:

A private development project for reuse of the Crestmoor Site shall dedicate the following areas to the City (the Dedicated Property) at the approximate locations shown in Figure 5-2 (i) approximately 5.3 acres of unimproved property located west of Courtland Drive, intended for future use primarily for soccer and playing fields; and (ii) approximately 1.1 acres of unimproved property located east of Courtland Drive intended for future use for recreation supportive improvements, such as public parking and other improvements.

Minor deviations to these locations and acreages requested by an applicant for private development to accommodate project design shall be permitted so long as the Dedicated Property can accommodate the approximate DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 428
configuration shown for soccer fields and public parking as in Figure 5-2 and the Dedicated Property totals approximately 6.4 acres.

Sloped areas on the Crestmoor Site, totaling approximately 12.17 acres, in the approximate area shown on Figure 5-2 (Open Space Area), shall be preserved in an unimproved state (subject to improvements required for safety and maintenance) and made publicly accessible for open space and recreational uses as part of any private development project proposed for the Crestmoor Site.

3. The Planning Commission also recommends that the San Bruno City Council make other conforming amendments to the Open Space Element of the General Plan, attached hereto as Exhibits B and C for consistency with the project and authorizes staff to make further minor amendments to the General Plan as may be needed for legal reasons prior to Council review.

4. The Planning Commission also recommends that the San Bruno City Council amend the General Plan Land Use Diagram by changing the designation of the Dedicated Property to be used primarily for soccer and playing fields from Low Density Residential to Parks/Open Space as shown on Exhibit D to this resolution and amend Zoning Map to change the zoning of the dedicated property from R-1 (Single-family residential) to O (Open space and conservation) as shown in Exhibit E.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the San Bruno Planning Commission is hereby authorized to make minor alterations to the resolution as may be required for legal reasons and is directed to forward to the City Council a certified copy of this Resolution together with an attested copy.

Exhibit A: Proposed New General Plan Table 5-2
Exhibit B: Proposed New General Plan Table 5-3
Exhibit C: Proposed New General Plan Figure 5-1
Exhibit D: Proposed Amendment to General Plan Land Use Diagram, Figure 2-1 Exhibit E: Proposed Amendment to Zoning Map

Date Planning Commission Chair

ATTEST APPROVED AS TO FORM

Planning Commission Secretary City Attorney

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 5/9/2024
5/13/2024
5/13/2024
5/13/2024
429

-o0o-

AYES Commissioners: Johnson, Durazo, Lethin, Madden, Kuhn, Harman NOES Commissioners: None
ABSENT Commissioners: Biasotti
RECUSED Commissioners None

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 430
TABLE 5-2: City of San Bruno Park Facili�es
Park Acres
Picnic/
Passive
Play
Areas
Sports
Facili�es Turf
Rest
Rooms
Mee�ng
Rooms

POCKET PARKS
Catalpa Tot Lot1

0.5 YES YES YES

Earl and Glenview Park 0.3 YES
Herman Tot Lot 0.25 YES YES
Lomita Park 0.25 YES YES YES
Posy Park 0.25

NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
Bayshore Circle Park
1 YES YES YES

Buckeye Park 7 YES YES YES
Commodore Park2 4 YES YES YES YES YES
Planned “Crestmoor” Park 6 YES
Fleetwood Tot Lot 0.5 YES YES YES
Forest Lane Park 4 YES YES YES
Grundy Park 4 YES YES YES YES YES
Lion’s Field Park 3 YES YES YES YES YES YES
Monte Verde Park 5 YES YES YES
Paciﬁc Heights Park 5 YES YES YES
Ponderosa Park 4 YES YES
Seventh Avenue Park 0.5 YES YES
Seventh and Walnut Park 1 YES YES YES

COMMUNITY PARKS

City Park3 31 YES YES YES YES YES YES
Grand Total City Parks 7278
1 Catalpa Tot Lot was vacant at the �me of the General Plan adop�on. 2 A dog park is located in Commodore Park.
3 The San Bruno Park Pool and Veterans Memorial Recrea�on Center are located in City Park.

Source: City of San Bruno, Draft Comprehensive Parks and Recreational Facilities Master Plan, April 2003.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 431
San Bruno currently provides its residents with a total of 72 acres of city parkland. There are five small pocket parks, 12 neighborhood parks, and one large community park. Table 5-2 shows the acreage, picnic/passive area, playgrounds, sports facilities, and other amenities available at each of the city’s parks. The city’s most utilized parks are City Park, Grundy Park, and Lion’s Field. Figure 5- 1 illustrates the location of parks and open space throughout the community. The City anticipates receiving dedication of approximately 6 acres as part of the proposed development of the former Crestmoor school site that the City plans to improve as a neighborhood park with recreational fields.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 432

1 Junipero Serra Park also has several outdoor shelters and day -use facili�es for organized youth groups. 2 San Bruno Senior Center contains Bocce Ball courts as its only sports facili�es. 3Crestmoor High School has been dedicated to the City but not ye t developed Source: City of San Bruno, Draft Comprehensive Parks and Recreational Facilities Master Plan, April 2003.

TABLE 5-3: Additional Recreational Facilities in San Bruno

Park

Acres
Picnic/
Passive
Play
Areas
Sports
Facilities

Turf
Rest
Rooms
Meeting
Rooms

SAN MATEO COUNTY PARKS
Junipero Serra Park1 108 YES YES YES YES

RECREATION CENTERS
Belle Air Community Center YES YES
Portola Performing Arts
Center

YES

YES
San Bruno Senior Center 2 YES YES YES
Veterans Memorial
Recreation Center

YES

SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES
Allen Elementary School
Belle Air Elementary 5 YES
Crestmoor Elementary 5 YES YES
Crestmoor High School 3 12 6 YES
El Crystal Elementary
John Muir Elementary 3.5 YES
Parkside Elementary 2 YES
Rollingwood Elementary 3.5 YES

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 433
S an A n d r eas
R e s e r v oir

EL CAMINO REAL
HU

NTINGTON
AVE

SNEATH LANE

SKYLINE
BLVD

SKYLINE
BLVD
US HIGHWAY 101

SNEATH LANE

JENEVEIN

EL CAMINO REAL
SAN˚FELIPE
AVE
SAN˚ANSELMO
AVE

EL CAMINO REAL

CYPRESS
AVE
LINDEN
AVE
KAINS
AVE

EUCLID AVE
ELM
AVE
FLEETW
OOD
DR
SAN˚MATEO AVE
ST
82 82
35 35

MONTGOMERY AVE

SHARP PARK RD
INTERSTATE 280
INTERSTATE 380

SAN BRUNO AVE EAST

SAN BRUNO AVE WEST
KAINS
AVE

CHERRY AVE
AVE
WALNUT

COLLEGE DR

BAYHILL
DR
CRYSTAL˚SPRINGS
AVE

CRESTMOOR
DR

SAN BRUNOAVE WEST

VALLEYWOOD DR

OAKMONT DR

EVERGREEN DR

HERMAN AVE
Paciﬁc
Heights
Park
Forest Lane
Park
Lomita
Tot-Lot
Monte
Verde
Park
Fleetwood
Park
Ponderosa
Park
Catalpa
Tot-Lot
Buckeye
Park
Grundy
Park
Commodore
Park
Lion’s
Field
Park
San Bruno
City Park City
Pool
Bayshore
Circle
Park
Posy Park
7th Avenue
Park
7th & Walnut
Park
Earland
Glenview
Park
Privately
Operated
Driving Range
Senior
Center
Crestmoor
Canyon
Junipero Serra
County Park
Proposed
Pocket Park
R
R
R
Herman
Tot Lot
Proposed
San Bruno
Avenue
Caltrain
Station
BART
Station
Sylvan
Avenue
Caltrain
Station
FEET
0 500 1000 200010
acres
Figure 5-1
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space
T rail*
T railhead
Recreation Center
Park
Open Space
City Limits
Existing/Proposed/Concept

DY E T T & B H AT I A
Urban and R egi onal Planners
R
T
T
T
R
Golden Gate
National Cemetery
Marines
Reserve
Center
Bayhill
Oﬃce Park
Civic
Center
The Shops
at Tanforan
Archives
San Bruno
Towne Center
Post
Oﬃce
San Bruno
Police Station
Skyline College
San Francisco County Jail
The
Crossing
To Sweeney
Ridge Trail
Golden Gate
National
Recreation
Area
*The Concept portion of the Ridge to BART Trail
is conceptual only. The City will determine the speciﬁc Sources: Dyett & Bhatia, 2002,2003. City of San Bruno, 2024. trail alignment upon implementation.

FIGURE 5-1
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space
Proposed Park
EXHIBIT C: Proposed New General Plan Figure 5-1
DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 434
DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 435
Propo
sed Zoning Map amendment to change the zoning of the dedicated por�on of the property from R-1 (Single-Family Residen�al) District to O (Open Space) District.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 436
RESOLUTION NO. 2024 – 05

A RESOLUTI

ON OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN

BRUNO RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A PLANNED

UNIT PERMIT, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PERMIT, VESTING TENTATIVE MAP,

DESNITY BONUS REQUEST, AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN, AND TREE

REMOVAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF
300 PIEDMONT AVENUE
(A.K.A. THE CRESTMOOR PROJECT)
(PUP22-001, AR22-006, TM22-001, DB24-001)
(APNs: 019-170-020)
WHEREAS, the S
an Mateo Union High School District ("District") is the owner of that certain 40.2 acre site located at 300 Piedmont Avenue in the City of San Bruno, commonly known as the site of the former Crestmoor High School, and more particularly described as Assessor's Parcel Number 019-170-020 (the "Property"), and SummerHill Homes LLC ("Applicant”) is the applicant for the development of the Property; and WHEREAS, t
he District desires to sell the Property and has entered into a purchase and sale agreement with Applicant, who desires to develop a residential subdivision with 155 new single family homes on the Property, with associated roadways and infrastructure on the Property (collectively, the "Residential Project"); and WHEREAS, in or
der to develop the Project, Applicant has submitted an application to the City of San Bruno for approval of the following: (1) a Vesting Tentative Tract Map (TM22- 001); (2) a Planned Unit Permit (PUP22-001); (3) an Architectural Review Permit (AR22- 006); a Tree Removal Permit; (5) a Density Bonus request (DB24-001); and (6) an Affordable Housing Plan; and
WHEREAS, in order to address the City’s goal of maintaining playing fields on the site, Applicant proposes to dedicate the Recreational Area to the City of San Bruno for the development of soccer and playing fields for public recreational uses (the “Recreational Project”, and together with the Residential Project, the “Project”); and WHEREAS, on N
ovember 18, 2022, San Bruno entered into a Settlement, Release, and Tolling Agreement Extension (“Agreement”) with the District which included, among other terms, that the San Bruno City Council initiate a General Plan Amendment to modify provisions contained in the General Plan regarding the preservation of open space and playing fields at the Property, including but not limited to Policy OSR-8; and WHEREAS, on Dec
ember 13, 2022, the San Bruno City Council, on its own action, initiated the General Plan Amendment to modify provisions in the Open Space and Recreation Element of the General Plan, and change the General Plan Land Use Diagram designation for an approximately 5.3 acre portion of the Property to Parks/Open Space pursuant to the terms of the Agreement to be processed concurrently with the City’s review of the Project; and
DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA ATTACHMENT 9
437
WHEREAS, on May 7, 2024, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2024-03 recommending that the San Bruno City Council certify an environmental impact report dated April 2024, and adopt CEQA findings and facts, a statement of overriding considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the Project and the General Plan Amendments; and

WHEREAS, in Resolution No. 2024-04 the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council amend the General Plan and Zoning Map ; and

WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to properties within a 1,000 foot radius of the project site on April 26, 2024 and duly posted in the San Mateo Daily Journal on Saturday, April 27, 2024; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on Project and the Planned Unit Permit, Architectural Review Permit, Vesting Tentative Map, and Affordable Housing Plan on May 7, 2024, and on said date, the Public Hearing was opened, held and closed.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Bruno, based on facts in the staff reports, written and oral testimony, and exhibits presented:

1. With respect to the Vesting Tentative Map, the Planning Commission hereby finds:

a) The proposed tract map, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the general plan, as amended pursuant to the Planning Commission's recommendation, and any specific plan as specified in Section 65451 of the Government Code.

Basis for Finding: The lotting plans of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map support the single-family project given the proposed allowed density, lot coverage, and height for the Low-Density Residential General Plan land use designation. The overall project is consistent with the General Plan policy to “encourage innovative design and site planning in new development which enhance the community’s appearance and assure compatibility with the surrounding scale, character, and intensity of land uses”.

b) The real property to be subdivided, and each lot or parcel to be created, is of such character that it can be used safely for building purposes without danger to health or peril from fire, flood, geologic hazard or other menace.

Basis for Finding: The Project would preserve the sloped hillside as open space and develop the flat portion of the site to create 155 residential lots. The resulting home sites are relatively flat and suitable residential development.

Additionally, applicable mitigation measures and conditions of approval will ensure that each lot to be created can be safely developed without danger to DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 438
health from fire, geologic hazard and ground contamination. Therefore, no danger to health or peril from fire, flood, geologic hazard or other menace is likely to occur.

c) Each lot or parcel to be created will constitute a buildable site and will be capable of being developed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the zoning code.

Basis for Finding: The Vesting Tentative Map will create legal individual parcels, with unique assessor parcel numbers, for each single-family home site.

The Applicant has requested to develop the site pursuant to the Planned Unit Permit requirements of Chapter 12.116 of the Code which allows for relief from the strict application of the provisions of the R-1 zoning district. The parcels are designed to accommodate the proposed development plan, with each site designed to accommodate homes with minimum four-foot side setbacks and 15-foot front yard setbacks. Therefore, each parcel to be created will constitute a buildable site and will be capable of being developed in accordance with the proposed development plan.

d) The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development.

Basis for Finding: The overall site area is 40.2 acres, resulting in a gross density of 3.85 units per acre which is consistent with the General Plan Low Density Residential designation of 2.1 – 8.0 units per acre. Therefore, the site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development.

e) The design of the subdivision and improvements, and the type of improvements, is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat or to cause serious public health problems.

Basis for Finding: The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) includes mitigation measures requiring the Applicant to incorporate erosion control measures to reduce storm water runoff and compliance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements; to minimize temporary construction dust impacts to an acceptable level; to implement measures to avoid disturbing birds and bats or their habitat, and to avoid tree removal when wildlife is nesting. Therefore, substantial environmental damage and harm to wildlife is not likely to occur.

f) The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed subdivision.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 439
Basis for Finding: As conditioned, the final map must show a public access easement on the interior streets to facilitate public access to the open space.

The tentative map shows a public access easement for the sloped open space behind the homes on the west side of the site. Courtland Drive and Piedmont Avenue will be public streets to maintain the existing public access adjacent to the development. Additionally, existing easements providing access to the church property east of Courtland Drive will be amended to align with the existing driveway locations. An existing Caltrans easement providing access to adjacent Interstate 280 Freeway property will be amended or restated as well.

Therefore, the design of the subdivision and improvements will not conflict with any public use of the subject property.

2. With respect to the Planned Unit Permit, the Planning Commission hereby finds:

a) The Applicant has demonstrated that they intend to obtain a building permit for the Residential Project within six (6) months of this approval and that they intend to complete the construction within a reasonable time.

Basis for Finding: At their own risk, the Applicant has submitted a demolition permit for review prior to entitlement and has shared their construction schedule with the City, which together indicate their desire to obtain a building permit and complete the project in a timely manner.

b) The proposed development conforms to the general plan in terms of general location, density and general standards of development and criteria contained in the San Bruno Municipal Code.

Basis for Finding: The site is within the Low-Density Residential land use classification which allows a residential density of 2.1 – 8.0 units per acre. The project proposes a residential density of 3.68 units per acre, which is within the range for the land use classification under the General Plan. The site has the same land use classification and zoning as the adjacent Crestmoor neighborhood. The General Plan encourages the redevelopment of former school sites with clustered small lot development that preserves open space.

The project would implement clustered development on less than 50% of the site, preserving a majority of the site as open space.

c) The design of proposed single-family dwellings conforms to the basic design principles of the residential design guidelines.

Basis for Finding: The Residential Project includes seven four-bedroom floor plans in two neighborhoods with distinctive architecture and varying lot sizes.

The two proposed “neighborhoods” will create a seamless integration of a variety of single-family home layouts and exterior styles. Neighborhood 1 is designed around three floorplans and three styles each, incorporating a contemporary take on the surrounding traditional styles in the existing DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 440
neighborhood. The similar palette of materials provides a cohesive thread throughout with the use of lap siding, brick, stone, and stucco finishes. The styles transition to a more traditional interpretation within Neighborhood 2.

Three distinct styles are proposed within four floorplans, with the introduction of a variety of roof tile types and window forms, board and batten siding, and brick veneers. Within both neighborhoods, a range of color schemes, architectural front doors and garage doors, and lighting will add additional richness to the street scene.

d) The development of a harmonious, integrated project in accordance with a precise development plan justifies exceptions, if such are required, to the normal requirements of this article.

Basis for Finding: The development is a harmonious integrated project, with homes of varying sizes and styles unified by styles, color, and materials. The preservation of the hillsides justifies exceptions to the normal requirements to the extent allowed by Chapter 12.116 of the San Bruno Municipal Code. The Residential Project would maintain large amounts of open space. As the minimum lot sizes in the R-1 District are 5,000 SF for interior lots and 6,000 SF for corner lots, the total lot area + open space required for the project to satisfy the PUP requirement is approximately 18.6 Acres. 20.99 acres (50%) of the site will be preserved as open space including 19.15 acres that will be publicly accessible.

3. With respect to the Architectural Review Permit, the Planning Commission hereby finds:

a) The proposed buildings, site plan, and landscaping are in substantial conformance with the goals, policies, and objective development standards of the zoning code, General Plan, and applicable specific plans.

Basis for Finding: The Residential Project includes seven four-bedroom floor plans in two neighborhoods with distinctive architecture and varying lot sizes.

Each single-family home would be set back 15’-0” from the street and have a front yard that is landscaped with drought-tolerant trees and plants, and automatic irrigation. A decorative low fence and enhanced plantings will be included on lots across from the proposed head-in parking areas along Courtland Drive.

The design of proposed single-family dwellings conforms to the basic design principles of the residential design guidelines. Each building will be 28’-0” in height or less, in compliance with the height limit for the district. Average lot coverage would be 44%, which is consistent with lot coverage requirements for the R-1 District. Each home will have a driveway that is 20’-0” in depth as required by Code.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 441
The two proposed “neighborhoods” will create a seamless integration of a variety of single-family home layouts and exterior styles. Neighborhood 1 is designed around three floorplans and three styles each, incorporating a contemporary take on the surrounding traditional styles in the existing neighborhood. The similar palette of materials provides a cohesive thread throughout with the use of lap siding, brick, stone, and stucco finishes. The styles transition to a more traditional interpretation within Neighborhood 2.

With respect to the General Plan, the project would implement policies LUD-1 and LUD-5 by redeveloping a former school site with single-family housing and furthering small lot single-family development.

b) The site for the proposed development is adequate in size and shape to accommodate proposed building site plan and landscaping.

Basis for Finding: The Residential Project will develop the 40.2-acre Project Site with 155 new two-story detached single-family homes that are clustered to permanently preserve 12.24 acres of privately owned publicly accessible open space hillsides. The resulting site density is 3.86 dwelling units per acre, which is below the 8.0 dwellings per acre permitted within a low-density residential land-use designation.

The design of the building site plan, landscaping, and streetscape, including street trees, lighting, and street furnishings, is consistent with the character of the surrounding area, and would not create an adverse visual impact on the surrounding area.

c) The development will not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare.

Basis for Finding: The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) includes mitigation measures regarding noise and dust to reduce adverse impacts on people residing in adjacent properties. The project would not develop the sloped areas of the site which would be remediated for fire protection purposes. Therefore, the development will not be detrimental to public health and safety. Furthermore, the project advances the General Plan by redeveloping a former school site with a residential subdivision that incorporates development clustering and small lots. Additionally, the project would add 155 homes to the City’s housing stock, including 24 homes that will be sold at below market rates to low- and moderate-income households.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 442
d) The proposed development contributes to the creation of an attractive and visually interesting built environment that includes a variety of building styles and designs with well-articulated structures within a unifying context that encourages increased pedestrian activity and promotes compatibility among neighboring land uses within the same or different districts.

Basis for Finding: The Residential Project includes seven four-bedroom floor plans in two neighborhoods with distinctive architecture and varying lot sizes.

The two proposed “neighborhoods” will create a seamless integration of a variety of single-family home layouts and exterior styles. Neighborhood 1 is designed around three floorplans and three styles each, incorporating a contemporary take on the surrounding traditional styles in the existing neighborhood. A similar palette of materials will be used to provide visual cohesiveness throughout the development with the use of lap siding, brick, stone, and stucco exterior finishes.

4. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve the Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Permit, Architectural Review Permit, Density Bonus request, Tree Removal Permit, and Affordable Housing Plan subject to the conditions of approval attached hereto as Exhibit A.

5. All of the approvals for the Residential Project shall not become operative until the effective date of the City-initiated General Plan and Zoning Map amendments.

6. Upon the effective date, the Residential Project approvals shall be valid for a period of two years.

Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval

Date Planning Commission Chair

ATTEST APPROVED AS TO FORM

Planning Commission Secretary City Attorney

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 5/9/2024
5/13/2024
5/13/2024
5/13/2024
443

-o0o-

AYES Commissioners: Johnson, Durazo, Lethin, Madden, Kuhn, Harman NOES Commissioners: None
ABSENT Commissioners: Biasotti
RECUSED Commissioners None

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 444

EXHIBIT A

DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, PLANNED UNIT PERMIT,

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PERMIT, DENSITY BONUS REQUEST,

AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN, AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT
300 PIEDMONT AVENUE

I. General Conditions

Community Development

1. The applicant shall file a declaration of acceptance of the following conditions by submitting a signed copy of the “Summary of Hearing” to the Community Development Department within thirty (30) days of City Council approval. Applicant shall be responsible only for those conditions of approval applicable to (i) the residential component of the project (“Residential Component”) (including the storm drainage improvements proposed in the public open space area that will serve the Residential Component); (ii) the rough grading of the public open space component of the project (“OS Rough Grading”) Until such time as the Summary of Hearing is filed, Vesting Tentative Map, Planned Unit Permit, Architectural Review Permit, and Tree Removal Permit shall not be operative. The Vesting Tentative Map, Architectural Review Permit, and Planned Unit Permit shall expire two (2) years from the date of City Council approval unless one of the following occurs: The Final Map has been approved and recorded, the applicant has requested an extension pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, or an automatic extension pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act is applicable. Any Planning approval extension requests shall be processed consistent with the terms outlined in Section 12.78.050 of the San Bruno Municipal Code. The Tree Removal Permit is valid for 6 months from the date of issuance, as may be extended, pursuant to SBMC 8.24.070.

2. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the Residential Component, the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Director a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program that aims to reduce residential Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) to 12.4 miles per capita, consistent with a 15 percent reduction in VMT from the current regional average of 14.6 miles per capita.

3. All conditions of approval herein shall apply, regardless of the individual department under which the condition is listed. These conditions of approval and any other conditions associated with any further approvals of the project shall run with the land if this project is pursued, and any and all successors in interest of the property shall comply with all conditions of said approval if this project is pursued.

4. The signed copy of the conditions of approval shall be included as a full-size page in the Building Division set of drawings.

5. The Applicant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the city, its officers, employees and agents, from any and all claims and lawsuits from third party(s) involving or related to the city’s consideration and/or approval of the Applicant’s application for development and each permit and approval granted for the Residential Component. The indemnity shall not DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 445
extend to the City’s consideration and/or action on any aspect of the public open space component of the project.

6. The Developer shall be responsible for the cost of all City reviews and inspections required for all improvements associated with the Applicant Work.

7. All mitigation measures in the adopted MMRP, attached hereto as Exhibit A, are hereby incorporated as conditions of approval through reference and made applicable to the Project. Applicant shall be responsible only for mitigation measures associated with the Applicant Work.

8. All building permit application plans and details, and subsequent construction shall substantially conform with the approved planning application, including: drawings, plans, materials samples, solar panels, building colors, the written project description, and other items submitted as part of the approved planning application. Documentation of any changes to the approved planning application plan set shall be provided at the time of building permit application submittal. Any proposed modifications to the approved planning application must be submitted for review by the Community Development Director subject to the provisions within San Bruno Municipal Code Section 12.78.030.

9. No signage is approved as part of the planning application; signage is governed by the City’s Sign Ordinance. All proposed subdivision or identification signs shall be subject to additional review and approval pertaining to a Sign Permit in accordance with Chapter

12.104 of the Municipal Code.

10. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the first residence, all pertinent Conditions of Approval and all improvements associated with the Applicant Work shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City of San Bruno for the applicable phase of development.

11. The project shall be designed according to meet the applicable California Building Standards and Fire Codes that are in effect at the time of building permit application, including any local adoptions, including but not limited to All Electric Buildings – SBMC

11.06.30, Electric Vehicle Charging – SBMC 11.07.030.

12. The applicant shall comply with all aspects of the Heritage Tree Ordinance in effect as of March 8, 2022 (SBMC Section 8.25), in accordance with Government Code Section 65589.5.

13. The Applicant shall be responsible for the cost of all City reviews and inspections for all improvements associated with the project per the City’s Master Fee Schedule in effect as of March 8, 2022, in accordance with Government Code Section 65589.5, including adjustments allowed pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(o)(2)(A).

Public Works

14. The design of Courtland Drive as shown on the Tentative Map is an approved deviation of City Standard Details as permitted by the San Bruno Municipal Code. All other public improvements shall conform to City Standard Details and Standard Specifications and the San Bruno Municipal Code, in effect as of March 8, 2022 in accordance with Government Code Section 65589.5 and these Conditions of Approval unless otherwise approved by the DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 446
City Engineer. City Standards shall govern in the event of a conflict, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.

15. The Applicant shall be responsible for the cost of all City Public Works Department plan reviews and Public Works Inspections required for all improvements associated with the Development. Said cost includes the costs for City Staff and third-party plan review and Public Works inspection consultants. The Applicant shall submit funds to the City to increase the Deposit established with its Reimbursement Agreement with the City dated March 3, 2021, to at least $140,000 prior to any post-entitlement meetings and reviews. In addition, the Applicant shall submit funds to the City to increase said Deposit to at least $200,000 to cover the costs of Public Works Inspections, prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit or Encroachment Permit. Applicant shall be responsible for maintaining said deposit account and shall submit funds to increase the deposit amount to at least $100,000 or as determined by the City Engineer within fifteen calendar days of receipt of written notice from the City that the deposit amount is $30,000 or less. Actual costs for staff and consultant time shall be deducted from this deposit per the City’s Master Fee Schedule. At the end of the project, any remaining deposit amount will be refunded.

16. The following note shall be included on all grading, building and improvement plans: Per the City of San Bruno Municipal Code Section 6.16.070, the operation of any equipment or performance of any outside construction related to a project shall not exceed the noise level and time indicated below, unless a permit from the Director of Public Works is obtained beforehand:

Monday through Saturday:
i. 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM – 85 Decibels
ii. 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM – 60 Decibels
Sunday: restricting
iii. 10:00 AM to 7:00 PM – 85 Decibels
iv. 7:00 PM to 10:00 AM – 60 Decibels

17. The project shall be subject to the site identification and construction fencing requirements of SBMC 11.10.020.

18. A Homeowner’s Association (HOA) shall be formed, and a set of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be established for the Residential Component. The CC&Rs shall incorporate all relevant language referenced in these conditions of approval.

II. Prior to Recordation of the Final Map

Community Development

19. Prior to or concurrently with the recordation of the final map the Developer shall execute and record an Affordable Housing Agreement restricting the sale or lease of sixteen (16) homes to moderate-income households and restricting the sale or lease of eight (8) homes to low-income households for a period of 55 years starting from the date of certificate of occupancy, in substantial conformance with the Project’s Affordable Housing Plan. The Affordable Housing Agreement shall be recorded together with any Final Map and will have priority over the liens of all individual lot deeds of trust, mortgages and other financing instruments encumbering the Project site.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 447

Public Works

20. The Applicant shall process a Final Map in conformance with the approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map. Said Final Map shall be recorded with the San Mateo County Recorder prior to the issuance of the grading permit for the Finish Grading Improvement Plans. Said Final Map shall include the following:

a. An irrevocable offer of dedication to the City (in fee) for the new public street right-of- way on Courtland Drive.
b. An irrevocable offer of dedication to the City (in fee) for all public open space parcels. c. An irrevocable offer of dedication to the City for a pedestrian and vehicular Public Access Easement on A Street along the frontage of the Public Open Space Parcel M.
d. An irrevocable offer of dedication to the City for a Pedestrian and Vehicular Public Access Easement over all private sidewalks and private streets within the Development. Restrictions shall be outlined in the Owners Statement on the Final Map excluding and prohibiting public parking on all private streets (parcels A-G), except along the Northern portion of A Street, adjacent to Parcel M. e. An irrevocable offer of dedication to the City for an Emergency Vehicle Access Easement on all private streets.
f. An irrevocable offer of dedication to the City for a Public Utility Easement on all private streets for public water and joint trench facilities. g. A reservation of Private Utility and Private Access Easements. h. Recording documentation vacating existing access easements and creating new private access easements for 250 Courtland Drive (APN: 019-170130).

21. The offer of dedication for the Courtland Drive right-of-way shall be accepted by the City with a separate instrument from the Final Map only after all the required public improvements on Courtland Drive have been accepted as complete by the City Engineer, all the private streets and stormwater treatment measures within the subdivision have been completed, all heavy construction is complete, and Certificates of Occupancy have been issued for the 12 Residential Lots which take access from Courtland Drive (Lots 1- 12).

22. The offer of dedication for all Public Open Space parcels shall be accepted by the City with separate instruments from the Final Map once all the required grading improvements on said parcels have been accepted as complete by the City Engineer and the public right- of-way for Courtland Drive has been accepted by the City.

23. The Applicant shall enter into the following Agreements with the City:

a. Improvement Agreement. Prior to the approval of the Final Map, the Applicant shall enter into an Improvement Agreement with the City. The Improvement Agreement, among other requirements, shall require the Applicant to ensure the faithful performance of the design, construction, installation and inspection of all public improvements as reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division, at no cost to the City, and shall be secured by good and sufficient payment bond, performance bond, and one (1) year warranty bonds or cash deposit adequate to cover all of the DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 448
costs, inspections and administrative expenses of completing such improvements in the event of a default. The value of the bonds or cash deposit shall include 110% of the cost of construction. The value of the warranty bond or cash deposit shall be equivalent to 10% of the value of the performance security. The Improvement Agreement shall be recorded with the San Mateo County Recorder’s office.

b. Maintenance Agreement. Prior to the approval of the Final Map, the Applicant shall execute a Maintenance Agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to ensure long-term maintenance and servicing by the Homeowner’s Association of the privately owned improvements. These obligations shall be incorporated into the CC&Rs. The Maintenance Agreement shall be recorded against the private properties and be binding upon successors. Maintenance responsibilities on privately owned improvements shall include, but not be limited to, street trees, landscaping and irrigation systems, lighting systems, the open space trees and landscape areas, street/open space furniture, fences, all private utility lines such as storm and sanitary sewer, street sweeping, AC pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveways, stormwater treatment measures and ground slopes, in the areas as shown on the Vesting Tentative Tract Map.

c. S tormwater Treatment Measures Agreement. Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy on a Building Permit, the Applicant shall execute a Stormwater Treatment Measures Agreement with the City, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to ensure long-term maintenance and servicing by the property owner and/or Homeowner’s Association of stormwater site and off-site design and treatment control measures according to an approved Maintenance Plan(s). The Stormwater Treatment Measures Agreements shall be recorded with the San Mateo County Recorder prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy on a Building Permit.

A draft of the provisions within the CC&Rs relating to responsibilities of the HOA to maintain improvements and private open space and other items that relate to City conditions, requirements and mitigation measures shall be submitted to the City prior to recordation of the Final Map. The pertinent portion of the CC&Rs shall be approved by the City prior to recordation of the Final Map.

24. Parcel M shall be offered for dedication subject to the restrictions that (i) property owners within 300 feet of the parcel shall be noticed in writing 30 days prior to the San Bruno City Council’s consideration and approval of final park design and funding and (ii) field and street lighting levels shall not exceed 1.0 horizontal foot candles at the property line of adjacent residential lots both within and adjacent to the project, unless the property owners of the affected properties agree to higher footcandle or temporary emergency situations.

25. The Applicant shall provide the City a copy of the recorded Stormdrain Easement for utilizing the existing private 24-inch stormdrain on the 140 Keefe Court property.

Fire

26. There shall be clear language in the CC&Rs regarding parking restrictions and the HOAs' ability to remove vehicles parking in designated fire lanes on private streets.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 449

27. There shall be clear language in the CC&Rs or similar regarding the ongoing maintenance of Parcels J, O, and P to the east of all the houses. It shall be maintained throughout the year and subject to inspection by the Fire Department.

III. Prior to Grading Permit or Building Permit Issuance Community Development

28. Prior to each individual residential building permit issuance, the Applicant shall pay all applicable City-Wide Development Impact Fees as stipulated in Section 12.260 of the San Bruno Municipal Code in effect as of March 8, 2022 in accordance with Government Code section 65589.5, with adjustments permissible per Government Code section 65589.5(o)(2)(A).

29. All ground level utilities, equipment, and other project related operational/utility devices(“Items”) shall be shown on the building permit plans, consistent with the approved planning application plans. All Items shall be fully screened on all four sides from public view by a solid wall or solid wood fence that complies with San Bruno Municipal Code Chapter 12.84.150. Screening pad-mounted transformers shall be on sides and rear.

Landscaping in the form of densely planted tall shrubs may be utilized where placement of a fence is infeasible, subject to review and determination by the Project Planner in the field. These Items shall be setback as far as feasible from street frontages and shall be fully screened with landscaping or other screening material. The building permit plans shall show the location and screening of these items and must be approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit.

30. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall file a Form 7460-1 with the FAA, and shall provide the City of San Bruno an FAA “Determination of No Hazard” for the Residential Component.

31. The Applicant shall comply with the real estate disclosure requirements outlined in Policy IP-1 of the SFO ALUCP for the Residential Component, which apply to sale or lease of property located within Area A of the Airport Influence Area (AIA).

32. At the time of building permit submittal, full landscaping, planting and irrigation plans shall be submitted for all landscape areas under control of the HOA and front yard landscaping of the homes. The height of landscaping shall be designed to maximize observation but otherwise consistent with the preliminary landscaping plans reviewed by the Planning Commission on May 7, 2024, with the following modifications:
a. The Tree Planting Plan on Sheet L4.4 shall be consistent with the Tree Imagery located on Sheets L4.1 – L4.6.
b. The Shrub Planting plan located on Sheet L4.4 shall be consistent with the Shrub Imagery located on Sheet L.4.6.
c. The proposed vines shall be included on the planting plan. d. Security planting materials are encouraged to be used along fence and property lines.

33. Landscaping shall be of the type and situated in locations as shown on the landscape plans while providing the desired degree of aesthetics. Planted vegetation should be maintained to the following standards:
a. Trees should be maintained so that the canopy does not fall below 6 feet above ground level.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 450
b. Bushes and shrubs should be maintained so that they do not grow more than 2 feet above ground level.
c. This is to ensure the most visibility and limiting the ability of a person to hide within areas of thick vegetation.

34. Final landscaping plans as well as any changes to the approved landscaping plans shall require review and approval by the Community Development Director. Security planting materials are encouraged to be used along fence and property lines, and under vulnerable windows.

35. Prior to issuance of any building permits, all new landscaping shown on the approved landscaping plan for the Residential Component shall comply with the updated Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) requirements pursuant to Chapter 2.7 of the California Code of Regulations and Executive Order No. B-29-15. The MWELO requirements shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to landscape construction. A Landscape Certificate of Completion for the Residential Component shall be submitted to the Planning Division at the completion of the installation, prior to the request for a final inspection and Certificate of Occupancy. For more information on the updated MWELO compliance requirements visit:
https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Browse/Home/California/CaliforniaCodeofRegulations?g uid=I55B69DB0D45A11DEA95CA4428EC25FA0&transitionType=Default&contextData=% 28sc.Default%29.

36. Outdoor lighting, including exterior mounted building lighting, shall be designed to minimize night sky light pollution, glare, and light spillage onto adjacent buildings and properties. Lighting shall comply with Title 24 and CalGreen lighting requirements.

Photometrics for the entire Residential Component shall be provided in the Building Division plans.

Adequate lighting of all roadways, walkways, and passageways contiguous to buildings in the Residential Component shall be provided with enough lighting of sufficient wattage to provide adequate illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises during the hours of darkness and provide a safe secure environment for all persons, property, and vehicles.

37. Approval of this project does not relieve the Applicant from the applicable requirements of subsequent permits and approval, including but not limited to the following as may be applicable to the Applicant Work:
a. Grading Permit and Improvement Plan
b. Building Permit and Certificate of Occupancy
c. Fire Permit
d. School District Development Impact Fee Requirements.

38. The noise study for the Residential Component shall require review and approval by the City’s Building Division, prior to building permit issuance, to ensure that the Residential Component project meets the requirements of the California Building Code, Title 24, for interior noise levels.

39. If HVAC units are proposed, a supplemental noise analysis shall be performed documenting that the units comply with Chapter 6.16 of the Municipal Code prior to issuance of building permits.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 451

40. A detailed recycling and garbage plan shall be submitted to the Building Division prior to issuance of a building permit, along with a Construction and Demolition Recycling and Waste Reduction Form. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the Residential Component, Applicant shall submit documentation to the Building Division that the materials have been recycled in accordance with the approved plan.

41. A pre-construction conference shall be held at a time and location agreed upon by the City and applicant to review the Conditions of Approval and construction-site procedures.  The building owner/developer shall be represented by the design and construction staff, which may include sub-contractors.  Departments having conditions of approval for the project will represent the City (Building, Planning, Public Works, Fire).

42. A plan showing the location of any temporary contractor’s storage yard or construction trailer on the Applicant property, including security fencing and lighting, shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for approval prior to installation and prior to building permit issuance. Applicant shall provide interim landscaping as required by the Community Development Director if the Applicant property is demolished and remains vacant for a period of more than three months. NOTE: A building permit is required to include the following, if applicable:
a. Submittal of plans clearly showing conformance with disability accessibility to any proposed modular building in accordance with Chapter 11B of 2016 CBC b. Restroom facilitation
c. Seismic tie-down system
d. Electrical, water and sewer support systems

Fire

43. Provide NFPA 13d Fire Sprinkler system to be installed throughout each building and garages. System under separate fire permit.

44. Minimum fire flow is 500 gallons per minute. The fire flow and residual pressure may be increased, as determined by the Fire Marshal, where the project utility lines will serve non- residential uses. Fire hydrants shall not be placed behind vehicle parking stalls not viewable from the public street.

45. In lieu of a fire sprinkler bell, an exterior rated horn/strobe shall be mounted eight (8) feet above grade.

46. Addition of new hydrants and/or modification to existing hydrants to be performed under separate fire permits.

47. Provide address numbers on exterior elevations as required by the Fire Marshal.

48. Provide painting for the fire lanes with "Fire Lane – No Parking".

49. Within new subdivisions that are compact in development (i.e. parcels that are roughly less than 3000 sq ft), all interior roads that are 20 ft. in width, and classified as alleys or not clearly classified as roads, must be identified as a road with the type of Place. In these compact development subdivisions, houses will be addressed off of roads within the development. If the front doors of the houses within the subdivision face interior streets, DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 452
they will be addressed off the front doors first. Where the front doors of the houses are facing walkways, common areas, or to streets outside the subdivision, the houses will be addressed off of the street the garage is facing.

Public Works

50. A Maintenance Plan for every stormwater treatment control measure or applicable site design measure, inclusive of maintenance and inspection checklists and Maintenance Inspection Report Forms, shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to building permit issuance. A copy of the final, approved Maintenance Plan(s) shall be made a part of the Stormwater Treatment Measures Maintenance Agreement. A copy of the final, approved Maintenance Plan(s) shall also be on file with the Engineering Division.

51. Prior to the issuance of a building permit and prior to any work within the City right-of-way, the Applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the City for the construction of all off-site public improvements to be constructed by Applicant and for any traffic control on Public Streets. The permit application shall include Improvement Plans and Traffic / Pedestrian Control Plans for review and approval by the City.

52. Prior to the issuance of an Encroachment Permit, the Applicant shall provide an engineer’s estimate for all the Public Improvements to be constructed by Applicant for City review and approval and shall submit the required performance and payment bonds equal to 110% of the estimate.

53. Prior to the issuance of a Demolition or Grading Permit, the Applicant shall submit a copy of their General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit Notice of Intent and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Notice of Intent (NOI), required by State regulations.

54. All new public improvements required to accommodate the Residential Component shall be installed at no cost to the City and shall be approved by the City Engineer and constructed to City Standards in effect as of March 8, 2022 in accordance with Government Code section 65589.5.

55. The Applicant shall pay all required utility fees adopted and in effect as of March 8, 2022, in accordance with Government Code section 65589.5 prior to the issuance of each individual building permit.

56. Prior to issuance of each individual building permit, the Applicant shall submit a water service request application to the Public Works Department and pay for all, on-site service connection fees (including but not limited to Water and Wastewater) for the Residential Component. Fees shall be determined based on the Master Fee Schedule adopted and in effect as of March 8, 2022 in accordance with Government Code section 65589.5.

57. The Applicant shall pothole new utility crossings to investigate potential conflicts and provide pothole data in the improvement plans for the Applicant Work. The Applicant shall be responsible for resolving any conflicts during the design process and ensure compliance with utility separation requirements for the Applicant Work. The Applicant shall assume all risk for any utility work done by or on behalf of the Applicant without potholing.

A separate encroachment permit may be required for potholing work. All Items (as defined in Condition 29 above) shall be shown on the Building Permit Plans consistent with the DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 453
approved planning application plans. All Items shall be screened from view to the maximum extent feasible by landscaping or low fencing while maintaining access requirements of the utility, subject to review and determination by the Project Planner in the field. Utilities and equipment shall be setback as far as feasible from street frontages and shall be fully screened with landscaping or other screening material. The building permit plans shall show the location and screening of these items and this condition shall be addressed on the construction plans submitted for any building permit, or site development permit and shall be satisfied prior to issuance of whichever permit is issued first; however, the final location and required screening of all Items shall be reviewed for consistency with the approved building permit plans by the Project Planner prior to release of utilities, final inspection, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first.

58. The Applicant shall obtain a City grading permit for the Applicant Work pursuant to the City of San Bruno Municipal Code Chapter 12, Article I (Excavation and Grading).

59. Grading permit plans and building permits shall minimize the need for off-haul from the project site.

60. Prior to the issuance of the Grading Permit for the Applicant Work, the Applicant shall obtain a Hauling Route Permit from the City. The application for a hauling permit shall include information on the amount of soil to be removed, disposal sites, the estimated number of truck trips required and the proposed haul routes. Final haul route within San Bruno shall be approved by the City Engineer.

61. The Applicant shall submit an updated geotechnical analysis/report at the time of grading permit and building permit submittal for the Applicant Work. Said updated report shall further investigate if the subdrain system on Courtland Drive draining to the slope on the Caltrans property as shown on Sheet 2a of the Geotechnical Investigation by Rockridge Geotechnical dated August 7, 2023, exists or is required, and to provide recommendations on whether to protect in-place or install a new subdrainage system.

62. The Applicant shall implement the recommendations of a geotechnical report by a registered Geotechnical Engineer for the Applicant Work. The geotechnical investigation shall provide data to evaluate the geotechnical conditions of the site and provide seismic, landslide, mudslide, and groundwater evaluation and recommendations, and recommendations for appropriate soil engineering to reduce seismic hazards. The geotechnical investigation shall also discuss and provide recommendations for trenching and pavement sections, including traffic index and R- value.

63. The Geotechnical Engineer who prepared the geotechnical report shall review all improvement plans for the Applicant Work and provide confirmation of compliance prior to submittal of plans to the City and conduct any inspections, testing and other actions during construction that are called for in the geotechnical report.

64. All surface and subsurface drainage systems shall be designed to provide positive drainage and meet minimum/maximum slope requirements after settlement to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Geotechnical Engineer

65. Applicant shall perform two pavement condition surveys to determine the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) on the project haul route within the City. The initial survey shall be DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 454
completed prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit. The second survey shall be completed prior to the issuance of the last Certificate of Occupancy of a building permit.

The surveys shall be performed by professional pavement inspectors conducting detailed examinations of pavement surface features such as cracking and depressions in accordance with the requirements of ASTM D6433-11, “Standard Practice for Roads and Parking Lots Pavement Condition Index Surveys.” The initial survey shall also include a video survey to visually document the condition of the street. Copies of both surveys shall be provided to the City for review. The Applicant shall make any repairs to the roadway necessary to restore the roadway to a condition that is the same or better than the pre- construction PCI.

66. Discharge of groundwater during construction shall comply with the City of San Bruno Municipal Code, Chapter 10.12.150 (General discharge regulations) in effect as of March 8, 2022 in accordance with Government Code section 65589.5. The Applicant is responsible for obtaining any and all permits required for discharging groundwater and any other dewatering activities associated with the Applicant Work.

67. Project shall incorporate landscaping that minimizes irrigation and run-off, promotes surface infiltration, minimizes the use of pesticides and fertilizers, and incorporates other appropriate sustainable landscaping practices such as Bay-Friendly Landscaping.

68. Shoring, foundation or retaining wall support shall not extend into the public right-of-way.

The Applicant shall design any bioretention area or flow-through planters constructed by or on behalf of the Applicant adjacent to the property line such that the facility and all foundations do not encroach within the public right-of-way or into an adjacent parcel. City Engineer approval is required for any temporary structural supports within the ROW. Any temporary structural supports shall be removed after construction.

69. The Applicant shall follow the recommendations of the Arborist Report for 300 Piedmont Avenue prepared by HortScience / Bartlett Consulting dated January 2024.

Improvement Plans

70. The Applicant shall submit Rough Grading Plans and Finish Grading Improvement Plans for all On-Site improvements, and Improvement Plans for Public off-site Improvements for review and approval by the Public Works Department.

a. A Rough Grading Permit Plan set shall include all on-site rough grading and drainage facilities.
b. A Finish Grading Improvement Plan set shall include all on-site utilities and site improvements for the entire subdivision, including conforms to the Public right-of-way at either entrance to Courtland Drive.
c. An Encroachment Permit Plan set shall include improvement plans for off-site public improvements.

71. The Applicant shall submit a construction management plan (CMP) and phasing schedule for City review and approval prior to issuance of a demolition, grading, or building permit, and as needed throughout the course of the project. The CMP shall include plans for construction staging and employee parking, and outline traffic management strategies to reduce, to the extent feasible, traffic congestion, closures on the transportation network including emergency access and emergency response vehicles, the effects of parking DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 455
demand by construction workers, and other nearby projects that could be simultaneously under construction. Existing on-street parking shall not be impacted by project construction without permission from the Public Works Department.

72. Improvement plans shall be prepared pursuant to the City of San Bruno Municipal Code and City standard details and specifications in effect as of March 8, 2022 (in accordance with Government Code section 65589.5), State law and regulations, and standard engineering practice. In the event of conflicts, the Municipal Code shall govern unless approved by the City Engineer.

73. The Grading Permit plans shall show all adjacent properties sufficiently to assure that the proposed grading does not negatively impact adjacent lands and shall incorporate drainage features necessary to assure continued drainage without erosion and drainage entering from adjacent properties. The plans shall also include appropriate erosion control measures for the project.

74. The Grading Permit and Building Permit plans shall include a Stormwater Management Plan that illustrates compliance with the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit Provision C.3 and San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program’s (SMCWPPP) C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance for City review and approval.

Off-site Public Improvements

75. The Applicant shall be responsible to prepare separate improvement plans for all off-site public improvements.

76. The Applicant shall rehabilitate the existing 6” sanitary sewer mains on Courtland Drive and on Whitman Way to City Standards as follows:
a. approximately 929 linear feet of sewer main on Courtland Drive (from MH 1874 to MH 1222)
b. approximately 740 linear feet of sewer main on Whitman Way (from MH 1222 to MH 1331).

The method of rehabilitation shall consist of pipe bursting the existing 6” sewer main with an 8” HDPE SDR-17 pipe.

77. The Applicant shall upgrade the domestic water system regulator station RS-13 to meet or exceed the minimum fire flow requirements for the project of 500 gpm. The upgrade shall consist of abandoning the existing RS-13, rerouting piping to install a new regulating station in the general vicinity as shown on the Vesting Tentative Map, with the proper sized valves, and piping to meet or exceed the minimum fire flow requirement. The abandonment of the existing regulator station shall include restoration of the site to match the surrounding landscaping.

78. The Applicant shall repair and slurry seal Piedmont Avenue between the subdivision southern boundary and through the intersection of Madison Avenue. Repair measures may include base repair and crack sealing pending the outcome of a pavement condition survey prepared by the Applicant.

79. The Applicant shall install a stop sign, a crosswalk, and two curb ramps at the intersection of Madison Avenue and Piedmont Avenue.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 456

On-site Public Improvements

80. The Applicant shall design and construct the new Courtland Avenue Phase 1 public improvements to City Standards as shown on the approved Vesting Tentative Map. The design and construction of the Courtland Avenue Phase 1 public improvements shall include the interim grading and hydroseeding of the Phase 2 area to the east of the Courtland Avenue as needed to accommodate the future Phase 2 public improvements and to minimize future erosion of the completed Phase 1 improvements. The street section shall be designed to a minimum traffic index of 7 per Rockridge report dated September 21, 2023, and project Civil Engineer recommendation. All intersections of Courtland Avenue with the proposed private streets shall meet sight distance requirements per the latest Caltrans Highway Design Manual for all directions of travel and shall require limiting the height of landscaping within the sight distance triangle to no greater than 3 feet above the ground surface.

81. The Applicant shall design and construct the Courtland Avenue Phase 2 public improvements on the open space parcels east of the Courtland Avenue right-of-way as shown on the Vesting Tentative Map if directed by City, provided the City Council has authorized (i) the cost of said improvements to be applied as a $479,000 credit to the development fees to be paid to City when building permits are issued; and (ii) reimbursement of Applicant’s reasonable design costs (collectively, “Council Authorization”). If applicable, the City’s direction to Applicant to design and construct the Phase 2 public improvements and Council Authorization shall occur no later than the date the City Council approves the Improvement Agreement unless otherwise mutually extended by the Applicant and the City. If the City has not provided this direction and Council Authorization by the date the City Council approves the Improvement Agreement, Applicant shall have no obligation to design or construct the Phase 2 public improvements.

82. The Applicant shall rough grade all public Open Space parcels as shown on the Vesting Tentative Map and as approved by the City Engineer. Upon completion of grading activities and prior to acceptance of the Parcels by the City, a hydroseed mixture for stormwater management purposes shall be placed on each public open space parcel. The hydroseed mixture shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to installation.

83. The Applicant shall design and construct a public domestic water system as shown on the Vesting Tentative Map. Said water system shall be located within a Public Utility Easement or Public right-of-way and designed to City Standards.

Stormwater

84. The Applicant shall provide a final Drainage Report for the project prepared by a qualified California Registered Civil Engineer for City review and approval. The Drainage Report shall compare the predevelopment stormwater runoff to the post development stormwater runoff and ensure that there will not be an increase in peak flow directed to any existing public (City or Caltrans) stormdrain basin. The Study must accurately show the boundary of all existing on-site drainage areas and how the existing stormwater is directed off-site to the Public stormdrain system including drainage areas tributary to the existing 24” stormdrain outfall on Caltrans property east of Courtland Drive. The project shall reduce stormwater discharge to the City’s public storm drain system to the maximum extent feasible. Strategies that can be incorporated include stormwater detention, increasing pervious areas, utilizing permeable paving, etc.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 457

85. The Applicant shall provide the City a CCTV condition assessment of the existing private 24 inch stormdrain located between the City public manhole on Keefe Court and the northern boundary of the subdivision. The Applicant shall be responsible to rehabilitate said stormdrain if the condition of the pipe is not sufficient, as determined by the City Engineer.

86. Drainage runoff shall not be allowed to flow across lot lines or across subdivision boundaries onto adjacent private property without an appropriate recorded easement being provided for this purpose unless a pre-existing condition.

87. All building downspouts shall be connected to rigid pipe roof leaders which shall discharge into an approved drainage device or facility that meets the C3 stormwater treatment requirements of Municipal Regional Permit.

88. All storm drainage runoff shall be discharged into a pipe system or concrete gutter.

89. The on-site private storm drainage system shall not be dedicated to the City for ownership or maintenance. The private storm drainage system and any storm water pollution control devices within the subdivision shall be owned, repaired, and maintained by the property owner or Homeowner’s Association. Maintenance responsibility includes improvements installed in the public right-of-way up to the connections to the public storm drain system.

90. All manholes covers in the private storm drain system shall be clearly marked “Private S.D.”

91. All storm drain inlets within the development shall include trash capture devices. Device details shall be approved by the City Engineer. All on-site trash capture devices shall be maintained by the Applicant per the Stormwater Treatment Measures Maintenance Agreement.

92. Air conditioning condensate shall drain to landscaped areas.

93. Roof drains shall drain away from the building and be directed to landscaping or a stormwater treatment measure.

94. Roof leaders and downspouts to the treatment measures shall be clearly shown in the building permit plans for the individual homes.

95. All storm drain inlets shall be clearly marked with the words “No Dumping! Flows to Bay,” or equivalent using the City Standard medallion.

96. The Applicant shall demonstrate compliance of the Applicant Work with the City of San Bruno Municipal Code, Chapter 10.18 (Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance) in effect as of March 8, 2022 in accordance with Government Code Section 65589.5 and with all requirements of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit Provision C.3 and C.6 and San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program’s (SMCWPPP) C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

97. Applicant shall provide 100% Low-Impact Development for C.3 stormwater treatment meeting the requirements of the SMCWPPP C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 458

98. The Applicant shall prepare a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) that includes, at a minimum, exhibit(s) showing drainage areas and locations of Low Impact Development (LID) treatment measures; project watershed; total project site area and total area of land disturbed; total new and/or replaced impervious area; treatment measures and hydraulic sizing calculations; a listing of source control and site design measures to be implemented at the site; a brief summary of how the project is complying with Provision C.3 of the MRP; and detailed Maintenance Plans for each site design, source control and treatment measure requiring maintenance.

99. All stormwater treatment measures shown on the improvement plans shall be sufficiently dimensioned to be verified during construction by the Inspector.

100. At the time that improvement plans for the Rough Grading Plans are submitted, the Applicant shall provide updated and completed C.3 and C.6 Development Review Checklist(s).

101. All site design and source control measures checked “yes” in the C.3 Regulated Project Checklist’s Sections II.B and II.C shall be strictly adhered to. Source control measures shall be clearly labeled on the improvement plans.

102. No treatment measures shall have standing water for more than five days for mosquito abatement requirements.

Sanitary Sewer
103. The Applicant shall provide the City with a hydraulic analysis for the Residential Component to confirm the sizing of the private sanitary sewer mains for the Residential Component .

Private sewer mains shall comply with the requirements of the Uniform Plumbing Code, as amended, and adopted by the City, and in accordance with the requirements of the San Bruno Building Division. The Applicant shall demonstrate that on -site private sewer mains will achieve a minimum of 2 feet per second peak dry weather flow velocity and with a slope of no less than 0.5%, or as approved by the City Engineer.

104. Applicant shall abandon all existing Sanitary Sewer Laterals serving the property to City Standards.

105. All sanitary sewer mains on the private streets and all sanitary sewer laterals within the subdivision shall be private and not dedicated to the City. Said private sanitary sewer facilities shall be repaired and maintained by the property owner or Homeowner’s Association. Maintenance responsibility includes all private sanitary sewer facilities up to the connections to the public sanitary sewer system.

106. All manhole covers for the private sanitary sewer system shall be clearly marked “Private S.S.”

107. Each on-site sanitary sewer manhole and cleanout shall be accessible to maintenance personnel and equipment via pathway or driveways as appropriate. Each maintenance structure shall be surrounded by a level pad of sufficient size to provide a safe work area.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 459
Domestic Water
108. All major City utilities (e.g. valve clusters, meter assemblies, backflow assemblies and manholes) shall be drawn to scale to show the relationship with any adjacent structures, utilities, and easement and/or property lines.

109. Utility clearances between utility mains, joint trench, structures, or other objects shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and comply with City standards and specifications and the requirements of the affected utility companies.

110. San Bruno Water Division will operate and maintain water facilities up to the water meter.

The Applicant shall design and construct water facilities according to City Standard details and specifications. During construction, only San Bruno Water Division water personnel will be allowed to operate existing water facilities and any new water facilities that have been pressurized and accepted as complete by the City, including water valves to facilitate any shut-downs required for construction.

111. Separate water services, meters, and backflow preventers are required and shall be provided for domestic, irrigation, and fire. Water meters shall be installed within the public right-of-way or public easement behind the back of sidewalk. Below ground in-line water meter is required for fire service(s).

112. Water meter bypass is required for 3” domestic water service or greater. Fire line bypass may be required by the Fire Marshall on a case-by-case basis.

113. Backflow protection on water services shall be required and accessible to Public Works staff at all times. The backflow preventer shall be installed above grade, located on private property, accessible to Public Works staff from the outside for testing subject to the City Engineer’s approval.

Electric, Telecommunications and Cable
114. The Applicant shall place all new electric, telecommunications, and cable facilities underground within the Residential Component of the subdivision. All said underground facilities shall be located within a joint trench within Public Utility Easements within the subdivision.

115. Transformer(s) shall be placed in a utility vault or may be place on a pad mount provided they are properly shielded from view. Easement(s) shall be provided as required by the utility agency.

116. The Applicant shall serve the Residential Component of the development and each residence with San Bruno CityNet Services. The CityNet facilities shall be in the joint trench and shall be designed and constructed to City Standards.

a. The developer/contractor shall be responsible for labor and construction including the coordination with PG&E for excavating the joint trench, supplying and installing CityNet conduits, excavating, supplying, and installing the CityNet underground utility boxes. Provide connection materials such as the riser to the existing utility pole and SCH40 2-inch conduits into the first San Bruno CityNet Services utility box and boxes throughout the entire project property. The demarcation point shall include a designated area to include San Bruno CityNet Services within the single-family resident at the side of the house where the conduit rises and at the main media DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 460
cabinet panel. A 120 VAC dedicated electrical duplex receptacle and ground connection shall be provided.

b. The developer/contractor shall provide one SCH40 2-inch conduit connecting the main utility pole riser into the first outside underground utility box or Tie In Point.

c. The developer/contractor shall provide connectivity between all SCH40 2-inch conduits and underground boxes proofed with mule tape/pull rope inside.

d. Developer/Contractor will provide B-36 utility underground vaults with 12-inch extensions for connecting to existing San Bruno CityNet Services network. Christy B-36 with 12" extensions (35 1/4"l x 22 1/4" x 12"h, plus 12" extension).

Underground utility boxes located in the street shall be traffic rated. All service laterals from SFR shall terminate into main B36 boxes utilizing SCH 40 2-inch conduits. All sweeps shall be a minimum of 36 inches.

e. The developer/contractor shall provide connectivity inside each individual SFR with a protected singlemode fiber inside a Microduct (see specs below for Microduct of equal or better) and routed from the SFR’s demarcation points. The Microduct will connect from the side of the house where the service lateral conduit rises and terminates to the main gang box or unit’s internal panel (media cabinet where all communication wires terminate). This will terminate in each SFR to provide Data, Video and VoIP services with an Optical Node Terminal (ONT) provided by CityNet Services. Alternatively, the developer/contractor may eliminate the Microduct by installing an exterior rated enclosure at the demarcation point sufficiently large enough to contain the ONT.

Microduct Specifications:
a. If used, the Microduct will be FieldShield Riser Rated 10/6 mm Microduct is a durable, crush resistant micro-conduit designed to increase the protection of fiber.

Manufactured using high density thermoplastic, FieldShield Riser Rated Microduct offers superior durability and protection.

b. The developer/contractor would also be responsible for internal wiring of each unit and additional outlets consisting of Ethernet Cat5E or Cat 6 communication wires or better and Coax cables routed in homerun design for each outlet. Additional outlets shall be wired homerun to a main gang box within the unit’s internal media panel made of plastic material to help wireless transmission of data signal throughout the unit. This will terminate in each unit to provide data, phone and video services at the media cabinet/panel. The media cabinet will have a 120 VAC duplex electrical outlet grounded and have the minimum dimensions of H30” xW14” xD3.5” for a single provider and dimensions of H42” xW14” xD3.5” for multiple providers. Each residential unit shall have a main outlet in the living room and additional outlets in each bedroom. No splicing of cables within the units. All cables shall conform to CityNet Services requirements and terminated with a Cat5E RJ45 jack at each wall plate outlet.

c. Contractors/Developer will always protect CityNet Services conduits and underground utility boxes during the construction phase of the Residential Component.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 461
IV. During Construction
Public Works

117. The Applicant shall provide the name and 24-hour emergency phone number of the contact person in charge of construction. This information shall be conspicuously posted and publicly visible from outside of the construction site.

118. Temporary pedestrian and vehicular access shall be provided, especially where existing facilities cannot be maintained during construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

At no time shall construction impede pedestrian access to and from existing residences.

119. The Applicant shall post a changeable message sign indicating the dates of the traffic control 15 days prior to the roadway traffic control, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

120. The Contractor shall ensure that any pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facility closed or obstructed by construction activity be replaced with a convenient and accessible alternative that replicates as nearly as practicable the most desirable characteristics of the original facility. The Applicant shall work closely with the City to ensure safe paths of travel throughout the construction phase of the project. The Public Works Department shall review and approve modifications to temporary construction efforts on an as needed basis.

121. Road and sidewalk closures shall be requested and approved by the City’s project manager at least 48 hours in advance of each occurrence. Traffic control plan(s) shall be submitted and approved prior to request for road and sidewalk closure.

122. Continuous site inspection shall be provided by a Geotechnical Engineer at the Applicant’s expense during trenching, backfill, and site grading operations. The Geotechnical Engineer shall take compaction tests and shall submit test results to the Public Works Department.

123. Temporary erosion and sediment control structures for the Applicant Work shall remain in place until the Residential Component is completely developed. The Contractor is responsible for complying with and modifying the erosion and sediment control plan as needed to mitigate site conditions for the duration of construction. If construction is not complete by the start of the wet season (October 1 through April 30), the Applicant shall develop and implement a winterization program for the Applicant Work to minimize the potential for erosion and sedimentation. As site conditions warrant, the City Engineer may direct the Applicant to implement additional winterization requirements for the Applicant Work.

124. The Applicant shall coordinate installation of stormwater treatment measures for the Applicant Work with the City and shall arrange to have a City Inspector or designated third party inspector present at the time of installation. The Applicant shall be responsible for all fees associated with special stormwater inspections for the Applicant Work during construction, in accordance with Government Code Section 65589.5.

125. All utility services to neighboring properties shall remain active throughout construction of the Applicant Work unless written authorization is obtained from the respective property owner(s). The Applicant/Contractor shall coordinate with the City and other affected utility agencies to activate new utility systems for the Residential Component and to decommission and abandon or remove retired utility lines and structures.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 462

Fire
126. An approved project sign shall be placed at vehicle access points into the project during construction to assist emergency responders. The sign shall identify the address, as approved by the City of San Bruno. Such signs shall be visible and legible from the street fronting the project.

127. Construction materials and vehicles shall not obstruct fire apparatus access to fire apparatus roads, fire hydrants, or buildings.

128. Drywall and other temporary heating devices shall be of an approved type, located away from combustible materials, and attended and maintained at all times. Heating devices shall not be operated after normal working hours without being attended to on an hourly basis.

129. If site survey or earthmoving work results in the discovery of hazardous materials in containers or what appears to be hazardous wastes released into the ground, the contractor or applicant shall immediately report the finding to the San Bruno Fire Department via phone at (650) 616-7096. All suspected areas shall be marked off with approved signage or caution tape until such time that a representative from the Fire Department determines whether the release is reportable or not and if site remediation is required.

130. Temporary use of on-site generators with over 60 gallons of diesel fuel shall require a fire department permit and must meet the requirements of Chapter 6.95 of the Health and Safety Code, the San Bruno Fire Department, and the National Fire Codes. Contact the Fire Department at 650-616-7093 to initiate the permit application.

131. Framing of combustible construction cannot commence until access roads, and the Fire Department approved public fire hydrants or other methods approved by the Fire Marshal.

132. Fire Department access shall be maintained throughout construction, with a minimum of 20 feet of width.

133. Follow and comply with 2022 NFPA 241 and Chapter 33 in the Ca. Fire Code

V. Prior to Occupancy
Community Development

134. The applicant shall meet with Recology staff and obtain approval regarding regularly scheduled trash, recycling, and compost collection for the Residential Component.

135. Applicant shall submit written verification that the Landscape Architect has inspected all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation for the Applicant Work and that they are installed and functioning as specified in the approved plans.

136. A minimum of 10 days prior to anticipated occupancy for each structure in the Residential Project, the Applicant shall have scheduled final inspections by all Departments requiring conditions of approval for the Residential Project.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 463
137. Applicant shall record a Notice of Fair Disclosure, regarding the proximity of the proposed development to San Francisco International Airport and of the potential impacts of aircraft operation, including noise impacts per Ordinance 1646 and AB 2776.

Fire
138. Prior to occupancy, all fire and life systems must be finaled.

139. Testing of all fire systems shall be performed before the sales office can be opened for business.

VI. On-Going
Community Development

140. Residential Component landscaping and irrigation shall be maintained for the life of the Residential Component. This includes replacement of all dead or dying plant materials on a 1:1 basis with the same or comparable plant materials. This requirement shall be included in the CC&Rs.

141. The Property Owner shall be responsible for conducting all servicing and maintenance as described and required by the stormwater treatment measure maintenance plan(s).

Maintenance of all on-site and off-site design and treatment control measures shall be the owner’s responsibility.

142. Approved maintenance plans for stormwater treatment measures shall be kept on-site and made readily available to maintenance crews. Maintenance plans shall be strictly adhered to.

143. Sidewalks and travel lanes shall not be used for staging of trash and refuse bins. All trash, refuse, and their bins shall be stored outside of public view, except on pick-up days. Trash and refuse bins shall be moved back within the building after collection. For the Residential Component, this requirement shall be included in the CC&Rs.

144. Property Owner/Management shall be responsible for routine street sweeping and cleaning for all private streets within the Residential Component of the subdivision. Street sweeping shall be performed at a frequency of no less than twice per month.

145. By April 1 each year, maintenance inspection and servicing reports for the stormwater treatment systems for Residential Component shall be submitted to the City Engineer for the previous calendar year (January 1 through December 31).

146. The Property Owner shall be required to pay for all municipal inspections of installed stormwater treatment systems for the Residential Component as required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board or the City.

147. Site access to the common areas of the Residential Component shall be granted to representatives of the City, the San Mateo County Mosquito and Vector Control District, and the Water Board, at any time upon reasonable advance written notice (except in the case of an emergency), for the sole purpose of performing operation and maintenance inspections of the installed stormwater treatment systems. A statement to that effect shall be made a part of the Maintenance Agreement and Stormwater Treatment Measures Maintenance Agreement recorded against the Residential Component.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 464

148. The Property Owner and its successors shall be responsible for maintenance of the sewer mains and laterals up to the public sewer main line or manhole.

149. Storm drainage improvements on private property shall be privately owned and maintained. Storm drain laterals serving the Residential Component, including those within the public right-of-way, shall be privately maintained by the HOA, with responsibility terminating at connections to the public storm drain system.

150. All private utilities and private road facilities within the Residential Component shall be maintained and repaired by the HOA and shall be memorialized in the maintenance and operations agreement.

Fire
151. Required means of egress shall be continuously maintained free of obstructions during construction.

End Conditions

DocuSign Envelope ID: B9EE57EC-469D-4997-A70C-4E5F699700FA 465
Attachment
Written Public Comments
ATTACHMENT 10
466
467
468
469
From: Rich Fern
To: Michael Smith
Cc: Marty Medina; Rico Medina; Mazen Musallam; Joe Meyer; City Manager Subject: Re: Crestmoor public hearing notice
Date: Wednesday, May 1, 2024 9:51:52 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Michael thanks for letting us know about this meeting
Here are some questions and concerns we have.

Where are we going to practice and play once they close Crestmoor? What fields will the city of San Bruno be providing to the soccer community while the project is being built ? Where is the city of San Bruno going to get the money to build the new proposed sports park? What is the project timeline for the construction project? Do they have a proposed starting date for the project ? Will they have a plan in place on when the city would be given access to start on a new field project? Rich Fern
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 12:01 PM Michael Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Rich,
Attached is the public notice that was mailed today to property owners within 1,000’ radius of the project site. Let me know if you have any questions.

Michael Smith (he, him, his)
Senior Planner
San Bruno Community Development Department | Planning Division City of San Bruno: www.sanbruno.ca.gov
567 El Camino Real, San Bruno, CA 94066
Office Phone: (650) 616-7062 | Email: [email protected] Don't miss out on the latest news, subscribe to theCity Manager's e-Newsletter! Receive real-time, local emergency information and instructions by signing up for SMC Alert Stay Connected with San Bruno by emergency alert and social media The City With A Heart --
Rich Fern
470
D1SFSRA- Nor Cal Referee Rep Region 1
Cell
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
May 3, 2024
Planning Commission
City of San Bruno
567 El Camino Real
San Bruno, CA 94066-4247
Re: 300 Piedmont Avenue – Applicants’ Statement
Dear Chair Durazo and Planning Commissioners:

This letter serves as the Applicant’s Statement in support of SummerHill Homes’ Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Permit, Density Bonus Request, Affordable Housing Plan, Tree Removal Permit, Environmental Review, and Architectural Review applications submitted for the 40.2-acre site located at 300 Piedmont Avenue in San Bruno. The property is commonly known as the former Crestmoor High School property and is owned by the San Mateo Union High School District.

The 300 Piedmont Avenue Project (“the Project”) proposes to rede velop the approximately 40.2 -acre former Crestmoor High School site located at 300 Piedmont Avenue (“Project Site”) in San Bruno with a new 155-lot single family detached home community (“Residential Portion”). The site has a General Plan Land Use designat ion of Low Density Residential (2.1-8.0 DU/acre) and is zoned R-1 Single Family. The Project includes the dedication of

6.91 acres of public open space to the City of San Bruno (“City”), including .88 acres of public right-of-way (“ROW”) for recreation-supportive uses, with the possibility that the City might construct new recreational amenities such as playing fields, parks, walking paths, and associated parking and infrastructure on the dedicated property. In addition, the Project will also permanently preserve 12.24 acres of privately owned publicly accessible open space hillsides. This area will be subject to remediation for fire protection purposes, but otherwise preserved as natural forested land. The Project will dedicate Courtland Drive, currently a private driv eway with a public access easement, as public right-of-way (“ROW”) to be realigned and improved.

Project Background
In March 2019, the San Mateo Union High School District Board voted to declare the Property as surplus property and in August 2019 directed staff to pursue its sale. In 2020, the District issued a Request for Proposals to invite developers to bid for the site and indicated they intend to construct or purchase workforce and/or teacher housing on another site with the proceeds from the sale of the Crestmoor site. The District desires to sell the Property and entered into a purchase and sale agreement with SummerHill for the sale of the Crestmoor Site in December 2021.

SummerHill submitted a Preliminary Application pursuant to SB 330 on March 3, 2022 and submitted applications for a Planned Unit Permit, a Vesting Tentative Map, an Architectural Review Permit, a Tree Removal Permits, an Affordable Housing Plan, and State Density Bonus for the Project on August 23, 2022.

ATTACHMENT 11
479
Letter to Planning Commission
May 3, 2024
2 The 300 Piedmont Avenue Environmental Impact Report evaluated both the Project and a project variant (“Variant”). The Variant is based on SummerHill’s SB 330 preliminary application and full application . In the Variant, the Residential Portion is the same as in the Project, but the recreational and open space components of the Variant are different that the Project. Like the Project, t he Variant plans reflect Courtland Drive as a public street and ROW. The Variant, however, does not include dedicated open space for recreation -supportive uses within the Courtland Drive ROW and the ROW is therefore smaller. As initially proposed, the Variant includes the dedication of approximately 12 acres of land to the City for public open space, including sloped wooded areas.

The playing fields and other recreational uses would be the same as with the Project, except that the graded area within the dedicated open space that could be improved by the City and used for these facilities would be about .75 acres smaller than with the Project. Except as indicated below, the Project and the variant otherwise would be the same.

The Project has evolved significantly since 2021 in response to feedback from the City of San Bruno’s staff, existing neighbors, the soccer community, and in coordination with the City of San Bruno’s Crestmoor Fields Master Plan process. Entitlements, consistency with the City’s Design Guidelines, major components and community benefits are outlined below.

Open Space
Dedicated Open Space
The Project proposes to dedicate in fee to the City 6.91 acres of open space, including an area on which the City intends to develop playing fields and associated parking. Also included in this open space dedication is an .88 acre open space ROW parcel and a .73 acre open space parcel in an area east of Courtland Drive that will be offered for dedication for the City to develop recreational -supportive amenities such as a multi -use trail, a linear fitness course, a playground, or additional public parking, all of which would capitalize on views of the San Francisco Bay.

The City’s portion of the Project (“City Portion”) contemplates the creation of approximately 5.3 acres of athletic fields, replacing the existing athletic use.

Private Open Space
In addition to the 6.91 acres of dedicated public open space, the Project includes an additional 12.24 acres of privately owned forested area which will be made accessible to the public, consistent with the City’s Planned Unit Permit (“PUP”) standards and criteria, and 0.33 acres privately owned neighborhood community spaces for the future residents. This area includes an approximately 8,276 SF neighborhood tot lot parcel within the residential community with play elements serving a range of 2-12 years of age. A second, smaller neighborhood community space is also included featuring a more contemplative nature and passive use design. Two common area parcels located along the western portion of the developed site will provide access for the Fire Department to this natural open space parcel and for ongoing maintenance.

A wildfire management vegetation management plan will be implemented at the Project Site as part of the Project.

Green Building and Sustainability
• The Residential Portion of the Project will be an environmentally sustainable all -electric residential community.
• Each home will include solar panels, energy efficient electric appliances, windows, insulation and cooling systems.
480
Letter to Planning Commission
May 3, 2024
3 • The Residential Project will include drought tolerant and/or native landscaping, water -conserving irrigation systems including climate -sensitive controllers in common areas, and biological treatment of stormwater runoff.
• All garages will have space for bicycle parking to allow an alternative mode of transit for residents with bicycle parking and a bicycle repair station located in the community tot lot. • All garages will include (1) Level 2 Electric Vehicle (EV) Ready Space and (1) Level 1 EV Ready space. • The Residential Portion of the Project will include a Transportation Demand Management Plan that aims to reduce residential Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) to 12.4 miles per capita.

Community Outreach
For nearly two and a half years, SummerHill has been meeting with community members regarding its proposed Project.

In January 2022, we began meeting with representatives of San Bruno AYSO 269 and Lowen Soccer Club to understand their programs and use of the Crestmoor Fields. This collaboration continued as SummerHill participated throughout the City’s Crestmoor Fields Master Plan process and modified its stormwater treatment area plan to maximize field space.

SummerHill hosted two neighborhood meetings in May 2022 and in February 2023. Invitations were sent to more than 500 residents for each neighborhood meeting based on a 1000’ radius. At the May 2022 meeting at Crestmoor High School, we reviewed preliminary plans and solicited neighbor input. Feedback obtained at this meeting was considered as the formal project plans were developed. Comments included interest in preserving the natural wooded slopes, concerns regarding traffic, open space maintenance, stormwater drainage, and soil stability. Support was expressed for the single-family detached homes as a proposed housing type. A second neighborhood meeting was hosted at the San Bruno Senior Center in February 2023 to review and obtain feedback regarding our formal application plans which reflected the settlement agreement between the City and the School District and to address the technical questions raised at the first meeting and any new questions.

In addition, SummerHill has met individually with residents of Piedmont Avenue, Madison Avenue, and Keefe Court to review and address their concerns as feasible and appreciates the feedback, local knowledge, and cooperation they have extended to us. SummerHill has worked collaboratively, over the past several months, with property owners on Keefe Court related to the existing storm drain line easement that the HOA will take ownership of and maintain.

SummerHill has also worked with the San Bruno Chinese Church since August 2022 regarding title issues to preserve their access, and will be installing new gates, fencing and a sign for the church.

Project Community Benefits & Fees
The Project will provide significant benefits to the San Bruno community including:

• Provide 155 new single family detached homes compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. • Provide 24 4-bedroom below market rate single family detached homes affordable to Low- and Moderate- income households.
• Dedicate 6.91 acres to the City of San Bruno , including areas suitable for the City to construct playing fields, parking, trails, and other recreational amenities. • Preserve 20+ acres (approximately 50% of the site) of open space, including preservation and HOA vegetation management of 14 acres of publicly accessible private open space. 481
Letter to Planning Commission
May 3, 2024
4 • Improve pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular access and safety both onsite and offsite. • Generate significant property taxes annually to benefit the San Bruno community, including the City of San Bruno, San Bruno Park Sch ool District, San Mateo Union High School District, and the San Mateo County Community College District. The site currently generates no property taxes. • Pay approximately $4.9 million in Development Impact Fees and approximately $2.3 million in utility impact fees to the City of San Bruno in addition to other permit fees. • Pay approximately $1.9 million in school impact fees to the San Bruno Park School District and San Mateo Union High School District.
• Proceeds from the sale of the Project Site by the San Mateo Union High School District are anticipated to fund much-needed housing elsewhere for District teachers and staff serving the thousands of students in the District.
• Assist the City in meeting its RHNA obligations for market -rate and affordable housing by providing 155 homes of for-sale housing, including 8 Low-income and 16 Moderate-Income single family homes.

Entitlements & Requested Approvals
The San Bruno General Plan designates the property as Low Density Residential, permitting a density of 2.1 to 8.0 units per acre, or 84 to 321 lots on the site’s approximately 40.2 acres. The Project’s 155 proposed single family lots within the 40.2-acre site at 3.86 units per acre is consistent with this density range. The Project parcel is zoned R-1, Single Fa mily Residential District. The Project’s proposed single -family residential use is consistent with permitted uses of the R-1 District, and the Project is consistent with the objective standards of the R-1 District, as modified pursuant to the proposed PUP for the Project.

Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map
As part of the Project, an application for a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map was submitted to establish the Project’s lots (for residences, open space, and other uses), and appropriate access, utility, and service easements.

The proposed Vesting Tentative Map and subdivision improvements were included with the application for the other Project entitlements so that all aspects of the Project were reviewed concurrently.

Planned Unit Permit
As described in the City’s Municipal Code, the intent of PUPs is “to encourage creative use of land and open space by permitting carefully controlled relief from the strict application of the provisions of existing zoning districts.” The Project is requesting a PUP to address minimum lot sizes and setbacks, and the Project will comply with the objective standards applicable to PUPs. The Municipal Code provisions applicable to PUPs require that for each square foot of land gained within a single -family residential district through the reduction in lot sizes below the minimum required for that district, equal amounts of useable land be retained as open space and related uses in perpetuity. As the minimum lot sizes in the R-1 District are 5,000 SF for interior lots and 6,00 0 SF for corner lots, the total lot area plus open space required for the Project to satisfy the PUP requirement is approximately 18.5 Acres. The Project provides approximately 14.02 acres of PUP private open space, which when combined with the residential lot area constitutes 27.01 acres of lot area and open space. This 14. 02 acres of private open space is separate and distinct from the 6.91-acre open space dedication. This additional open space will be maintained in perpetuity by the HOA.

PUP’s also provide relief from the setback standards of the R -1 Zoning District. Through compliance with the objective PUP standards, the Project utilizes the flexibility inherent to the PUP code, which allows standard setbacks below R-1 standards. See Sheet A0.05 Project Data for Minimum Planned Unit Permit setbacks proposed and Sheet TM-3.2 and TM3.3 for typical setbacks proposed for the Project. Per the Municipal Code, all the homes will include ground level living space and each lot includes private useable outdoor yard space. 482
Letter to Planning Commission
May 3, 2024
5 Affordable Housing Plan
Consistent with the City’s Affordable Housing Program, SummerHill proposes to designate fifteen percent , or 24 of the 155 homes , as Affordable homes onsite. Five percent, or 8 homes, will be affordable to Lo w-income households and 10 percent (10%), or 16 homes, will be affordable to Moderate-income households, as defined by San Mateo County. The affordable homes will be 1 942-2158 square feet with four bedrooms and will be distributed throughout the site and deed-restricted for 55 years, with preference provided to households that live or work in San Bruno to the extent permitted by law.

SummerHill is pleased to provide this number of homes across the Low -income and Moderate -income affordability ranges in the City of San Bruno . There is a well -established need for four -bedroom single-family homes to meet the home ownership needs of families with children and those housing multi-generational families.

Housing units in these income categories are also important in order for the City to meet its RHNA obligations.

See attached 300 Piedmont Avenue Affordable Housing Plan for more detail.

Density Bonus Request
SummerHill has requested a density bonus pursuant to Chapter 12.250 of the Code. The project is entitled to one concession and unlimited waivers because 10% of the housing units will be reserved for occupancy by moderate- income households. Due to the cost of the imp rovement, and its financial impact on providing the proposed housing project, including the affordable units, SummerHill has requested a concession for the utility undergrounding along the property frontage at the Courtland Drive entrance to the property that would otherwise be required by the Code. This regulatory concession will provide identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs.

Tree Removal Permit
All of the existing trees located within the developable portion of t he Project Site will be removed as shown on Sheet L6.0. while trees on the remainder of the Project Site will be evaluated by a certified arborist. The Project proposes the removal of 271 trees, 182 heritage and 89 non-heritage trees, within the developabl e area. The Project will require 220 24-inch box trees and 72 36-inch box trees as replacement for trees removed within the developable area, as required by the Municipal Code standard of two 24 -inch box trees or one 36-inch box tree.

The Project proposes to provide a total of 256 replacement trees, satisfying the required number of replacement trees per the Municipal Code . A certified arborist report was submitted with the Project application, and the Project landscape plans show both the removed trees and replacement trees on Sheet L6.0.

Additional selective tree removal within the natural open space will be performed as part of a Fire Management Vegetation Management Plan for the Project as previously described. The assessment and selection of trees for removal with be carried out by a certified arborist in coordination with San Bruno Fire Department.

Architectural Review Permit
The project is consistent with the objective standards of the City of San Bruno’s Residential Design Guidelines as outlined below, and the following elements have been considered to ensure that the Project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood while maintaining consistency with the Guidelines:

3.1-Neighborhood Compatibility
The site design was developed to be compatible with the existing single family residential neighborhoods and to respect the site’s existing topography and preserving the natural open space slopes as buffers from the existing residences.
483
Letter to Planning Commission
May 3, 2024
6 The homes in the surrounding community were mainly constructed in the 1960’s and incorporate front -loaded two car garages with doors facing the street. They feature an approximately 40’ width and a rhythm of garage , entry, front windows to living space, or a side entry. Their porches are typically small with one story rooflines.

While 300 Piedmont Avenue homes feature 2-story rooflines, the proposed community features similar elements and features as the surrounding homes and is intended to complement both the look and feel of the existing subdivisions as they exist today, and as they would have existed upon creation to create a seamless integration.

The varying home widths at 300 Piedmont Avenue allow for porches and living space s to pull forward of the garage, minimizing the impact of the garage on the streetscape.

Pedestrian and street improvements will improve neig hborhood access, safety, and circulation. The existing roadway through the site will be come a public street - newly constructed, realigned and widened with an oversized 7-foot wide sidewalk and street trees along the western sid e and new City standard stre etlights.

Additional public right -of-way will be dedicated to t he City for public open space purposes for recreation - supportive improvements to be constructed by the City.

Private streets will have sidewalks on both sides, and parking on one side. Black a rchitectural streetlights with downcast luminaires will be located along all private streets. Public parking will be permitted on the north side of Street A; however, all other remaining on-street parking along the private streets will be limited to use by residents and their guests.

Public access easements will allow the access for neighborhood walking, biking, and traveling on the private streets. Offsite neighborhood improvements include a new stop sign and ADA-accessible ramps at the intersection of Piedmont Avenue and Madison Avenue.

3.2-Setbacks and Articulation
The overall massing is simple and treated appropriately on all four sides. The existing neighborhood uses fairly uniform sets of setbacks to the garage, front of house, and side The 300 Piedmont Avenue project proposes similar patterns of setbacks, designed to create a sense of order and shared features throughout the project with added variation for corner units and non-standard lot dimensions. Each home includes a “notch” at the rear to provide for outdoor living, creating a significant break in the massing . The proposed new home designs minimize the garage by placing the garage 4 to 10 feet behind the home and/or porch. O ther designed elements are utilized such as the articulation of the 2nd floors and a variety of architectural garage door designs.

3.3-Parking
The existing neighborhood is predominantly designed with front -facing two-car garages, as is proposed at 300 Piedmont Avenue. 300 Piedmont Avenue lots also features similar length driveways as the existing neighborhood providing for visual compatibility. Each single family detached lot will have a 2-car side-by-side garage and can accommodate two additional cars in the 20-foot deep driveway, totaling four off -street spaces per lot. Project CC&R’s will stipulate that garages be kept clear for parking of vehicles. On-street parking is provided on one side of the street.

3.4-Architectural Style
The City of San Bruno has a rich diversity of traditional architectural styles – modest vernacular homes to Craftsman and more modern styles. The surrounding neighborhood appears to have responded to what would have been considered contemporary for that time. There is the use of stucco and siding in various combinations.

The 300 Piedmont project is similar. The homes are similarly modest for the current times, feature strong stucco 484
Letter to Planning Commission
May 3, 2024
7 and siding elements. The selected styles for Neighborhood 1 are contemporary and the styles in Neighborhood 2 make more historical references, providing the diversity, similar to the surrounding neighborhood. Each home design and style integrates a palette of material use and detailing to maintain the architectural integrity of the home and avoid a feeling of repetition. An important aspect to the design of the surrounding neighborhood is the entry design. They are typically understated with one story roof elements. These are similar to what is proposed for the Project.

Other design elements integral to the integrity of the homes and overall community include:
• Differentiation through material use and massing in 21 exterior home designs for 155 detached lots. • Front doors selected for each style to differentiate homes. • Patterning of the windows is consistent between styles to provide a sense of coherence. Exterior materials for each style are appropriate to create both a tie between the homes and clear differentiation. • Window trim detailing, gable end treatments, and posts are a few key elements that are in keeping with both the existing style and the style of the new proposed neighborhoods. • A carefully crafted color palette and application provides street scene diversity and enhances the sense of neighborhood.
• Floorplans, ele vations, and exterior color schemes will be pre -plotted to ensure a diverse yet complementary community.

3.5-Building Forms
Architectural integrity is maintained throughout the neighborhood with the use of varied, simple roof lines, enough offset wall planes for interest and pronounced entry features. The roof lines carry forward the architectural elements of each style. Single story elements and offsets provide transitions in scale along rears.

3.6-Second Floor Treatment
Second floors relate well proportionately to the first, and portions of the second floors are set back and stepped back for variety.

3.7-Entries
All of the homes include a porch element which complements the style of the homes. Porch size and depth varies to create a modulated street scene.

3.8-Doors and Windows
The door and window details are consistent with the architectural styles. Windows will be either white or black in color, per elevation, creating a rich and custom aesthetic. Architectural f ront doors will vary by elevation.

Architectural garage doors are setback from the street, enhancing the street scene and include windows.

3.9-Materials and Colors
The Neighborhoods are designed with specific architectural schemes an d include colors, materials and details consistent with those styles. High quality materials are utilized . Exterior materials will principally be stucco with siding, brick, or stone accents. Roofs will be composition shingle or concrete tile. Exterior colors, including roof, trim, and fascia colors will be from a wide range to articulate and reinforce the distinctive architecture and varied massing. In addition, porches, and decks will create a pedestrian, people friendly environment.

3.10-Architectural Details
The homes utilize architectural details appropriate to the architecture and vary by neighborhood including:

485
Letter to Planning Commission
May 3, 2024
8 Neighborhood 1 – Contemporary details including clean lines, exposed eaves, recessed windows, a variety of roof pitches in composition shingle, horizontal siding, ledgestone, long brick, contemporary entry and garage doors with windows per elevation.

Neighborhood 2 – Contemporary and traditional details including both composition shingle and concrete “s” tile roofs, clay pipe and decorative gable vents, board and batten and lap siding, window sills and headers, contemporary and traditional entry and garage doors, with more decorative detailing per elevation.

3.12-Open Space and Landscaping
There will be 14.02 acres of open space within the Project including two private neighborhood parks within the Residential Portion. See also Open Space below. Project landscaping features include:

• New street trees planted throughout the Project, including street trees in tree wells along Courtland Drive. • Decorative street lights line the streets with lattice-topped fencing on street frontages with view fencing installed adjacent to wooded open spaces.
• A drought tolerant and/or native tree and plant palette specific to the site’s microclimate • All front yards and common areas will be landscaped and automatic irrigation included with climate - sensitive controllers in common areas
• Bio-retention areas will provide biological storm water quality (C.3) treatment Existing trees proposed to be removed replaced at a (2) 24” box: 1 ratio or a (1) 36” box: 1 ratio, totaling 256 new trees, 72 of which will be 36” box trees
A decorative low fence and enhanced plantings will be included on lots across from the proposed head- in parking areas along Courtland Drive.

Conclusion
SummerHill respectfully requests the Planning Commission’s recommendation for approval of our 300 Piedmont Avenue Project and appreciates the collaboration between the City, District, the neighborhood, and the broader San Bruno community to bring this unique project to life. We have also appreciated the opportunity to create Communities of Distinction in San Bruno for more than 20 years and look forward to completing our fourth community in the City. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me [email protected].

Sincerely,

Elaine Breeze
SummerHill Homes

Attachments

Cc:

Randall Booker, Superintendent, San Mateo Union High School District Margo Bradish, Cox Castle & Nicholson LLP
Kevin Ebrahimi, SummerHill Homes
486
1 | P a g e
300 PIEDMONT AVENUE

AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN
March 14, 2024
SummerHill Homes is proposing to develop a new subdivision of 155 single-family detached homes on the former site of Crestmoor High School in the City of San Bruno. SummerHill will develop approximately 27 acres of the 40-acre site with two collections of homes.

To comply in full with the City’s Affordable Housing Program (San Bruno City Code, Ch. 12.230), SummerHill proposes to designate 24 of the 155 homes as Affordable Housing Units, subject to the following Affordable Housing Plan.

1. Number, Location, Number of Bedrooms and Size of the Proposed Market Rate and Affordable Housing Units
SummerHill will make 5% of the homes affordable and restricted to occupancy by low-income households and 10% of the homes affordable and restricted to occupancy by moderate-income households, as follows:
• 8 units (5.1% of the project) will be affordable and restricted to occupancy for Low Income Households (80% of adjusted AMI for San Mateo County)
• 16 units (10.3% of the project) will be affordable and restricted to occupancy for Moderate Income Households (120% of adjusted AMI for San Mateo County) The location of the Affordable Housing Units is shown on the attached Exhibit A - Affordable Housing Locations. The Affordable Housing Units are dispersed within the project, with the location of the Affordable Housing Units comparable to those of the market-rate units.

Table 1 lists the unit count, the number of bedrooms and the range of size of the market rate units and the Affordable Housing Units.

Table 1 - Number of Bedrooms, Size Range, and Count
# of Bedrooms Size Range Count
Market-Rate Units 4 Bedrooms 1,942 – 2,725 SF 131
Affordable Housing Units 4 Bedrooms 1,942 – 2,158 SF 24 Total 155

2. Bedroom Size
Per an email received from Nick Hamilton on November 1, 2022, the City clarified the City’s code section

12.230.080(a)(3) as follows:

City of San Bruno staff have looked at the language and offer the following clarification to the incompleteness comment previously provided - that the average size requirement in the first clause of Section 12.230.080 A. 3. is applied not to the overall unit size, but to the size of the bedrooms, meaning that the average square footage of the bedrooms in the affordable units must match the average square footage of the bedrooms in the market rate units. This is an ATTACHMENT 12
487
2 | P a g e

objective standard reflective of the code language referring to the “average size in the market-rate units…” to articulate the required overall square footage to be dedicated to bedroom use (and in addition to the separate requirement regarding the number of bedrooms).

The proposed project is in compliance with the code as clarified. The average square footage of the bedrooms in Market Rate is 664 and Affordable Units is 665 square feet.

3. Density Bonus Request
By providing 24 Affordable Housing Units for Low or Moderate Income Households, the project qualifies for a density bonus, an incentive or concession, and waivers or reductions of development standards as provided in the State Density Bonus Law and chapter 12.250 of the City Code. SummerHill maintains its position that General Plan Policy OSR-8 is not an objective standard that applies to the Project and reserves its right to seek density bonus concessions or waivers with respect to Policy OSR-8 to the extent that the City continues to take the position stated above.

4. Floor Plans
Please refer to the attached Exhibit B – Floor Plans for the number of bedrooms and the size of the Affordable Housing Units. Please refer to attached Exhibit A - Affordable Housing Locations for the location of the Affordable Housing Units. Table 2 summarizes each affordable housing unit’s proposed location, number of bedrooms, square footage, and income level.

Table 2 - Lot Locations, Floor Plans, Income Level, Bedroom Count and Size Lot Floor Plan Income Level Bedroom Count Size
Lot 4 Type 1 Low (80%) 4 Bedrooms 1,942 SF
Lot 6 Type 1 Moderate (120%) 4 Bedrooms 1,942 SF
Lot 16 Type 1 Moderate (120%) 4 Bedrooms 1,942 SF
Lot 20 Type 1 Moderate (120%) 4 Bedrooms 1,942 SF
Lot 28 Type 1 Moderate (120%) 4 Bedrooms 1,942 SF
Lot 31 Type 1 Low (80%) 4 Bedrooms 1,942 SF
Lot 36 Type 1 Low (80%) 4 Bedrooms 1,942 SF
Lot 42 Type 1 Moderate (120%) 4 Bedrooms 1,942 SF
Lot 48 Type 1 Moderate (120%) 4 Bedrooms 1,942 SF
Lot 49 Type 1 Low (80%) 4 Bedrooms 1,942 SF
Lot 57 Type 1 Moderate (120%) 4 Bedrooms 1,942 SF
Lot 61 Type 1 Moderate (120%) 4 Bedrooms 1,942 SF
Lot 76 Type 4 Low (80%) 4 Bedrooms 2,158 SF
Lot 78 Type 4 Low (80%) 4 Bedrooms 2,158 SF
Lot 83 Type 4 Moderate (120%) 4 Bedrooms 2,158 SF
Lot 85 Type 4 Moderate (120%) 4 Bedrooms 2,158 SF
Lot 88 Type 4 Moderate (120%) 4 Bedrooms 2,158 SF
Lot 91 Type 4 Moderate (120%) 4 Bedrooms 2,158 SF
Lot 94 Type 4 Moderate (120%) 4 Bedrooms 2,158 SF
Lot 100 Type 4 Low (80%) 4 Bedrooms 2,158 SF
Lot 103 Type 4 Low (80%) 4 Bedrooms 2,158 SF
Lot 113 Type 4 Moderate (120%) 4 Bedrooms 2,158 SF
Lot 120 Type 4 Moderate (120%) 4 Bedrooms 2,158 SF
Lot 153 Type 4 Moderate (120%) 4 Bedrooms 2,158 SF
488
3 | P a g e

*We reserve the right to change the location of each affordable home at a later date.

5. Income Levels
Please refer to Table 2 for a description of the income levels to which each Affordable Housing Unit will be made affordable.

6. Deed Restriction and Option to Purchase
To assure that the affordable units remain affordable for the required term, a deed restriction will be recorded against title to each Affordable Housing Unit, secured by a deed of trust. The deed restriction will include the City’s option to purchase, resale restrictions, occupancy requirements, payments of penalty or liquidated damages for any default (if permitted by law), and procedures and policies regarding changes in title. The deed restriction shall be in effect for a period of 55 years.

7. Phasing Plan
SummerHill proposes to make the Affordable Housing Units available for purchase contemporaneously with the market-rate units. The project will be managed and maintained by a homeowners association (HOA), and the homes (both the Affordable Housing Units and the market-rate units) will be annexed into the HOA in phases. Since the Affordable Housing Units are dispersed within the project, each phase will generally include a mix of Affordable Housing Units and market-rate units, so that the Affordable Housing Units are made available approximately in proportion to the overall project.

8. Marketing Plan for Initial Sales of the Affordable Housing Units SummerHill will have a sales staff onsite to conduct tours and manage sales contracts. Sales of the Affordable Housing Units will be conducted similar to the sale of the market-rate units, except that offers will only be considered from a pool of Eligible households pre-screened and provided by the City. Specific details of the marketing and sales of these units will be mutually agreed upon by SummerHill and the City. To the extent permitted by State and Federal law, preferences will be given to those Eligible households where at least one member in the household lives or works in San Bruno or works for a school district serving the residents living in the city, to best serve the San Bruno community.
489
MARCH 14, 2024 RESUBMITTAL
490
20'-0" (20' min.)
Garage
20'-4" x 20'-0"
60'-0"
50'-0"
recycle
trash
compost
meters
Porch
6'-0"
34'-0" 6'-0" (6' min.)
14'-8" (12' min.) 24'-2" 9'-10"
First Floor
802 SQ. FT.
pantry
5'-6" 3'-6" 3'-61
2"
6'-0"8'-0"
UP
17R
storage
Pdr
Entry
Great Room
17'-3" x 15'-2"
Kitchen
Dining Room
11'-4" x 12'-6" opt. island
Yard
18'-10" x 15'-10"
w/h
a/c
5'-0"31'-2"12'-10"
5'-4"
2040 SH
2060 FG
2050 SH 2050 SH
6050 SL
6080 SL. GL. DR.
4050 SL 4050 SL
4046 SL
(4' min.)(4' min.)
39'-0"
Second Floor
1140 SQ. FT.
6'-4" 27'-8"W
D
Bedroom 2
10'-0" x 10'-9"
Primary
Bedroom
14'-11" x 13'-0"
Primary
Bath
Bedroom 4
10'-3" x 10'-0"
Lau
low
linen
DN
17R
26'-2"12'-10"
1'-6" 24'-2" 9'-10"
8'-0"11'-11"
Bath
2 Bedroom 3 /
Opt. Home
Office
10'-5" x 10'-0"
Home
Office
10'-3" x 10'-0"
Opt. Home Office
7'-0"
42" x 60"
W.I.C.
17'-0" l.f.
9'-10"9'-3"
2020
F.G.
2020
F.G.
2050 FG
3050 FG
2040 SH
2050 SH
3050 SH
3050 SH
3010 SL 3050 SH
4050 SL
3050 SH
3050 SH
3050 SH
A1.1 FLOOR PLAN 1
0 2 48
Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"
4 BEDROOMS
OPT. HOME OFFICE

2.5 BATHS
1,942 S.F.
#
300 PIEDMONT AVENUE N1
San Bruno, Ca. 2021-1262

SCHEMATIC DESIGN
NOVERMBER 4, 2022

PROJECT SUBMITTAL
FEBRUARY 3, 2023
JULY 21, 2023 RESUBMITTAL
491

PROJECT SUBMITTAL
FEBRUARY 3, 2023
JULY 21, 2023 RESUBMITTAL
JANUARY 26, 2024 RESUBMITTAL
MARCH 14, 2024 RESUBMITTAL
492
75'-0"
38'-0"
4'-0"30'-0"4'-0"
13'-2" (8' min.)
First Floor
851 s.f.
20'-0" (20' min.) 41'-10"
12'-6" (10' min.) 49'-4" 13'-2" (8' min.)
20'-0" x 20'-0"
Garage
Entry
Pdr.

Porch
UP
17R
coats/
storage
Kitchen
Panty
Great Room
15'-7" x 20'-5"
5'-4" 4'-0"
7'-6"
1'-0"
A/C
PAD
5'-6" 3'-6"
6'-0"7'-6"
recycle
trash
meters
W/H
3050 SH
5050 SL 6050 SL. GL. DR.
2040 SH
(4' min.)(4' min.)
5050 SL
Dining
13'-6" x 11'-6"
Second Floor
1307 s.f.

DN
17R
11'-8" x 15'-3"
Bedroom 211'-0" x 12'-1"
Bedroom 4
12'-0" x 17'-6"
Bedroom 3
16'-9" x 17'-4"
Primary Bedroom
Primary
Bath
51'-4"
5'-0" 46'-4"
30'-0"
43'-2"
51'-4"
1'-8"6'-6"
3050 SH
3050 SH
2040 FG 2040 FG
4050 SL
2040 SH
2050 SH 2040 SH
4050 SL
141 SQ. FT.
178 SQ. FT.
210 SQ. FT. 290 SQ. FT.
4'-0" Bath 2
60" x 42"
Shower
4050 SL
Hall
Laund.
2040 SH
2040 SH
#
300 PIEDMONT AVENUE N2
San Bruno, Ca. 2021-1262

SCHEMATIC DESIGN
NOVEMBER 4, 2022
A9.1 FLOOR PLAN 4
048 12
Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"4 BEDROOMS

2.5 BATHS
2,158 S.F.

PROJECT SUBMITTAL
FEBRUARY 3, 2023
JULY 21, 2023 RESUBMITTAL
493

PROJECT SUBMITTAL
FEBRUARY 3, 2023
JULY 21, 2023 RESUBMITTAL
494
Exhibit C:

Preliminary Below Market Rate Homebuyer Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing and Resident Selection Plan

Project Name: Crestmoor, 300 Piedmont Avenue
Project Location: 300 Piedmont Avenue, San Bruno, CA 94066 Developer: SummerHill Homes LLC (“SummerHill”)

Introduction and Project Overview

The project is located on approximately 40 acres at 300 Piedmont Avenue and was the former location of Crestmoor High School. SummerHill will be creating 155 single-family homes at the site and is taking advantage of the State Density Bonus Program. As such, 15 percent of the homes (24 homes) will be income restricted, Below Market Rate (“BMR”) homeownership opportunities.

The following marketing plan has been designed to generate interest in the BMR homeownership opportunities and assure that this outreach is completed in such a way that expands housing opportunities and affirmatively furthers fair housing. This Exhibit C applies specifically to the BMR units at the Project.

For purposes of this marketing plan, “SummerHill” shall refer to Summerhill Homes LLC and/or any agency or firm that serves as its marketing agent.

This marketing plan is preliminary. City of San Bruno staff and Summerhill must finalize the final plan no less than 150 days prior to the anticipated delivery of the first phase of the homes.

Statem
ent of Fair Housing Practices

SummerHill will fully adhere to applicable Federal and State Fair Housing laws, which provide that it is illegal to discriminate against any person due to race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, and source of income, physical or mental disability, genetic information, age or any other arbitrary personal characteristic.

In pursuant to its commitment to non-discr
imination and providing equal opportunity in
housing, SummerHill will affirmatively market to groups least likely to apply for housing and will:
a. Use the “Equal Housing Opportunity” logo or slogan on all correspondence and advertising prepared relating to the sale of housing.
b. Sales Staff: Maintain a nondiscriminatory hiring policy and attract and hire the best worker from candidates with diverse backgrounds. The Company’s selection process is designed to hire the best worker from a diverse pool of candidates. c. Advertising: All advertising depicting persons shall depict persons of majority and minority groups, including both genders.
495
d. Fair Housing Poster: Prominently display the HUD-approved Fair Housing poster in all offices in which sales activity pertaining to the homeownership project takes place.
e. Sign on project site: Post in a conspicuous position on the project site a sign displaying prominently the Equal Housing Opportunity logo, slogan, or statement.

In addition to satisfying requirements in the Marketing Plan, SummerHill is required to provide targeted outreach to applicants that meet the income eligibility criteria specified in any affordable housing agreements with the City of San Bruno, as well as the preference criteria specified for the units, explained below.

Language Access
Offering adequate notice in a variety of languages is key to providing equal access to housing opportunities and affirmatively furthering fair housing. According to the 2022 American Community Survey 5-year estimates, 53 percent of San Bruno households speak a language other than English at home. Eight percent of households are classified as “Limited English Households.” To provide greater access to these households, SummerHill will provide flyers, ads, and information sheets on the development in the most common non-English languages in both the City of San Bruno and San Mateo County: Spanish, simplified Chinese, and Tagalog. All materials must provide information on how to access interpretation services for Spanish, Cantonese, Mandarin, and Tagalog, and SummerHill will provide translation and/or interpretation access to other languages upon request.

Least Likely to Apply

To affirmatively further fair housing, it is important to identify those demographic groups that are least likely to apply and for whom additional outreach may be necessary. To do so, the below demographics are provided for the immediate area around the project (Census Tract 6038.02), the marketing area (the City of San Bruno), and the extended market area (San Mateo County).

2022 Demographic Characteristics (Percentages)
Census Tract
6038.0
San Bruno
(Market Area)
San Mateo County
(Extended Market Area)
White (non-Hispanic) 40.4% 29.2% 37.0%
Black (non-Hispanic) 0.2% 1.0% 2.1%
American Indian or
Alaskan Native (non-
Hispanic) 0.3% 0.1% 0.1%
Asian (non-Hispanic) 28.4% 32.2% 30.3%
Native Hawaiian or
Pacific Islander (non-
Hispanic) 6.6% 3.1% 1.2%
496
Other Race (non-
Hispanic) 1.1% 1.1% 0.8%
Two or more Races
(non-Hispanic) 4.1% 3.9% 4.6%
Hispanic or Latino 19.0% 29.5% 23.9%
Persons with a
Disability 8.5% 9.1% 8.7%
Households with
Children under Age 18 37.8% 30.8% 31.5%
Source: Tables B03002, B18101, and S1101, 2022 Five Year American Community Survey Estimates.

The next step is to compare the percentages across all three geographies and identify any substantial differences. While the percentage of Asians in Census Tract 6038.02 is similar to the percentage in San Bruno and San Mateo County, the White percentage in the tract is substantially higher than in San Bruno as a whole, and the Hispanic or Latino percentage is substantially smaller. Hispanics and Latinos are therefore a group who are least likely to apply, and SummerHill will take additional efforts to reach out to this demographic.

There were no substantial differences in the percentage of persons with a disability across the three geographies, and while there was a difference in the percentage of households with children under Age 18, given that the percentage is higher in the development’s Census Tract than in San Bruno or San Mateo County, no additional outreach is needed to this group.

Eligibility Criteria
All the homeownership opportunities are single-family homes, containing four (4) bedrooms.

The locations of these units are outlined in the Affordable Housing Plan. Of the 24 BMR units, eight (8) units are for households making no more than 80% of Area Median Income (“AMI”) and 16 are for households making no more than 120% of AMI. Income. Given the bedroom count, eligible households must have at least four (4) occupants. The 2023 income limits are listed below for reference. Note: SummerHill will use the most recently available income limits at the time of the on-set of marketing.
2023 San Mateo County Income Limits (effective June 6, 2023) Family Size
Income
Category
4 5 6 7 8
80% of AMI $149,100 $161,050 $173,000 $184,900 $196,850 120% of AMI $210,000 $226,800 $243,600 $260,400 $277,200

100% student Households are ineligible for BMR Ownership Units. A full-time student is defined as a person who attends an educational institution with regular facilities including enrollment in on-line classes, other than a correspondence or night school, 497
during at least five months of the calendar year during the BMR application and eligibility review. Certain exceptions apply.1
The City of San Bruno retains the right to establish additional eligibility criteria and clarify applicant lottery documentation requirements in the final marketing plan.

Local Preference Policy

In compliance with the San Bruno Municipal Code, Chapter 12.230.080, to the extent permitted by state and federal law, a preference program in the initial lottery/sale of units will be developed whereby preference is given to those households where at least one member in the household lives or works in San Bruno or works for a school district serving the residents living in the city, except for those deemed ineligible due to a conflict of interest, as outlined in the Municipal Code. All households with the work or residence preference will receive the same, equal preference. In other words, someone who lives and works in San Bruno does not receive a preference over someone who only works or lives in San Bruno.

In determining eligibility for the local preference, SummerHill will abide by regulations and guidelines established by the City of San Bruno that comply with federal and state laws. If at any time during the term of the BMR Agreement, SummerHill has a reasonable basis to conclude that the preferences may conflict with the requirements of any applicable federal or state housing laws, SummerHill shall notify the City and the parties shall meet and confer in good faith within fifteen (15) days of notification, with the objective of making such revisions to the City’s preference program as the parties may mutually agree are necessary or desirable to ensure compliance with applicable laws.

Promotion and Outreach

Promotion and outreach include advertising, effective use of promotional materials, the internet, t
he BMR Marketing Agent’s website, and public relations. The promotion portion of this marketing plan will include advertising via online listing services, distribution of community promotional materials, and a strong public relations campaign that will generate publicity and local interest. Targeted outreach will encompass 1 Households with full-�me students may be BMR-eligible if one or more of the following applies:
• Any member of the Household is married or in a Domes�c Partnership and either ﬁling or is en�tled to ﬁle a joint tax return.
• The Household consists of a single parent and his or her minor children, and neither the parent nor children are a dependent of a third party.
• At least one member of the Household receives assistance under Title IV of the Social Security Act such as AFDC, TANF, CalWORKs, etc. (SSA or SSI do not qualify).
• At least one member is enrolled in a job training program receiving assistance under the federal Workforce Innova�on and Opportunity Act, or similar federal, state, or local laws. • The Household consists of a member who recently exited the Foster Care system who is no older than 24 years old.
• The Household consists of one or more United States Veterans. 498
personal outreach to agencies and support groups that serve prospective residents who meet preference criteria and/or are among the least likely to apply.

On-Line Advertising
A major component of advertising will consist of online advertising through a variety of affordable housing or public agency websites and other free online listing services.

The BMR Marketing Agent’s websi
te will be listed in the Signage at the Construction
Site (if applicable), and at the Temporary Office/Sales Center as well as on flyers/collaterals that will be mailed directly to prospective buyers (if applicable). The website will contain a specific area dedicated to the Project. The Project website will have information about the Project, including example floor plans, a site plan, project amenities, and how to contact a sales agent.

Real Estate Listing Websites:: The B
MR units will be listed on realtor.com, Zillow.com,\
with language that clearly spells out that eligibility is restricted to a particular income.

Such sites will also list clearly how to contact a sales agent and the deadline for any lottery.

Doorway: https://housingbayarea.mtc.ca.gov/ Is the new, centralized listing service for affordable housing in the Bay Area, created by the Bay Area Housing Financing Agency (BAHFA). At the time of this writing, this site is currently only accepting rental listings. If, at the time of marketing, Doorway accepts listing for BMR homeownership units, SummerHill will list the units with Doorway.

City of San Bruno: https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/571/Affordable-Housin g-Resources: is
the City of San Bruno’s website for affordable housing programs and opportunities. The City will include the BMR Units at the Project on its list of affordable housing developments and provide a link to the BMR Marketing Agent’s website to apply. The City will provide the developer with a list of interested parties.

Other social media: A link to the BMR Marketing Agent’s project webpage will be pushed to Cit
y of San Bruno social media sites.

Classified Newspaper Advertising
Traditional and digital ads will be secured with local newspapers and newspapers serving targeted language communities announcing the property opening three to four weeks prior to delivering our first units. Ads will vary per availability but would most likely include:

The Mercury News
San Mateo Daily Journal
Sing Tao Daily
World Journal

499
Outreach Marketing
The on-site sales team intends to contact area businesses, schools, churches, and social service/non-profit agencies as part of its outreach. Marketing materials in multiple languages will be provided to these organizations to refer prospective residents to the community. A strong emphasis is being placed on places of work where a significant percentage of employees are Hispanic or Latino.

Listed below are sample organizations and other contacts that the sales team intends to contact.
• San Bruno City Offices
• San Bruno Park School District
• San Mateo Union High School District
• Businesses along San Mateo Avenue
• Local hotels
• UNITE HERE Local 2 (hotel and hospitality union)
• The Shops at Tanforan
• La Raza Community Resource Center
• Habitat for Humanity Greater San Francisco
• S an Mateo County Center for Independence of Individuals with Disabilities • [additional organizations/businesses may be added, especially organizations working with Hispanic/Latino residents]

Implementation of the Marketing Plan and Timelines

SummerHill will notify the Office of Community Development at least 150 days before the anti
cipated date of initial occupancy of its intent to begin marketing. At this time, SummerHill will submit copies of any marketing materials (copies of proposed ads, web copy, flyers, email notifications, etc.) to the Office of Community Development.

The marketing of BMR Units must begin at least 90 days prior to initial occupancy and must be concurrent with the marketing of any market-rate units. SummerHill is required to market the BMR Units in compliance with this plan and all applicable Fair Housing laws.

The following schedule outlines the marketing timeline for each drawing. SummerHill anticipates that there will be seven drawings, depending upon the final construction schedules.

Application
Period
File Review
Preceding Lottery
Processing
&
Underwriting
Escrow Period
60 Days 14 Days 45-60 Days 45-60 Days
500

Anticipated Unit Deliver y, by Drawing

Drawing
#
Neighborhood Plan
Type 1
Bed
Count
Total
Units
Deliver
BMR
Units
1 1 1 4 21 3
2 1 2 4 21 4
3 1 3 4 21 5
4 2 1 4 26 3
5 2 2 4 27 3
6 2 3 4 27 3
7 2 4 4 12 3
Marketing Plan Implementation, Selection, and Application Process

1.Marketing Launch – SummerHIll anticipates using HouseKeys as their marketing agent. HouseKeys will create a website for the Crestmoor BMR Units. Applicants will be instructed to complete a profile at myhousekeys.com – an online platform to assist applicants with building an application file, selecting property, connecting with loan officers, entering the lottery, and completing the buyer qualification process. All email, print, and outreach will be performed, using the agreed upon channels above, to drive applicant traffic to these sites. In-person and online orientations will be hosted by HouseKeys staff to make sure applicants get support and training on how to use the portal and on how to complete the process.

2.Registered Loan Officer List – A list of registered and approved loan officers and lenders will be maintained. Any loan officer or lender can join the list at any time by completing a short online training, quiz, and by certifying that their legal department has reviewed and approved the deed restrictions.

3.Application ID – An Application ID list is like an interest list. Applicants will create an account at myhousekeys.com and Request an Application ID for the City of San Bruno Homeownership Program. This will put them on a list to receive invitations and notices for available homes in the Crestmoor Project throughout the construction timeline.

4.Opportunity Drawing – An Opportunity Drawing List is like the official waitlist for a specific project and group of units within the project. The construction and roll-out schedule above will determine the Drawing Number assigned. Application ID holders 501
are invited to “enter” the Opportunity Drawing.

5.Opportunity Listing – Each available home is presented as an Opportunity Listing.

This is a record that shows the property and program details (e.g., number of bedrooms, price, income category, non-mortgage payment assumptions, etc.). When Applicants enter the Opportunity Drawing, they will select their priority choices amongst the available homes.

6.Lottery – The Lottery is the process of assigning a random number to Applicants who have entered an Opportunity Drawing for a specific property or group of properties. A randomly assigned “ranking number” is given to each entrant using random.org.

Additionally, the entry form captures the preference criteria indicated by the applicant when they entered the drawing. This preference is used to generate a final ranking that orders the entrants, first by the initial random number, and second by the preference tier. Note: A combination of the ranking order and filtering out applicants who don’t meet the file submission deadline, sets the final processing order. It also sets the order in which approved applicants get to choose the home that they want to purchase.

7.File Submission Deadline – Applicants who enter the Opportunity Drawing on time and receive a Ranking Number must still submit a minimum set of documents to begin the application process. Their myhousekeys.com account has an upload feature for them to submit these documents online. For Applicants without internet access, HouseKeys can coordinate with City staff for a local drop off location where items can be turned in and timestamped. Applicants who do not submit documents by the deadline will not hold a place in line for the units. Applicants who submit an incomplete set of documents will be labeled as “Too Incomplete to Review Documents” or “TIRD” after the initial review is completed by the HouseKeys Team.

8.Packaging and Processing the File – After the file submission deadline, a “rundown” is completed by HouseKeys staff to determine which applicants met the minimum file requirements and whose packages are “cleared for review.” A Processor will be assigned to the cleared files and a timeline will be given to each buyer to deliver any “needs list” items required to prepare the file for underwriting.

9.Underwriting the Application Package – An Underwriter reviews all the documentation in the Application Package and makes a final determination as to the program eligibility and any qualification factors. A file will either be approved, denied, or suspended. The underwriter may issue “conditions” to the applicant that must be completed before a final decision can be made. If an applicant appeals the underwriting decision, this will be escalated to the City of San Bruno staff to make a final determination. Please note that applicants are typically given 3 business days to complete the appeal form and provide supporting documents before we move on to the next buyer.

10.Eligibility Certification – The Eligibility Certification is an official acknowledgment by HouseKeys that, based on the underwriting findings, the applicant is eligible for the program. 11.Third-Party Review by Agency Staff Member – The City of San Bruno will require a Third-Party Review of the buyer file. As the Developer’s Designee, HouseKeys will package the file for review by the designated City of San Bruno Staff Member or the 502
City of San Bruno’s designee. The City will notify HouseKeys of final application approval within 7 days. Eligible buyers will then be able to move to the Property Choice and Confirmation step.

12.Property Choice and Confirmation – Depending on what homes are available in the Opportunity Drawing and the timing of the applicant’s approval, the applicant will confirm their property, finalize their financing, and move on to sign the purchase contract with the SummerHill sales team.

Notifying Ineligible Applicants
No matter the reason for a declined application, staff will notify the applicant in writing that their application was denied and the reason for the rejected application. If an applicant is declined, they will be given the chance to appeal within 5 business days and request for application reconsideration. Appeals will be handled in accordance with guidelines established by the City of San Bruno.

Changes to the Marketing Plan

Any changes to the marketing plan must be approved by the San Bruno Director of Community Development, no later than 150 days prior to the intended closing date.

Record Keeping
SummerHill shall mai ntain all applications and other files related to the sale of the BMR units, for a period of at least two (2) years, in a reasonable condition for proper audit and subject to examination during business hours by representatives of the City.

503
ATTACHMENT 13
300 PIEDMONT AVENUE PROJECT PLANS
Available to view online at:
https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/
View/5227/Crestmoor-300-Piedmont-Avenue---
Project-Plans-dated-March-14-2024?bidId=
or
The document is
also available for public review at
the Community Development Counter in City Hall
ATTACHMENT 13
504
ATTACHMENT 14
300 PI

EDMONT AVENUE PROJECT DEIR
Availabl
e to view online at:
https://ca-
sanbruno.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/View/4740/CrestmoorDEIR_web?bidId= or
The docu
ment is also available for public review at
the Community Development Counter in City Hall
ATTACHMENT 14
505
City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report

CITY OF SAN BRUNO
DATE: May 28, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Nick Pegueros, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT: Consider Adoption of a Resolution Establishing a Cap on the Fireworks Stand Permit Cost Recovery Fee in the Amount of Seven Percent (7%) of Each Permittee’s Gross Fireworks Sales for the 2023 and 2024 Independence Day Holidays and Waive Collection of the Non-Refundable Application Fee for All Previous Years
BACKGROUND:

In 2005, San Bruno voters approved Measure G (Attachment 1), reaffirming Municipal Code Chapter 6.50, allowing the sale and use of "safe and sane" fireworks. Only a "local serving organization" nonprofit can apply for a permit to sell safe and sane fireworks. This permit system is regulated under Resolution No. 2008-67, adopted on June 28, 2008 (Attachment 2), which established application fees and a requirement for permittees to reimburse the City, based on pro-rata sales, for actual costs incurred for public education, public safety enforcement, and cleanup costs associated with fireworks. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 2023-105 to include the City costs for fire prevention and suppression in the cost recovery fee authorized under Resolution 2008-67. At its April 23,2024 meeting, the City Council adopted a non- refundable application fee of $95 for the temporary fireworks stand permit. Before this, the City did not collect a non-refundable application fee as Resolution 2008-67 stipulated.

DISCUSSION:

For the 2023 Independence Day holiday, the City incurred total costs of $99,153 on fireworks education, enforcement, and cleanup, as detailed in a report to the City Council on July 25, 2023 (Attachment 3). Subsequently, City staff issued invoices to the 2023 permittees, for their pro rata share of cost incurred on the 2023 Independence Day holiday, in line with Resolution No. 2008-67. For the 2022 holiday, City costs incurred totaled $66,349. Table 1 provides comparative costs for the 2022 and 2023 Independence Day holidays.

Item 8a.
506
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
May 28, 2024

Page 2 of 3 ends

San Bruno City CouncilMay 28, 2024

San Bruno City Council
May 28, 2024