Exhibit A - 121 East Grand Avenue IS/MND — South San Francisco City Council, September 14, 2022 (part 4 of 6)

1.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Partner has performed a probable maximum loss (PML) evaluation for earthquake due diligence assessment in conformance with the scope and limitations of Guide E2026 and Practice E2557 for a Level-1 Seismic Risk Assessment of: South Bay Development, 121 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California. Any exceptions to or deletions from this practice are described in section 2.5 of this report. The probable maximum loss (PML) evaluation for earthquake due diligence assessment has determined the PML to be (listed below):

Buildings SEL-475 SUL-475
Building A 15% 24%
Building B 15% 24%
Building C 15% 24%
Building D 15% 24%
Aggregate 15% 24%
Field Assessment Performed By: Mark S. Prock, P.E. (CA C42806) Field Assessment Date: June 1, 2020
Evaluation Performed By: Mark S. Prock, P.E. (CA C42806) PML Defined As: SEL, Scenario expected loss (475-year return period) Design Documents Reviewed: Yes (refer to section 3.0)
Methods to Determine Site Ground Motions: United States Geological Survey (USGS) and ASCE-7 Methods to Determine Site Stability: Publicly available hazard data Site Stability: Site is categorized as low risk
Procedures Used to Determine PML: Thiel and Zsutty (1987) Procedures Used to Determine Building Stability: Combined methods ASTM E2026 and E2557 Level of Review: G[1] BD[1] BS[1] SS[1] The report includes the Following Exceptions to ASTM Requirements: Refer to section 2.5 DRAFT
Name and License: Mark S. Prock, P.E. (CA C42806)
Company: Partner Engineering & Science, Inc.

Seismic Risk Assessment
Project No. 20-281457.2
June 8, 2020

Page 2 ends

1.1 Identified Mandatory Seismic Retrofit Ordinance
None noted.

1.2 Recommendations
No recommendations are provided.
• The buildings were found to have acceptable damageability with PML score below 20%. • The buildings' structural systems are anticipated to provide continued gravity support under expected inelastic deformations caused by design-basis ground motions that are specified in the current International Building Code (IBC).

1.3 Opinion of Cost and Scope of Work
Not applicable.

Seismic Risk Assessment
Project No. 20-281457.2
June 8, 2020

Page 3 ends

2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Purpose
The purpose of this Seismic Risk Assessment is to assess expected earthquake performance of the subject property to facilitate completion of commercial real estate due diligence. This report may not be used for any other purpose, including, without limitation, use by Owner, borrower or tenant for evaluating life safety performance, compliance with any building codes or mandatory retrofit programs, or earthquake resilience of specific building components and systems.

2.2 Scope of Work
This assessment was performed in accordance with the scope and limitations as set forth by the following standards or scopes of work.
• ASTM Standard Guide for Seismic Risk Assessment of Buildings E2026-16a and Standard Practice for Probable Maximum Loss (PML) Evaluations for Earthquake Due-Diligence E2557-16a.

2.3 Limitations
The scope of assessment is strictly limited by the agreed scope of services. Additional assessment such as full conformance with ASCE 41-13 criteria, research of municipal records on file with the jurisdiction, etc. may be provided upon request at additional cost. This assessment is subject to limitations in the agreed scope of services, including, without limitation:

Specific Point in Time – The assessment is based upon information obtained during completion of the work and the state of earthquake knowledge at the time of the assessment and is intended to be as-of the date of site reconnaissance. Conditions at the property and knowledge of earthquake faults, regional seismicity and building performance may change over time.

This assessment is not intended to be perceived as an engineering work product or engineering report. No structural calculations or life safety evaluations were performed for this assessment.

Uncertainty is Not Eliminated – No assessment can wholly eliminate uncertainty concerning the performance of properties as a result of ground shaking. Seemingly identical properties on adjoining sites may perform quite differently as a result of site-specific ground motions, building design, construction or other factors. Methodologies used in the evaluation of building performance are statistical and may rely upon unverified information provided or developed by others. As a result, the actual performance of the property is expected to vary.

Mandatory seismic retrofit ordinances may exist and apply to the subject property that the author is unaware of. Partner does not guarantee reporting of all municipal seismic retrofit programs either past or currently enforced.

Representative, Readily Observable Conditions – Observations at the property were limited to readily observable conditions in areas believed to be representative of site conditions. For example, the observation of an installation detail in one location may be presumed to be typical throughout. In some instances, Seismic Risk Assessment
Project No. 20-281457.2
June 8, 2020

Page 4 ends

relevant conditions may be concealed or obscured by architectural finishes, structural components, equipment, stored materials, debris, etc., or may be located within plenums, crawl spaces, shafts, or other areas which potentially pose a risk to the Assessor. The observation of such conditions, along with all testing of materials or assemblies and evaluation of the design adequacy or code compliance is beyond the scope of this assessment and related assumptions may be employed in our evaluation of the property.

Review of construction documents and as-built plans does not guarantee that the existing building components conform to them, or that structural or material defects do not exist within the existing structure.

Building replacement costs and costs to repair damage may vary due to unforeseen circumstances such as post-earthquake inflated costs or demand surge, fluctuations in market conditions for construction and demolition, and other unforeseen deviations from damage-loss model assumptions.

Proximity to active fault traces is estimated based on available data. State fault maps and fault hazard maps are often imprecise as are boundaries of fault zones or special study zones. Partner provides no guarantee that distance to surface fault traces is accurate. In cases when accurate studies are required by the User, the involvement of an engineering geologist is recommended.

Damage due to collapse and fall hazards from adjacent buildings and nearby tall structures are not considered in this report. Damage due to pounding or interaction with adjacent buildings may not be fully assessed without detailed consideration of the adjacent structural systems.

2.4 Level of Investigation
For this assignment Partner was engaged to conduct a Level-1 Seismic Risk Assessment. As stated in the contract for this engagement the levels of investigation are dependent on the information accessed during the engagement. The following investigations are considered in this seismic risk assessment. • Ground Motion [G] Included refer to section 4.0
• Building Damageability [BD] Included refer to section 5.0 • Building Stability [BS] Included refer to section 6.0 • Site Stability [SS] Included refer to section 7.0
• Business Interruption [BI] Excluded
• Building Contents [C] Excluded

2.5 ASTM Deviations
• No deviations are noted.

2.6 Deviations from Client Seismic Risk Policy
• No specific risk policy was referenced in the agreement for this assignment.

2.7 Limiting Conditions
• During this assignment construction drawings were not provided for review. This assessment is based on field observations only.
• No site-specific geotechnical investigation (soil report) was provided for review.

Seismic Risk Assessment
Project No. 20-281457.2
June 8, 2020

Page 5 ends

3.0 SUBJECT PROPERTY

3.1 Site Access
Site Access
Onsite access provided by Ms. Tonette Tamayo, Property Representative Contact information (650) 580-5776
Weather conditions Clear / sunny

3.2 General
Property Summary Data
Number of Buildings Four
Number of Stories Three
Approximate Building Area 109,000 square feet
Dates of Construction 1986
Design Code Year 1982 Uniform Building Code (UBC) (assumed) Retrofit Design Code Year Not Applicable
Structural Classification
ASCE-41-13 table 4.6 W1 - Wood Light Frames

3.3 Document Review
The following documents were requested, and if available, reviewed as part of this assessment. Information obtained from the documents is incorporated into the appropriate Sections of this report. If available, copies or excerpts of the referenced documents may be included in the appendices.

Documents Reviewed
Structural Drawings Not available
Architectural Drawings Not available
Seismic Retrofit Drawings Not Available
Geotechnical Report Not available
Prior Reports Not provided
Seismic Risk Assessment
Project No. 20-281457.2
June 8, 2020

Page 6 ends

3.4 Property Overview
The subject property is improved with four 3-story guestroom buildings containing a total of 169 guestroom units. The guestroom buildings are identified as Buildings A, B, C & D. The buildings, constructed in 1986, are of wood-frame construction with stucco exterior walls. Upper floor access between the buildings is provided by wood framed walkway bridges. The main building (Building A) includes the reception desk, dining area and administrative offices at the ground floor level. A steel framed port cochere is located at the front of the main building. The four buildings have regular shaped plan configurations. There were no construction drawings provided for review. The foundations are assumed to consist of standard reinforced concrete footings. The ground floor levels are concrete slab-on-grade construction. The terrain is generally flat at the site.

Foundation System
The building foundations are assumed to consist of continuous and spread concrete footings supporting load bearing walls and columns. The ground floor levels are of concrete slab-on-grade construction.

Gravity Load Resisting System
Gravity loads (dead and live) at the buildings are supported by standard light wood framed stud bearing walls and wood posts. The roof systems include plywood sheathing over pre-manufactured light wood framed truss joists and wood beams. The guestroom buildings’ upper floor systems have concrete topping slabs over plywood sheathing supported by pre-engineered wood joists and wood beam framing.

Seismic Force Resisting System
The lateral force resisting systems (LFRS) are characterized as plywood sheathed wood framed shear wall.

The LFRS consist of the plywood sheathed upper floors and roof acting as deep beams, also referred to as diaphragms, transmitting the wind and earthquake loads to the plywood sheathed wood framed shear walls that transfer loads to the foundations. Shear walls also include the exterior stucco finished walls and the interior sheetrock covered wood framed cross walls.

Building Envelope and Cladding
The building envelopes are stucco.

3.5 Design Review
The subject property has attributes that contribute both positively and negatively to the seismic performance of the structure. In general, lighter weight structures with regular configuration and a redundant and ductile seismic force resisting system (SFRS) will have more favorable performance than a building with limited redundancy and irregular shape due to horizontal and vertical setbacks. The subject property has structural characteristics that inform our understanding of expected seismic behavior of the structure. Relevant building characteristics that influence the damage loss prediction model are listed below.

Positive Structural Attributes
• The buildings were designed and constructed in accordance with the 1982 Uniform Building Code.

The design requirements include complete load paths from roof-to-foundation. Structural Seismic Risk Assessment
Project No. 20-281457.2
June 8, 2020

Page 7 ends

elements in the superstructures have the connectivity needed to limit major damage during design level seismic shaking.
• The mass distribution is fairly uniform throughout the buildings. The buildings are relatively lightweight resulting in reduced force demands on the LFRS. • The buildings are constructed of standard light wood framed construction with plywood sheathed wood framed shear walls. Standard light wood framed structures have performed well with limited damage during previous earthquakes. Redundancy is considered good for this type of construction. • The buildings appear to have numerous cross walls sheathed with plywood and/or sheetrock to provide adequate resistance during earthquake ground shaking. • The buildings have regular shaped plan configurations with not significant plan shape or vertical out-of-plane irregularities.

Negative Structural Attributes
• Based on the year of construction (1986), the buildings do not meet the "benchmark" code criteria as defined in ASCE-41-13. The buildings at this site could be compared with similar buildings (with similar design attributes). The subject structures would be expected to have lower than average performance when compared to those buildings designed with or after the benchmark model building code, the 1997 UBC. This is considered in the loss estimate and stability determination. • The buildings were presumably designed and constructed in accordance with the 1982 Uniform Building Code. Limited vertical and horizontal lateral load resisting elements and shear transfer detailing exists compared to similar buildings designed to more recent building code requirements.

Vulnerable elements include the exterior stucco siding and the interior sheetrock sheathing materials. Stucco siding is brittle and has limited shear capacity. Sheetrock sheathing tends to be easily damaged during strong earthquake ground shaking. These conditions result in possible isolated damage during strong earthquake ground shaking. • Shear walls at the buildings may not be adequately interconnected between the upper floors to transfer overturning and shear forces through the upper floors. This discontinuity prevents shear and overturning forces from being transferred between shear walls in between the upper floor levels. Also, wood framed shear walls may lack adequate hold down and sill plate anchorage at the foundation to resist expected overturning and shear forces. Limited anchorage between the sill plates and foundations creates a potential gap in the load path that limits the ability of the shear walls to resist seismic forces.
• Upper floor access between the buildings is provided by wood framed walkway bridges. Relative movement between the buildings during strong earthquake ground shaking could cause damage to these walkway bridges.
• The 475-Year PGA (10% probability of exceedance in 50-years) is above average for this seismic zone. This condition results in higher seismic forces and an increase in potential earthquake damage at this property.

Non-Structural Components
• Accessible non-structural components were assessed but not found to substantially alter the baseline damage loss parameters.

Seismic Risk Assessment
Project No. 20-281457.2
June 8, 2020

Page 8 ends

4.0 SEISMIC GROUND MOTION HAZARD ASSESSMENT [G]
Ground motion data is sourced from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) using the USGS 2014 NSHM Dynamic Hazard Model. The National Seismic Hazard Maps (NSHM) compile known earthquake sources in proximity from the specified site and consider their distance and geologic attenuation to project the maximum expected ground motions at this site over a particular period (typically 50 years). Unless otherwise noted, the selected probability of exceedance used for this assessment is 10% in 50 years or a time horizon of 475 years (return period). Probabilistic peak ground accelerations (PGA) used for the loss estimate are not risk targeted ground motion estimates.

The first reported ground motion below is the peak horizontal ground acceleration (PGA) based on a shear wave velocity in the top 30m of soil (Vs30) of 760 (m/s). This is equivalent to a soft rock or boundary condition value B/C as defined in ASCE 7. Acceleration values are site-adjusted through the loss model. In cases where Thiel & Zsutty loss models are applied, the boundary condition case is used for the acceleration parameter.
• Site soil class is estimated based on geotechnical or site information available during the course of the assessment.
• MMI values are derived from the site adjusted peak ground acceleration and estimated using the Trifunac & Brady relationship published in the 2002 ATC-13-1 Commentary (King). • The seismic zone designation is approximated based review of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) seismic zone map and or equivalent estimation procedures offered in ASTM E2557-16a.

4.1 Site Ground Motions
Ground Motion Hazard Level
Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) boundary condition 0.49g Vs30 760 (m/s) Estimated site soil class (per ASCE-7 or NEHRP classification) Site Class B/C Site soil adjusted peak ground acceleration (PGA) 0.54g Vs30 637 (m/s) Estimate of corresponding Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) 9.03 1997 UBC seismic zone designation Zone 4

Seismic Risk Assessment
Project No. 20-281457.2
June 8, 2020

Page 9 ends

5.0 BUILDING DAMAGEABILITY ASSESSMENT [BD]
This section addresses expected physical damage to the property from site and building response and does not include estimated damage or losses that result from special earthquake hazards such as tsunami, landslide, dam failure, surface fault rupture, and ground failure. The estimate of expected Building Damage [BD] is modeled using probabilistic seismic hazards and derived from earthquake damage-loss assessment models listed in ASTM E2557-16a Section X3.

5.1 Loss Estimation Terminology
ASTM E2026 and E2557 define Probable Maximum Loss (PML) as a general non-specific term, which has been historically used to characterize building damageability. A PML can be defined in a variety of probabilistic and deterministic approaches within the ASTM E2026 and E2557 standards. According to ASTM; PML shall be User defined. The following terminology is relevant for this evaluation and may prove assistive to the reader or User:
• Probable Loss (PL): Earthquake loss to the building systems that has a specified probability of being exceeded in a given time period, or an earthquake loss that has a specified return period of exceedance.
• Scenario Loss (SL): Earthquake loss to the building systems associated with specified earthquake events (probabilistic return period or earthquake of specified size and location) on specific fault(s) affecting the building.
• Scenario Expected Loss (SEL): Defined as the expected value of the Scenario Loss (SL) resulting from the specific earthquake ground motion of the earthquake scenario selected. In the SEL, the earthquake loss to a building would be represented by the average or mean amount of loss that a building is estimated to experience from a specified earthquake ground motion. As the average loss, the SEL has an approximate 50% possibility of exceedance. For the purposes of this document, the SEL is defined as the expected or mean loss resulting from the damage experienced due to a 475-year return period earthquake. This form of the SEL is often referred to as the SEL-475. The SEL is sometimes referred to as the PML50.
• Scenario Upper Loss (SUL): Defined as the Scenario Loss (SL) that has a 10% probability of exceedance due to the specified earthquake ground motion of the scenario considered. It is also referred to as the 90% non-exceedance probability or the upper-bound loss. If 10 buildings of equivalent configuration and construction were subjected to the same earthquake ground shaking, the earthquake repair costs would be expected to exceed the SUL for only one of the ten buildings, or 10%. For all practical purposes the reported SUL will exceed a reported SEL for any given earthquake scenario. Similar to the SEL, the most common representation of the SUL is the SUL475, associated with the 90% confidence loss estimation resulting from the damage experienced due to a 475-year return period earthquake. The SUL is sometimes referred to as the PML90.

Seismic Risk Assessment
Project No. 20-281457.2
June 8, 2020

Page 10 ends

5.2 Damage Loss Model (Thiel & Zsutty - Earthquake Spectra 1987) Two peer-reviewed and published earthquake loss estimation methodologies were used to determine the earthquake damage loss estimate. The following methodologies have been used in combination to provide the seismic loss estimation.

The Thiel-Zsutty earthquake loss estimation methodology was used to calculate the mean or expected scenario losses. The methodology was published originally in 1987 (Charles C. Thiel, Jr. and Theodore C.

Zsutty, “Earthquake Spectra” Vol. 3, No. 4: Nov. 1987 titled Earthquake Characteristics and Damage Statistics).

ATC-13 “Earthquake Damage Evaluation Data for California” developed by the Applied Technology Council under a contract with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (Published 1985, 492 pages); and ATC-13-1 “Commentary on the Use of ATC-13 Earthquake Damage Evaluation Data for Probable Maximum Loss Studies of California Buildings” (Published 2002, 66 pages). ATC-13 provides loss estimation data for 78 classes of structures.

The Thiel-Zsutty (T-Z) method employs the following parameters for determination of the SEL.

T-Z Method
Parameter Description
Peak Ground
Acceleration
(PGA)
a
Any level of ground acceleration can be used with this methodology depending on the requirements of the User. The Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) is used within this assessment based on a probabilistic earthquake scenario with a 475-year reoccurrence. This PGA has a 10% probability of exceedance in 50-years.

Site Soil
Coefficient
s
This value is representative of the soil composition and Site Class at the subject property. In general, sites on firm soils and rock will tend to have different shaking intensities than those sites with soft soils when subjected to the equivalent seismic ground motion. The value is higher for soft soils with high ground water table, susceptible to liquefaction (1.56 to 1.95), moderate for firm soils with deeper ground water and low to moderate liquefaction susceptibility (1.25 to 1.56), and low for rock and very hard soils with no liquefaction susceptibility (0.8 to 1.25). The value for s is assigned on the basis of soil and liquefaction data obtained from public sources and or site specific geotechnical reports, when available.

Spectral
Modification
Parameter
m
This value has a range of 0.5 to 2.0. The determination of this parameter generally requires a site-specific geotechnical investigation of the site and a dynamic analysis of the building to characterize the fundamental period. For structures founded on a site with the equivalent periods the value of m would be as high as 2.0. For structures founded on a site with vastly different periods the value of m can be as low as 0.5.

Without any site specific information or dynamic analysis data the default value for m is 1.0
Seismic Risk Assessment
Project No. 20-281457.2
June 8, 2020

Page 11 ends

T-Z Method
Parameter Description
Building
Vulnerability
Parameter
b
This value represents the relative damageability of the building. The value of b ranges from 0.11 for light gage metal bearing wall structures (best performing) to 1.25 for unreinforced masonry bearing wall structures with no seismic retrofit. The value for b is based on the characterization of the lateral system, the design review, guidance by the authors from recent publications, and professional judgment.

The Scenario Expected Loss is calculated using the equation listed below. The Scenario Upper Loss is based on facility class damage matrices published by the Applied Technology Council in ATC-13.

Aggregate mean losses (SEL) for groups of buildings are provided. The aggregate value is based on weighted average calculation using gross square area of each building or building section considered.

PML (SEL) =0.554 (b m s)a 0.630
Thiel-Zsutty Method Calculation Coefficient Value
475-year Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) a 0.49
Site Soil Coefficient s 1.56
Spectral Modification Parameter m 1.00
Building Vulnerability Parameter(s) b
Building A 0.28
Building B 0.28
Building C 0.28
Building D 0.28
Seismic Risk Assessment
Project No. 20-281457.2
June 8, 2020

Page 12 ends

6.0 BUILDING STABILITY ASSESSMENT [BS]
Building Stability assesses expected performance such that the subject building(s) structural system provides continued gravity support under expected inelastic deformations caused by seismic forces. In many instances, not enough information is available during a Level-1 assessment to provide a nuanced analysis of expected inelastic deformations relative to building stability. In these cases, a higher level of study such as a Level-2 or Level-3 Assessment will often prove more useful in quantifying expected drift and deformations of the seismic and gravity resisting systems of the building.

6.1 Building Stability Procedures
• When buildings appear to have been designed after or indicate compliance with benchmark code years defined in the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings ASCE-41-13 Table 4-6, building stability is reported as acceptable unless substantial deficiencies are identified. When the building(s) are “pre-benchmark”, and complete structural plans are available, ASCE 41, Tier-1 screening procedures may be used to identify the presence or absence of key structural items and or available strength, ductility, and redundancy in the lateral force resisting system (LFRS). In this way, potential building instability may be inferred from the results of quick check procedures. The BSE-1N hazard level is applied unless client policy or client direction specifies otherwise.
• FEMA P-154 Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards; Third Edition March 2016. A scoring system based on observed seismic & structural attributes of the subject building(s) is utilized to develop a Level-2 FEMA RVS Score that is used to generate a collapse probability keyed to IBC design-basis ground motions 2/3MCEr (risk targeted). This score directly correlates to a probability of structural collapse and is based on extensive research by the Applied Technology Council, FEMA and the engineering and seismology communities. • Engineering Knowledge and Experience- In cases where structural conditions either identified or inferred from the design code year that have a well-documented history of causing or contributing to building collapse, these conditions may result in an experience and knowledge-based procedure to estimate expected stability. Obvious structural deficiencies or knowledge of changes to building code requirements or standards of practice do not always require rigorous analysis. Other methods may be employed within the context of knowledge-based procedures or these three methods may be combined.

6.2 Building Stability Summary
Based on this assessment, the subject buildings' structural systems are expected to provide continued gravity support under expected inelastic deformations caused by design-basis seismic forces.

Seismic Risk Assessment
Project No. 20-281457.2
June 8, 2020

Page 13 ends

7.0 SITE STABILITY [SS]
Site stability is an assessment of the potential for earthquake induced ground failure or permanent ground deformations at the site. The site stability assessment is based on available resources (public, private, and or site specific) and is a qualitative assessment that includes examination of documented geologic hazards and their potential to cause damage to the building structural elements. When geotechnical reports are not furnished by the client or discovered during the field assessment, public resources are used to make determinations. Site stability risk is reported herein as either:

1. “low risk”

2. “a special hazard may exist”

3. “site does not meet stability requirements”
This qualitative site stability rating incorporates liquefaction susceptibility, potential for surface fault rupture and earthquake induced landslide. When possible, other hazards are identified such as dam failure, earthquake induced flooding, dike failure & tsunami inundation. These Other Hazards are not included in the site stability assessment. The report User may elect to consider these Other Hazards in evaluating overall risks to the real estate asset.

7.1 Site Stability Summary
Based on our review of the available site geologic information & site hazards information, there is a low risk of earthquake induced ground failure at this site. Refer to the remainder of Section 7 for more detail.

7.2 Liquefaction Susceptibility
Earthquake induced soil liquefaction describes a phenomenon whereby a saturated or partially-saturated soil substantially loses strength and stiffness in response to an applied stress, usually earthquake shaking or other sudden change in stress condition, causing the soil to behave like a liquid. The phenomenon is most often observed in saturated, loose (low density or poorly compacted), sandy soils. Soil liquefaction can result in a loss of bearing capacity and support of the foundation system, resulting in ground failure or differential settlement or tilting of the building. This rapid settlement can result in increased damage levels beyond that estimated due to ground shaking alone.

This site is located within an area mapped as having moderate potential for soil liquefaction. This is relative to a rating from “Very Low” to “Very High”. (refer to Hazard Maps; Figure 1 appended to this report). Sites with elevated risk of liquefaction may warrant a more detailed assessment by an engineering geologist depending on the User(s) risk tolerance.

It is important to note that inclusion of a site in a public agency site hazards zone does not mean that the hazard exists at the site nor does it quantify the magnitude of the hazard. It simply means that characteristics of the site require investigation for the potential hazard, typically during the design of new structures.

Seismic Risk Assessment
Project No. 20-281457.2
June 8, 2020

Page 14 ends

7.3 Surface Fault Rupture
A building founded directly over an active fault or within close proximity to a documented, active fault trace could be at risk of damage due to movement of the subsurface due to fault rupture or surface creep. Not all states have clearly mapped seismic hazard zones around known faults with known surface fault traces.

The State of California acknowledged this risk of fault rupture to existing and future structures following the 1971 San Fernando earthquake. In response, the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was enacted in California in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures with human occupancy.

The act in its current form has three main provisions:

1. It directs the state's California Geological Survey agency (then known as the California Division of Mines and Geology) to compile detailed maps of the surface traces of known active faults. These maps include both an approximate location where faults cut the surface and a buffer zone around the known trace(s) typically about one quarter mile wide.

2. It requires property owners (or their real estate agents) to formally and legally disclose that their property lies within the zones defined on those maps before selling the property; and

3. It prohibits new construction of houses within these zones unless a geologic investigation shows that the fault does not pose a hazard to the proposed structure.

Our review of published hazard maps for this site, indicate the subject property is not located within a documented fault zone or special study zone with known regulatory implications.

Closest Earthquake Fault Traces or Systems
The closest mapped fault trace is the San Andreas - Peninsula fault section mapped approximately 3.1 miles distance from the subject site.

The following fault traces and fault sections contribute to the probabilistic ground shaking hazard at this site. Their approximate distances to the subject property are included along with their relative contribution ranking to the shaking hazards at this site.

Seismic Risk Assessment
Project No. 20-281457.2
June 8, 2020

Page 15 ends

7.4 Earthquake Induced Landslide Susceptibility
This site does not appear to be at risk from earthquake induced land-sliding.

7.5 Tsunami Inundation
Based on the proximity of the subject property to large bodies of open water that could produce earthquake-induced waves of water due to tsunami the subject property is not located within a Tsunami Risk Zone.

7.6 Other Site Hazards
None identified.

FIGURES
1 Site Hazard Maps
2 Site Plan
SITE SEISMIC HAZARDS REPORT
Report Generated for:
121 E Grand Ave
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Lat / Long: 37.6548703°, -122.4046829°
Date:

May 27, 2020
Report Generated by:

The Site Hazards Module of the
Seismic Performance Prediction Program (SP3)
Produced for:

Partner Engineering and Science
SP3 | Where Research Meets Practice
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page 2 ends

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page 2 ends

Page 3 ends

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page 3 ends

Page 4 ends

Page 5 ends

Page 6 ends

Page 7 ends

Page 8 ends

Page 9 ends

Page 10 ends

Page 11 ends

Page 12 ends

Page 13 ends

Page 14 ends

Page 15 ends

1. Introduction

2. Site Location

3. Site Soil Classification Based on Topography

4. Soil Boring Data for Nearby Sites
Data Source #1 - U.S. Geological Survey Vs30 Boring Data for Nearby Sites

5. Liquefaction
Data Source #1 - Bay Area Liquefaction
Data Source #2 - California State Liquefaction

6. Landslide

7. Alquist Priolo
Data Source #1 - Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act

8. Tsunami
Data Source #1 - Bay Area Tsunami
Data Source #2 - California State Tsunami

9. Nearby Faults
Data Source #1 - U.S. Geological Survey Faults

10. Ground Shaking Disaggregation (with Fault Table)

11. Ground Shaking Hazards - PGA, PGV, Sa, and MMI

12. Shake Maps
Data Source #1 - Loma Prieta Earthquake - M 6.9 (10/17/1989) Data Source #2 - 1906 San Francisco Earthquake - M 7.8 (4/8/1906) Ground Shaking Scale Description
SP3 | Where Research Meets Practice Page 1
This report was generated using SP3 - Site Hazards of the SP3 platform. It was created by aggregating publically available data at the specified site location with the goal of easily understanding and reporting on site hazards. Each data source is cited and the report is subject to the limitations and accuracy of those data sources.

Address: 121 E Grand Ave, South San Francisco, CA 94080 Latitude: 37°39'17"N (37.6548703°)
Longitude: 122°24'16"W (-122.4046829°)
The following soil types are estimated based on the typography of your site location.

The estimate of soil for this site is as follows:

Vs30 = 637 m/s
Soil Class: B/C [660 - 945]
Source: U.S. Geologic Survey, Global Vs30 Model [ https://earthquake.usgs.gov/data/vs30 ] The soil class bins used for assigning soil types are as follows:

Site Class Site Class Based on VS30*
(m/sec)
ASCE 7 Site Class Definition Vs30
(m/sec)
A Hard Rock ≥1695 ≥1500
A/B A/B Boundary 1315-1695 --
B Rock 945-1315 760-1500
B/C B/C Boundary 660-945 --
C
Very dense soil and soft
rock 460-660 360-760
C/D C/D Boundary 315-460 --
D Stiff soil 225-315 180-360
D/E D/E Boundary 165-225 --
E Soft clay soil <165 <180
*Non-overlapping ranges for known Vs30 to define Site Class as proposed by Bozornia & Bertero, 2006 [ https://www.crcpress.com/Earthquake-Engineering-From-Engineering-Seismology-toPerformance-Based/Bozorgnia-Bertero/p/book/9780849314391 ] SP3 | Where Research Meets Practice Page 2
The following map provides any available soil boring data (with Vs30 estimates) for nearby sites. This comes from a database of Vs30 boring data compiled by the U.S. Geological Survey and other governmental agencies for 3,020 sites in the United States.

Source: U.S. Geological Survey [https://earthquake.usgs.gov/data/vs30/us/] Data Source #1 - U.S. Geological Survey Vs30 Boring Data for Nearby Sites <180
180-240
240-300
300-360
360-490
490-620
620-760
≥760
SP3 | Where Research Meets Practice Page 3
Liquefaction areas are delineated with respect to the underlying geological materials in a particular area. These maps are meant to provide information on where liquefaction may occur in a future earthquake (but not necessarily that it will occur for this specific site). This map provides a pre-screening approach for liquefaction potential, but a site-specific soil assessment would be needed if a more precise understanding of liquefaction potential is desired.

Source: Association of Bay Area Governments [http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/earthquakes/] Data Source #1 - Bay Area Liquefaction
Based on the map below, this site is located in a Moderate Liquefaction Hazard zone.

Very Low Liquefaction Hazard
Low Liquefaction Hazard
Moderately Low Liquefaction Hazard
Moderate Liquefaction Hazard
High Liquefaction Hazard
Very High Liquefaction Hazard
Variable Liquefaction Hazard
SP3 | Where Research Meets Practice Page 4
Source: California Geological Survey [http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse] Data Source #2 - California State Liquefaction
No Liquefaction Hazard
Liquefaction Hazard
SP3 | Where Research Meets Practice Page 5
Landslide susceptibility indicates the severity of seismically induced landslide potential in an area.

There was no Landslide data found in the mapped region below. This could either mean that there is no earthquake induced Landslide hazard or that this region was not mapped.

SP3 | Where Research Meets Practice Page 6
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act is a California State law put into place to identify areas that may be prone to surface rupture.

Source: California Geological Survey [http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse] Data Source #1 - Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act Alquist-Priolo Zone
SP3 | Where Research Meets Practice Page 7
Tsunami inundation zones are determined by modeling a group of maximum considered tsunami events. It is noted that these maps do not meet disclosure requirements for real estate transactions nor for any other regulatory purpose (please see associated disclaimers from California Geological Survey).

Source: Association of Bay Area Governments [http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/open-data/] Data Source #1 - Bay Area Tsunami
Tsunami Inundation Zone
Not a Tsunami Inundation Zone
SP3 | Where Research Meets Practice Page 8
Source: California Geological Survey
[http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geologic_hazards/Tsunami/Inundation_Maps#DownloadData] Data Source #2 - California State Tsunami
Tsunami Inundation Zone
Not a Tsunami Inundation Zone
SP3 | Where Research Meets Practice Page 9
Years shown in legend represent typical return period of characteristic earthquakes on the faults.

Source: U.S. Geological Survey [https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/] Data Source #1 - U.S. Geological Survey Faults
This map shows known faults around this site.

Less than 150 years
150 - 15,000 years
15,000 - 130,000 years
130,000 - 750,000 years
750,000 - 1.6 million years
SP3 | Where Research Meets Practice Page 10
The following are the faults and possible future earthquake events that contribute to the 10% in 50 year hazard.

Fault Name and Rupture Magnitude Distance from Site
[mi] Azimuth Epsilon PercentContribution
UC33brAvg_FM32 7.72 4.94 -- 0.49 46.01%
San Andreas (Peninsula) [10] 7.80 3.10 231.72 0.22 34.46% San Gregorio (North) [6] 7.67 8.51 251.37 1.04 3.64%
Hayward (No) [0] 7.35 15.38 54.59 1.85 1.78%
Pilarcitos [9] 7.30 6.66 219.86 0.93 1.30%
UC33brAvg_FM31 7.72 4.93 -- 0.48 45.26%
San Andreas (Peninsula) [10] 7.80 3.10 231.72 0.22 34.17% San Gregorio (North) [6] 7.67 8.51 251.37 1.04 3.79%
Hayward (No) [0] 7.34 15.46 54.60 1.85 1.74%
UC33brAvg_FM31 (opt) 5.82 6.54 -- 1.58 4.36%
UC33brAvg_FM32 (opt) 5.82 6.54 -- 1.58 4.36%
Source: U.S. Geologic Survey, Dynamic: Conterminous U.S. 2014 (update) (v4.2.0) [ https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/ ]
SP3 | Where Research Meets Practice Page 11
The shaking hazard for your site is presented below in terms of peak ground acceleration (PGA) and spectral acceleration (Sa) at periods 0.2s and 1.0s. Where available the shaking hazard is provided for the Site Class specific to this location (based on Vs30 estimated topography section above) and site classes B/C and D.

The Modified Mercalli Index (MMI) is also provided according to Trifunac & Brady (1975) based upon PGA. The Trifunac & Brandy Method is applicable to intensity levels between IV and X; lower intensity levels are approximate.

Intensity This Site: Site Class B/C Baseline for Site Class B/C Baseline for Site Class D Exceedance
Probability
Return
Period
[years]
PGA
[g]
Sa
(T=0.2s)
[g]
Sa
(T=1.0s)
[g]

MMI PGA
[g]
Sa
(T=0.2s)
[g]
Sa
(T=1.0s)
[g]

MMI PGA
[g]
Sa
(T=0.2s)
[g]
Sa
(T=1.0s)
[g]
MMI
50% in 30
years
43 0.12 0.29 0.09 VII 0.11 0.23 0.06 VII 0.15 0.38 0.18 VII 50% in 50
years
72 0.18 0.42 0.14 VII 0.15 0.34 0.10 VII 0.21 0.52 0.26 VIII 50% in 75
years
108 0.23 0.55 0.19 VIII 0.20 0.46 0.13 VIII 0.27 0.65 0.35 VIII 50% in 100
years
144 0.28 0.66 0.23 VIII 0.24 0.55 0.16 VIII 0.31 0.74 0.42 VIII 20% in 50
years
224 0.36 0.87 0.32 VIII 0.32 0.73 0.22 VIII 0.39 0.90 0.57 IX 10% in 30
years
285 0.42 1.00 0.38 IX 0.37 0.84 0.27 VIII 0.44 1.00 0.67 IX 10% in 50
years
475 0.54 1.30 0.53 IX 0.49 1.12 0.37 IX 0.54 1.21 0.90 IX 10% in 75
years
712 0.66 1.58 0.68 IX 0.59 1.38 0.47 IX 0.64 1.40 1.12 IX 5% in 50
years
975 0.74 1.81 0.79 IX 0.68 1.59 0.56 IX 0.71 1.55 1.30 IX 3% in 50
years
1642 0.91 2.25 1.02 X 0.83 1.97 0.72 X 0.84 1.80 1.63 X 2% in 50
years
2475 1.05 2.59 1.20 X 0.97 2.31 0.85 X 0.96 2.02 1.92 X

1.5% in 50
years
3308 1.14 2.86 1.36 X 1.06 2.54 0.96 X 1.04 2.20 2.15 X 1% in 50
years
4975 1.29 3.29 1.57 X 1.19 2.91 1.11 X 1.16 2.42 2.45 X Source: U.S. Geologic Survey, Dynamic: Conterminous U.S. 2014 (update) (v4.2.0) [ https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/ ]
SP3 | Where Research Meets Practice Page 12
Shake maps present the intensity of seismic shaking over geographic regions during significant earthquakes. The following map(s) provide information on the intensity of shaking demand from past seismic events that are pertinent to this site. Note that these maps estimate the intensity of shaking between observed data points and that a specific site may have experienced a different level of shaking in the event(s) presented below.

Source: U.S. Geological Survey [https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/nc216859#shakemap] Mapped Values at Site Location:

MMI: 6
PGA: 0.16 (g)
PGV: 12 (cm/s)
Sa (T = 0.3s): 0.32 (g)
Sa (T = 1.0s): 0.12 (g)
Data Source #1 - Loma Prieta Earthquake - M 6.9 (10/17/1989) Based on the map below, this site is located in an MMI VI Zone for this event.

I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
SP3 | Where Research Meets Practice Page 13
Source: U.S. Geological Survey [https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/events/1906calif/shakemap/] Mapped Values at Site Location:

MMI: 8.2
PGA: 0.4 (g)
PGV: 50 (cm/s)
Sa (T = 0.3s): 1 (g)
Sa (T = 1.0s): 0.68 (g)
Data Source #2 - 1906 San Francisco Earthquake - M 7.8 (4/8/1906) Based on the map below, this site is located in an MMI VIII Zone for this event.

I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
SP3 | Where Research Meets Practice Page 14
Ground Shaking Scale Descriptions
Intensity Shaking Description/Damage
I Not felt Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable conditions.

II Weak Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings.

III Weak
Felt quite noticeably by persons indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings. Many people do not recognize it as an earthquake. Standing motor cars may rock slightly. Vibrations similar to the passing of a truck. Duration estimated.

IV Light
Felt indoors by many, outdoors by few during the day. At night, some awakened. Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls make cracking sound.

Sensation like heavy truck striking building. Standing motor cars rocked noticeably.

V Moderate Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened. Some dishes, windows broken.

Unstable objects overturned. Pendulum clocks may stop.

VI Strong Felt by all, many frightened. Some heavy furniture moved; a few instances of fallen plaster. Damage slight.

VII Very
Strong
Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction; slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures; considerable damage in poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken.

VIII Severe
Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable damage in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse. Damage great in poorly built structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls.

Heavy furniture overturned.

IX Violent
Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed frame structures thrown out of plumb. Damage great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations.

X Extreme Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations. Rails bent.

Source: U.S. Geologic Survey
SP3 | Where Research Meets Practice Page 15
FIGURE 2: SITE PLAN
Project No. 20-281457.2
Aerial photos are obtained from public sources that may not be current. For reference only. Site North is Up Building C
Building B
Building D
Building A
APPENDIX A: SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDIX A: SITE PHOTOS
Project No. 20-281457.2

1. Property street number address signage 2. Port cochere at front of main building

3. Front elevation of main building 4. Rear elevation of main building

5. Front elevation of guestroom building 6. Side elevation of guestroom building APPENDIX A: SITE PHOTOS
Project No. 20-281457.2

7. Rear elevation of guestroom building 8. View of walkway bridge between guestroom buildings

9. Reception lobby in main building 10. Dining area in main building

11. Corridor at guestroom building 12. View in guestroom

REFERENCE MATERIAL
/
NAME: PROCK, MARK STEPHEN
LICENSE TYPE: CIVIL ENGINEER
LICENSE STATUS: CLEAR

ADDRESS
321 N SAN MATEO DR 108
SAN MATEO CA 94401

SAN MATEO COUNTY
LICENSING DETAILS FOR: 42806

ISSUANCE DATE
AUGUST 21, 1987

EXPIRATION DATE
MARCH 31, 2022

CURRENT DATE / TIME
APRIL 6, 2020
12:49:32 PM

BOARD FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS,

LAND SURVEYORS, AND GEOLOGISTS
Mark S. Prock, P.E.

Partner Associate
Education
Bachelor of Science, Civil Engineering/Syracuse University; Associate of Applied Science, Architecture/Hudson Valley College Registrations
California Professional Registered Licensed Engineer/42806 Summary of Professional Experience
Mr. Prock is an experienced consulting engineer with over 25 years experience in performing building engineering design and analysis, seismic building evaluations and construction site inspections. He has several years experience performing structural design of high rise office buildings, regional shopping malls and industrial facilities. He has inspected and evaluated hundreds of structures during his career and designed seismic retrofits and upgrades for unreinforced masonry and concrete tilt-up buildings. This work included developing construction project budgets, selecting and scheduling contractors, and approving final construction. His construction management background also includes conducting building infrastructure evaluations and commissioning efforts to verify as-built building code compliance and identify liability issues such as ADA requirements and employee safety conditions.

Mr. Prock has successfully completed Due Diligence site inspections and Property Condition Assessments to evaluate large commercial real estate throughout California. Mr. Prock has determined the physical condition of building mechanical and electrical systems along with providing a professional opinion regarding future anticipated issues that may result in financial risk or liability.

Mark has completed Probable Maximum Loss Evaluations on retail centers, industrial facilities, office buildings and multi-family residential complexes. He brings a proven record of engineering and management expertise and the abilities to provide clients with a wide array of services.

Mr. Prock has performed structural design and analysis for new building construction and building sites throughout California and has been responsible for building operations, maintenance and facility improvement projects. He has also supervised technical and administrative staff and directed outside service vendors and contractors. 800-419-4923 www.PARTNEResi.com
Hector Talavera
Principal
Education
Bachelor of Science, Civil Engineering, Emphasis in Building Science, University of Southern California Registrations
ASTM E2018 Property Condition Assessment Training
Inspection Training Associates (ITA) Commercial Buildings Training Advanced Institute of Pest Technology (AIPT) Branch III Technical training (Pest Identification, Safety, and Construction Techniques)
MBA - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Multifamily Property Inspection Highlights
15 years of experience in the Environmental Consulting and Facility Management Industry 10 years of Project Management experience
Equity-level, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac PCA qualified.

Property Insurable Value Evaluations
HUD PML Assessments
Experience Summary
Mr. Talavera has 15 years of experience in the environmental consulting and in facility management industries. Mr. Talavera has several years of direct project management experience in the civil/structural engineering field, particularly in conducting property condition assessments, property condition evaluations, property needs assessments, and seismic evaluations. Mr. Talavera has served as a building assessor, project manager, and senior author on over thousands of real estate transactions.

Mr. Talavera has experience as a senior project manager in the building sciences/construction field. His background in building assessments allows him to provide complete and thorough assessments and evaluations to serve a client’s specific needs. In addition to providing consulting services, Mr. Talavera has conducted senior report reviewing and employee training in the building sciences department on a national scale.

Mr. Talavera has assisted in the development of a product called Property Condition Evaluations to meet equity transaction needs. A competent building engineer and assessor, Mr. Talavera often serves as the sole building assessor for Property Condition Assessments. When performing more in-depth evaluations, he serves as a project manager providing expert aggregation of specialty services within the field of building sciences.

Mr. Talavera has performed assessments on numerous commercial, multi-family and industrial facilities.

Most recently he has assessed several well-known properties, such as the Edgemar Mall by Frank Gehry, the New Otani Hotel in Los Angeles, and the Queen Seaport Development (the Queen Mary) in Long Beach.

Customizing unique report styles, Mr. Talavera has assisted the Culver City local government with the development of a specialized report to include over 30 municipal owned facilities consisting of city offices, fire and police stations, maintenance yards and pump stations. The objective of the portfolio was to assist Hector Talavera
2 | P a g e
the Public Works Department to develop a capital reserve budget for all deferred maintenance to all of their facilities.

Mr. Talavera is familiar with all standards of Due Diligence Property Assessments and the needs and requirements of a varied number of reporting standards, including the Property Condition Assessment ASTM E2018, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Property Insurable Value Evaluation and customized client formats or scopes. He has also senior authored Probable Maximum Loss (PML) Assessments, Property Condition Assessments, Property Condition Evaluations, HUD FEMA-310 PML Assessments, Property Inspection Reports, Structural Evaluations, and Alta Surveys.

Real estate investors, CMBS lenders, and real estate equity funds have come to rely on his advice and judgment to assist them with their real estate business decisions.

Prior to Partner, Mr. Talavera had several interesting career stops including: department manager of the building science division of a nationwide environmental due diligence company, facility manager trainee for three years on a 150,000 square foot transportation and air hub, and two as an assistant project engineer in the industrial engineering division assisting in building retrofitting and conveyor system installation project management.

In addition, Mr. Talavera has had direct experience in the environmental permitting process for a nationwide delivery company, which included the creation, implementation, and employee training of the following programs:
 Right to Know (RTK) Disclosure to employees
 Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP), Business Emergency Plan (BEP), and  Hazardous Materials Inventory Statements (HMIS)
 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
 Lockout/Tagout (LOTO) Plan
 Injury Illness Prevention Plan (IIPP)
Affiliations
Member, International Facility Management Association
Contact
[email protected]

800-419-4923 www.PARTNEResi.com
Mark Lambson
Principal
Education
Bachelor of Arts, Public Administration & Economics, San Diego State University Executive MBA Program, 2000-2003
Highlights
Over 20 years of experience in the environmental and engineering consulting industry Property Condition Assessments (PCAs)
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and HUD due diligence
Experience Summary
Mr. Lambson is a true veteran of the commercial real estate services industry. He has over 20 years of experience managing and performing environmental and engineering consulting projects on a national level. Mr. Lambson serves as a Principal for Partner and is located in Partner’s San Diego County office. Mr.

Lambson currently provides client management and consulting to a nationwide client base and specializes in advising “equity” clients during the acquisition phase of commercial property transactions in the U.S., Mexico, and Canada.

Mr. Lambson has assisted clients on over 10,000 commercial real estate transactions throughout his career.

His due diligence resume includes experience at all levels, and includes advising REITs, developers, property managers, retail companies, commercial real estate brokers, mortgage brokers, attorneys, lenders, universities, and real estate investment groups with the following nationwide services:
 Property Condition Assessments (PCAs)
 Individual Building System Inspections for Roof, Mechanical Electrical Plumbing (MEP), Elevator, Structure, Façade, and ADA/Accessibility
 Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs)
 Phase II Subsurface Investigations (Soil and groundwater sampling and analysis)  Phase III Environmental Remediation Services
 Asbestos, Lead, Radon, Mold Sampling
 Seismic and Structural Assessments (PMLs)
 Energy Audits, Benchmarking, AB1103 Energy Disclosure, and LEED-related services  Hydrology, Water Conservation and Efficiency
 Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac / HUD Due Diligence
 Geotechnical and Soils Reports
 Zoning Reports
 ALTA Surveys
Building Sciences
Property Condition Assessment, MEP Report, Roof Report, Elevator Report, Structural and Seismic Assessment for a high-profile Class A office campus acquisition in the San Francisco Bay Area ADA Compliance and Accessibility Reviews for a national bank branch portfolio Fannie Mae Property Condition / Physical Needs Assessment services for a 5400-unit multifamily portfolio in Nevada
Mark Lambson
2 | P a g e
Environmental Assessments
Phase I and Phase II Environmental Assessments for a 75-acre aerospace facility in the Northwest United States
Over 500 Phase I Environmental Site Assessments for a national fast-food chain Environmental consulting for over 1 million acres of desert land in California, Nevada, and Arizona Land Surveys
ALTA Surveys for 2400-unit apartment portfolio in the Midwest Multi-Site Portfolios
113-site office portfolio acquisition for a national REIT 122-site hotel portfolio for a national lending institution 55-site hotel portfolio acquisition for a private investment group 68-site healthcare portfolio acquisition for a national REIT 50-site country club/golf course acquisition for a private investment group Energy and Water Efficiency
Energy & Water consulting for a national property owner that operates and manages 30 retail and office centers on the West Coast and Texas
Affiliations
National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts (NAREIT) International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)
U.S Green Building Council (USGBC)
Society of Industrial and Office Realtors, San Diego County (SIOR) National Association of Industrial & Office Parks, Southern California (NAIOP) San Diego Habitat Conservancy, Board of Directors. 2010 - 2014 Speaking
Bisnow Conference, Panel Moderator, La Jolla, CA, October 2014. Moderated panel on Southern California Real Estate Trends.

Globestreet, ICSC Western States Conference, San Diego, CA May 2013. Video interview regarding retail real estate trends and due diligence.

Publications
Shopping Centers Today, 2010. Authored article on LEED applications for shopping centers and retail assets.

Contact
[email protected]
Basis of De sign
121 East Grand, San Francisco, CA
1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The 121 East Grand project is located in South San Francisco, California, between East Grand Avenue, Grand Avenue, and Poletti Way. The 17-story tower will contain approximately 837,000 gross square feet of life science lab and office space. There are an additional two levels below-grade totaling 210,000 gross square of car-stacker parking, as well as the amenity, lobby, retail, and exterior plaza area of approximately 107,000 gross square feet.

Figure 1: 3D Rendering of Project
The structural systems for the various building components are summarized below:

FOUNDATION
A geotechnical report prepared by Geocon dated March 1, 2021 is referenced for geotechnical and foundation recommendations. The soil conditions consist of medium to loose sand fill, bay mud with sandy clay, and clay and sand alluvium layers.

The lowest basement level is planned at 25 – 30 feet below grade. Below the lowest level, the foundation system consists of a 3-to-10-foot-thick mat foundation. The mat foundation bears on medium dense clayey sands, with a maximum bearing pressure of 5,000 psf for static loads. Lateral resistance is provided by passive resistance on the mat foundation and by shear friction on the underside of the mat.

Basis of De sign
121 East Grand, San Francisco, CA
2 The preliminary geotechnical report suggests ground water was encountered approximately 4 ½ to 16 feet below grade. Due to a deep planned excavation, tie down anchors will be required to resist hydrostatic uplift forces. Anchor size and spacing will vary across the site dependent upon the weight of the structure above.

GRAVITY FRAMING
The above-grade tower gravity framing consists of structural steel columns supporting composite steel beams and concrete slabs on steel deck. Level 1 and below-grade gravity framing is composed of mild reinforced concrete slabs, wide-shallow beams, and concrete columns. A summary of the floor gravity framing system is as follows:
◼ Typical lab/office levels: 3-1/4” LWC on 3” metal deck ◼ Level 1: 14” concrete slab with mild reinforcing with 26-in deep wide-shallow beams in the northsouth direction ◼ Below-grade parking levels: 10” concrete slabs with 24” deep wide-shallow beams in the northsouth direction

LATERAL FORCE-RESISTING SYSTEM
The lateral force-resisting system (LFRS) consists of Buckling Restrained Brace Frames (BRBF) around four cores. At the ground floor (the seismic base), the central cores transition to concrete shear walls which continue down to the mat foundation. Shear forces from the wing cores transfer through the ground level diaphragm to the basement walls while the corner columns supporting overturning forces continue to the foundation.

Figure 2: 3D View of Lateral Force-Resisting System
Basis of De sign
121 East Grand, San Francisco, CA
3 BUILDING CODES
The project is designed in accordance with the following building and material codes:

BUILDING CODE
◼ California State Building Code, 2019 Edition, references and amends the 2018 International Building Code, (IBC-2018) which references the American Society of Civil Engineers, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, 2016 Edition (ASCE 7-16).

MATERIAL CODES
◼ Reinforced Concrete: American Concrete Institute, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary, 2014 Edition (ACI 318-14).
◼ Structural Steel: American Institute of Steel Construction, Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, 2016 Edition (ANSI/AISC 360-16).
◼ Structural Steel: American Institute of Steel Construction, Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, 2016 Edition (ANSI/AISC 341-16).
◼ Reinforced Masonry: The Masonry Society, Building Code for Masonry Structures, 2016 Edition (TMS 402-16).

Basis of De sign
121 East Grand, San Francisco, CA
4 LOADING CRITERIA
A summary of the project-specific loading criteria follows. This loading meets or exceeds the requirements of the CBC and incorporates loading requirements specific to this project.

GRAVITY LOADING
The following loads are in addition to the self-weight of the structure. The minimum loading requirements have been taken from Table 4-1 of ASCE 7. For more detailed gravity loading assumptions, refer to the load maps included in the structural drawings. Live loads are reduced where permitted in accordance with Section 4-7 of ASCE 7. Loads are given in pounds per square foot (psf).

Table 1. Gravity Loads
Use Live Loading Superimposed Dead Loading
Corridors and Stairs 100 psf (not reduced) 15 psf
Light Storage 125 psf (not reduced) 10 psf
Loading Dock 250 psf (not reduced)
or HL-93
15 psf
Mechanical/Electrical 125 psf (not reduced) 10 psf
Assembly 100 psf (not reduced) 30 psf
Office 80 psf 10 psf
Lab 100 psf 10 psf
Outdoor Terraces 100 psf (not reduced) 60 psf
Parking (Garages) 100 psf (not reduced except for
columns)
5 psf
Roof 50 psf 25 psf
Stores (Retail) 100 psf + partitions 15 psf
In addition to these uniform slab loads, a perimeter dead load is applied to the structure to account for the weight of the cladding system.

Basis of De sign
121 East Grand, San Francisco, CA
5 Table 2. Cladding Loads
Load Type Load (psf)
Exterior Cladding (curtain wall) 15 psf (wall area)

WIND DESIGN CRITERIA
Wind loading is in accordance with the CBC and ASCE 7 requirements.

Table 3. Wind Design Criteria
Parameter Value
Basic Wind Speed, 3-second gust (V) 99 mph
Risk Category III
Exposure B
Enclosure Classification Enclosed
Internal Pressure Coefficient (GCpi) +/- 0.18
Mean Roof Height 262 ft

SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA
Seismic loads are in accordance with the CBC and ASCE 7 requirements.

Table 4. Seismic Design Criteria
Parameter Value
Building Latitude 37.655°N
Building Longitude 122.404°W
Risk Category III
Importance Factor (Ie) 1.25
Mapped Spectral Acceleration Ss = 1.946; S1 = 0.801
Site Class C
Site Class Coefficients Fa = 1.2; Fv = 1.4
Spectral Response Coefficients SDS = 1.557; SD1 = 0.801 Basis of De sign
121 East Grand, San Francisco, CA
6 Parameter Value
Seismic Design Category E
Lateral System Buckling-Restrained Braced Frames
Concrete Shear Walls
Response Modification Coefficient (R) 8 for BRBs and 5 for shear walls Deflection Amplification Factor (Cd) 5.0 for BRBs and shear walls Overstrength Factor (Ω0) 2.5 for BRBs and shear walls
Seismic Response Coefficient North-South: Cs = 0.086
East-West: Cs = 0.086
Design Base Shear North-South: V = 13,500 kips
East-West: V = 13,500 kips
Analysis Procedure Used Modal Analysis Procedure

MINIMUM LATERAL FORCE
A notional load equal to 1 percent of the building’s weight is considered as the minimum lateral design force for the building.

OWNER-SPECIFIED DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
The north and west portions of the floor plates are designed for lab space with vibration limits of 4,000 mips and 0.5% g. The office portions are additionally designed for future tenant flexibility with vibration limits of 16,000 mips and 0.5% g.

OCCUPANCY AND CONSTRUCTION TYPE
The occupancy classification is Mixed Use: Office and Parking. The construction type is Type 1A fire-resistive construction.

Basis of De sign
121 East Grand, San Francisco, CA
7 MATERIALS
The material properties used for the design include the following:

Table 5. Structural Steel Properties
Member Standard, Strength
Wide Flange Shapes ASTM A992, Fy = 50 ksi
ASTM A913, Fy = 50 ksi
Wide Flange Shapes Designated as 65 ksi ASTM A913, Fy = 65 ksi Tube Sections ASTM A500, Grade C,
Fy = 50 ksi (Rectangular)
Fy = 46 ksi (Round)
Pipe Sections ASTM A53, Type E or S, Grade B, Fy = 35 ksi Angle and Channel Sections ASTM A36, Fy = 36 ksi
Buckling-Restrained Brace Core Material ASTM A36, Fy,sc = 42 ksi (+/- 2 ksi) Miscellaneous Plates and Connection Material ASTM A572, Fy = 50 ksi ASTM A588, Fy = 50 ksi
Miscellaneous Plates and Connection Material Designated as 65 ksi ASTM A572, Fy = 65 ksi High-Strength Bolts
7/8" diameter and smaller
1" diameter and larger
ASTM A325
ASTM A490
Table 6. Concrete Properties
Member Strength*
Slab on Ground, Sidewalks, Curbs, Mechanical Pads f'c = 4.0 ksi Basement Walls, Footings f'c = 5.0 ksi
Mat Foundation f'c = 6.0 ksi at 56 days
Level 1 and below grade floor slabs and beams f'c = 5.0 ksi Composite Floor Slabs f'c = 4.0 ksi lightweight
Shear Walls f'c = 8.0 ksi at 56 days
*28-day strength, unless noted otherwise.

Basis of De sign
121 East Grand, San Francisco, CA
8 Table 7. Reinforcement and Post-Tensioning Properties Standard Strength
ASTM A615, Grade 60 fy =60 ksi
ASTM A615, Grade 80 fy =80 ksi
ASTM A706, Grade 60 fy =60 ksi
ASTM A706, Grade 80 fy =80 ksi
Basis of De sign
121 East Grand, San Francisco, CA
9 QUANTITIES
The following tables provide estimated building quantities:

Table 8. Steel Quantity Estimates
Structural Element Steel Estimate Notes
Floor beams and girders 12.0 psf (Roof)

16.0 psf (Typical levels)
Columns 3.0 psf
Buckling-restrained braces (BRBs) 16 in2 average core per level Level 1 to Roof Lateral columns and beams for
BRB frames
180 tons per level
70 tons per level
Level 1 to Roof
Foundation to Level 1
Table 9. Concrete Quantity Estimates
Structural Element Steel Estimate Notes
3 ¼” on 3” LWC metal deck 2.5 psf A615 GR 60
Mat foundation 300 pcy A615 GR 80 (T&B)
A615 GR 60 (Vert)
Basement walls 250 pcy A615 GR 60
Columns 525 pcy A615 GR 60 (Vert)
A615 GR 80 (Ties)
Composite concrete columns 500 pcy A706 GR 60 (Vert)
A615 GR 80 (Ties)
Beams 400 pcy A615 GR 60
Slabs 5.0 psf (Parking)

15.0 psf (Level 1)
A615 GR 60
Shear walls 500 pcy A706 GR 60 (H&V)
A615 GR 80 (Ties)
Built-up-slabs and topping slabs 2.5 psf
Hold down anchors 400 hold downs at podium
spaced at 10’-0” o.c.
100k capacity per hold down
with 20’-0” hold down length
Prepared for:

OCI San Fran LLC
P.O. Box 927729
San Diego, CA 92192

DRAFT PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE

ASSESSMENT
Site: 121 East Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, California 94080
Prepared by
Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.
1111 Broadway St., 6th Floor
Oakland, California 94607
Project Number: WR3122
April 2022
WR3122, South San Francisco, California 94080 ES-1 April 2022

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Executive Summary presents the results of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) performed by Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. (Geosyntec) for the property located at 121 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080 (the “Site”). This Phase I ESA was performed in accordance with the scope of work, terms, and conditions described in Geosyntec’s February 25, 2022 proposal. This Phase I ESA was performed in accordance with ASTM International (ASTM) Practice E1527-13. The objective of performing this Phase I ESA was to identify, to the extent feasible, “Recognized Environmental Conditions” (RECs) at the Site as the “REC” term is defined by ASTM E1527-13.

The Site is an approximately 2.91-acre property developed with one three-story hotel and associated courtyard areas owned by OCI San Fran LLC. The current building was constructed in 1986, totaling approximately 57,625 square feet. The current use of the Site is a Comfort Inn and Suites and associated paved parking area. Prior to the development of the Site in 1986, the Site was part of the Bethlehem Steel facility, a metal processing plant, that extended to the northeast and east of the Site. The Bethlehem Steel facility was present from at least 1903 to 1977. Between 1977 and 1982, the Bethlehem Steel facility was removed, and the Site was redeveloped. Historical Site features included a drainage feature from at least 1946 and filled in by 1956, two surface impoundments from at least 1968 and filled in by 1974, and a railroad spur that traversed the eastern portion of the Site from at least 1956 to 1980.

No water damage or mold issues were identified during the Site reconnaissance conducted during the preparation of this Phase I ESA.

The Phase I ESA performed by Geosyntec has revealed the following conditions as defined by ASTM:

Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs)
• No RECs were identified during the course of this assessment.

Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions (CRECs)
• No CRECs were identified during the course of this assessment.

Historical Recognized Environmental Condition (HREC)
• Historical Land Use Restriction: The Site and adjoining land to the northeast and east were historically occupied by Bethlehem Steel, a metal processing plant, from at least 1903 to 1977. Portions of the Bethlehem Steel facility to the northeast were identified as impacted with metals and polychlorinated biphenyls, and in 1984 a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (Covenant) was executed for the Site (identified as parcels 8A and 8B in the Covenant) and other parcels associated with the former Bethlehem Steel facility with the Department of Toxic Substances Control. The Covenant for the Site WR3122, South San Francisco, California 94080 ES-2 April 2022 and several other parcels and lots were rescinded in 2001. Therefore, this finding is an HREC for the Site.

De Minimis Conditions
• Historical On-Site and Adjoining Railroad Spur: A railroad spur traversed the eastern portion of the Site from at least 1956 to 1980 and a mass transit railroad has bordered the Site to the west since at least 1896. Railroads can be associated with the use of petroleum products, pesticides, and heavy metals, which may have impacted shallow soils at the Site.

However, because these uses cannot be ascertained, they are classified as a de minimis condition.

Business Environmental Risk
• A business environmental risk is defined by ASTM International Standard E1527-13 as a risk that can have a material environmental or environmentally-driven impact on the business associated with the current or planned use of the parcel or commercial real estate, not necessarily limited to those environmental issues required to be investigated in this practice. As discussed above, the Site was historically part of the former Bethlehem Steel property, and metals and polychlorinated biphenyl impacted soils and material were identified and remediated in other portions of the former Bethlehem Steel property. Land use restrictions associated with the remedial activities have been rescinded. Independent of contamination identified and remediated in association with the historical operations, a review of the aerial photographs indicates that a drainage feature and surface impoundments were present on the Site from at least 1943 to approximately 1974. No information was available regarding the use of the drainage feature or surface impoundments; however, artificial fill was identified on the Site during a geotechnical investigation conducted in 2017. The source of the fill material is unknown, and therefore there is the potential for residual contamination. In addition, current regulatory screening levels for evaluating hazardous materials are more stringent than when DTSC rescinded the Covenant. In support of proposed redevelopment activities, pre-characterization sampling for construction management purposes could evaluate the presence of residual chemicals that exceed current screening levels. With the proposed redevelopment of the Site that includes two to three levels of subterranean parking, it is likely that the soil excavation activities during construction would mitigate any remaining residual soil contamination. For this reason, the potential presence of residual chemicals has been identified as a BER.

Following the investigation, it appears that “data gaps” as defined by ASTM exist for the Site.

However, in Geosyntec’s opinion, none are considered to be significant with respect to the identification of additional RECs for the Site.

WR3122, South San Francisco, California 94080 i April 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................ES-1

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Purpose ....................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Scope of Services........................................................................................................ 1

1.3 Significant Assumptions.............................................................................................. 2

1.4 Limitations, Deviations, and Exceptions...................................................................... 2

1.5 Special Terms and Conditions..................................................................................... 2

1.6 User Reliance .............................................................................................................. 3

2. SITE DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Site Location and General Characteristics.................................................................... 3

2.2 Current and Former Uses of the Site............................................................................ 3

2.3 Current Use of Adjoining and Nearby Notable Properties............................................ 4

2.4 Physical Setting........................................................................................................... 5

2.4.1 Topography and Geology................................................................................. 5

2.4.2 Hydrology ....................................................................................................... 5

3. USER-PROVIDED INFORMATION.................................................................................. 6

3.1 Title Records............................................................................................................... 6

3.2 Environmental Liens or Activity and Use Limitations ................................................. 6

3.3 Specialized Knowledge ............................................................................................... 6

3.4 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information...................................... 6

3.5 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues............................................................ 6

3.6 Owner, Property Manager, and Occupant Information................................................. 7

3.7 Reason for Performing This Phase I ESA.................................................................... 7

3.8 Additional Information................................................................................................ 7

4. RECORDS REVIEW........................................................................................................... 8

4.1 Environmental Database Search .................................................................................. 8

4.1.1 Overview......................................................................................................... 8

4.1.2 Results – Site................................................................................................... 8

4.1.3 Results – Vicinity Sites.................................................................................... 9

4.1.4 Unplottable Properties................................................................................... 12

4.2 Historical Use Information ........................................................................................ 12

4.3 Property Tax Records................................................................................................ 14

4.4 Local, County, State, and Federal Files...................................................................... 14 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
WR3122, South San Francisco, California 94080 ii April 2022

4.4.1 Local Records................................................................................................ 14

4.4.1.1 San Mateo County Environmental Health Department ................................... 14

4.4.1.2 City of South San Francisco Fire Department ................................................ 14

4.4.1.3 City of South San Francisco Public Works Department.................................. 14

4.4.1.4 City of South San Francisco Building Department (CSSFBD) ....................... 14

4.4.1.5 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)............................... 15

4.4.2 State Records................................................................................................. 15

4.4.2.1 Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), San Francisco Bay Region ...................................................................................................................... 15

4.4.2.2 Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) – Region 2........................ 15

4.4.2.3 Cal Fire - Office of the State Fire Marshal ..................................................... 15

4.4.2.4 State of California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), GeoTracker Database..................................................................................... 15

4.4.2.5 State of California, DTSC, EnviroStor Database ............................................ 16

4.4.2.6 California Department of Conservation Geologic Energy Management Division Database.......................................................................................... 19

4.4.3 Federal Records............................................................................................. 20

4.5 Client- or Owner-Provided Environmental Assessment Documents........................... 20

5. SITE RECONNAISSANCE............................................................................................... 20

5.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions...................................................................... 20

5.2 Utility Service & Materials Management Provider Information................................. 21

5.3 Interior and Exterior Observations............................................................................. 21

5.4 Adjoining Property Reconnaissance .......................................................................... 23

6. INTERVIEWS................................................................................................................... 23

6.1 Interview with Current Owner/Occupant ................................................................... 23

6.2 Interview with Previous Owner/Occupant ................................................................. 24

6.3 Interview with Local Agencies.................................................................................. 24

7. FINDINGS, OPINIONS, AND DATA GAPS.................................................................... 24

7.1 Findings and Opinions............................................................................................... 24

7.2 Business Environmental Risk .................................................................................... 25

7.3 Data Gaps ................................................................................................................. 25

7.4 Non-Scope Considerations ........................................................................................ 26

7.4.1 Water Damage or Mold ................................................................................. 26

7.5 Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 26 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
WR3122, South San Francisco, California 94080 iii April 2022

8. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 27

9. SIGNATURE BY ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL............................................... 28 WR3122, South San Francisco, California 94080 iv April 2022

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Historical Records Review

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Location Map
Figure 2 Site Layout Map
Figure 3 Site Vicinity

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A User or Owner Provided Documents
Appendix B Radius Database Search Report and Historical Resources User Provided Information
Appendix C Agency Records
Appendix D Historical Records and Data
Appendix E Site Photographs
Appendix F Environmental Professional Resume
WR3122, South San Francisco, California 94080 1 April 2022

1. INTRODUCTION
Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. (Geosyntec) was retained on behalf of OCI San Fran LLC (the Client) to perform a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the property located at 121 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080 (the “Site”, Figure 1). The Site location, a recent layout, and Site vicinity are provided on the appended Figures.

1.1 Purpose
This Phase I ESA was conducted in general accordance with the scope and limitations of the guidance contained within the ASTM International (ASTM) Practice E1527-13. Deviations or exceptions to the guidance contained in the ASTM E1527-13 standard of practice are described in Section 1.4. The intent of Geosyntec’s effort is to provide the User with a Phase I ESA that includes a search for the existence of potential or known surface or subsurface environmental impacts at the Site. For the purposes of this Phase I ESA report, OCI San Fran LLC represents the “User,” defined as “the party seeking to use Practice E1527-13 to complete an environmental site assessment of the property…”
The Phase I ESA was conducted to identify, to the extent feasible, “Recognized Environmental Conditions1
” (RECs) at the Site, as the “REC” term is defined by ASTM E1527-13. This REC definition eliminates from consideration a number of conditions that could fall under the general definition of “environmental” issues and focuses the Phase I ESA on known or potential releases of hazardous substances and petroleum products that Geosyntec believes could have impacted the soil, groundwater, and/or soil vapor at the Site. Such conditions include radon, wetlands, etc.; unless in the case where these out of scope items are specifically included in the Client’s scope of work.

1.2 Scope of Services
Geosyntec was authorized by OCI San Fran LLC to conduct the scope of work specified in Geosyntec’s proposal on February 25, 2022. The Phase I ESA scope of work included: (i) review of pertinent information/documents provided by OCI San Fran LLC; (ii) review of environmental databases for the Site and in the vicinity of the Site pursuant to the ASTM E1527-13 Standard; (iii) review of historical land usage via historical aerial photographs, fire insurance maps (if available), city directories, topographic maps, and past reports on the Site, as available; (iv) a Site visit to perform a visual reconnaissance of the major Site features; and (v) a report. 1 As defined by ASTM E1527-13, a Recognized Environmental Condition is: “the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. De minimis conditions are not recognized environmental conditions.” WR3122, South San Francisco, California 94080 2 April 2022 This Phase I ESA was conducted under the supervision of Kimberly Brandt, Senior Geologist.

Under her direction and oversight, the Site visit was conducted on March 17, 2022 by Megan Ogburn and Kimberly Brandt, and the report was drafted by Megan Ogburn and Ryan Charney, peer reviewed by Maya Sederholm, and senior reviewed by Kimberly Brandt. Ms. Brandt is an “Environmental Professional” (as defined under the ASTM Practice E152713). The professional qualifications of the “Environmental Professional” above are presented in Appendix F.

1.3 Significant Assumptions
Except as may be noted in Geosyntec’s proposal, no significant assumptions were taken into account by Geosyntec as part of this project.

1.4 Limitations, Deviations, and Exceptions
This Phase I ESA was performed according to the agreed upon scope of work with OCI San Fran LLC consistent with the ASTM Practice E1527-13, except as follows:
• Due to time and scope limitations in preparing the Phase I ESA, no in-person file review was conducted with local, state, or federal agencies.
• Three elevator shafts are located on the northwest, northeast, and southeast corners of the building. Geosyntec was unable to observe the entirety of the elevator shafts. Geosyntec was also unable to access the mechanical rooms associated with two of the elevators and the interiors of the containers located in the parking lot on the northside of the Site. • Geosyntec was unable to identify contact information and did not interview former owners/operators of the Site.

This Phase I ESA contains a property description and history, an environmental database review, a summary of visual observations made during the Site reconnaissance, and descriptions of information obtained during interview(s) of person(s) knowledgeable with the Site. The findings and conclusions presented in this Phase I ESA are the result of professional interpretation of the information collected at the time of this study. The Phase I ESA does not necessarily include an exhaustive search of all available records, nor does it include detailed assessment of all Phase I ESA findings. Therefore, Geosyntec cannot “certify” or guarantee that any property is free of environmental impairment; no warranties regarding the environmental quality of the property are expressed or implied.

1.5 Special Terms and Conditions
Except as may be noted in Geosyntec’s proposal, no special contractual terms or conditions were taken into account as part of this project.

WR3122, South San Francisco, California 94080 3 April 2022

1.6 User Reliance
This Phase I ESA report has been prepared solely for the benefit of Geosyntec’s Client, OCI San Fran LLC and its subsidiaries and affiliated entities. Except as specifically set forth in Geosyntec’s proposal to Client to perform this work, no other party shall have the right to rely on Geosyntec’s opinions rendered in connection with the Services without Geosyntec’s written consent which may be conditioned on the third party’s agreement to be bound to acceptable conditions and limitations similar to this Agreement. Please note that Geosyntec’s consent to provide a right-to-rely on this report is subject to Client’s approval and to agreement to Geosyntec’s terms and conditions associated with Geosyntec’s performance of this specific scope of work.

2. SITE DESCRIPTION
This section provides a description of the key characteristics of the Site. This description is derived from information provided by the Client and information gathered during the reconnaissance unless referenced otherwise.

2.1 Site Location and General Characteristics
According to the San Mateo County Assessor’s Office, the Site consists of San Mateo County Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 015024230, which encompasses approximately 2.91 acres. The Site is located southeast of Poletti Way and between East Grand Avenue (south of the Site) and East Grand Avenue (north of the Site) in South San Francisco, California (see Figures 1 & 2). The Site is currently owned by OCI San Fran, LLC. General vicinity use consists primarily of commercial and industrial properties. The Site is accessed from East Grand Avenue (south of the Site) or from Poletti Way (northwest of the Site). The Site location and layout are shown on the Figures.

A legal description of the Site was provided to Geosyntec within the Preliminary Report dated September 10, 2020 prepared for the Site by First American Title Insurance Company National Commercial Services (see Appendix A, Preliminary Report). Based on a review of historical resources and parcel information, the full legal address for the Site is 121 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California. Current tax parcel/map information is provided in Appendix C.

2.2 Current and Former Uses of the Site
The Site is developed with one three-story hotel and associated courtyard areas (see Figure 2). The hotel building with an approximately 57,623-square-foot footprint, was constructed in 1986, according to the San Mateo County Assessor’s Office. Remaining areas of the Site consist of paved parking and landscaped areas.

Based on a review of historic topographic maps, the Site consisted of a small structure on the western side of the Site from at least 1896 to 1899. Based on a review of additional historical WR3122, South San Francisco, California 94080 4 April 2022 resources, including historical aerial photos, the Site appeared mostly undeveloped, with an unimproved road passing through the southeast corner of the Site from at least 1930 to 1946. By 1946, a drainage feature was observed in the center of the Site. By 1956, the drainage feature was no longer observed, and a rail spur was added parallel to the improved road and the land east of the road paved; infrastructure/equipment extended onto the Site from the structure north of the Site until removed by 1968; and a small structure was observed in the western corner of the Site. By 1968, two man-made surface impoundments were present in the center of the Site. In aerial photographs the Site appeared to be graded in 1974 and 1982. By 1982, the eastern road, rail spur, and paved area were removed. By 1993, the small structure in the western corner of the Site was removed, and the current on-Site building and associated parking lot was observed. The Site was first listed as Comfort Suites in the 1996 city directory. By 2006, the Site was listed as Comfort Suites and Paramount Hospitality Management, by 2012 as Comfort Inn-Airport North, and by 2016 as Comfort Inn.

2.3 Current Use of Adjoining and Nearby Notable Properties The vicinity is currently a mix of commercial, industrial, and manufacturing, including offices, retail, and biotechnology research/laboratories (see Figure 3). Current uses are summarized below:
• Northwest: Poletti Way followed by railroad tracks, East Grand Avenue, Dubuque Avenue, Bayshore Freeway, Airport Boulevard, and Cadence Apartments (400 Cypress Avenue); • North: Poletti Way followed by railroad tracks, East Grand Avenue, a vacant lot, and an electrical power station (590 Dubuque Avenue);
• Northeast: East Grand Avenue followed by Audentes Therapeutics and DistributedBio (225 Gateway Boulevard) and Astellas Gene Therapies (201 Gateway Boulevard); • East: Intersection of East Grand Avenue and East Grand Avenue and then Embassy Suites by Hilton (250 Gateway Boulevard);
• Southeast: East Grand Avenue followed by Jack Drago Park (130 Grand Avenue), a substation (183 Gateway Boulevard), and multi-tenant retail (190 E Grand Avenue); • South: East Grand Avenue followed by Prologis and Balfour Beatty (100 East Grand Avenue), Max’s Bakery and Kitchen (120 East Grand Avenue), and a vacant building (130 East Grand Avenue);
• Southwest: Poletti Way followed by rail tracks, Bayshore Freeway, a building under construction (214-178 Airport Boulevard), and Altitude Apartments (150 Airport Boulevard); and
• West: Poletti Way followed by rail tracks, East Grand Avenue, Bayshore Freeway, Airport Boulevard, Pinefino Apartments (100 Baden Avenue), 76/Circle K (221 Airport WR3122, South San Francisco, California 94080 5 April 2022 Boulevard), Peet’s Coffee (102 Grand Avenue), Furniture & Mattress Liquidators (305 Airport Boulevard), and Cadence Apartments (398 Cypress Avenue).

2.4 Physical Setting

2.4.1 Topography and Geology
The Site is depicted on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle map, San Francisco South, CA. Geosyntec obtained a physical setting report for the area of the Site from Environmental Risk Information Services (ERIS). According to the ERIS report (see Appendix B; ERIS, 2022), the Site has an elevation of approximately 18 feet above mean sea level with a regional decreasing topographic gradient to the southeast. The ERIS report identified Site soils as well-drained urban land – Orthents, and Site geology as Pliocene to Holocene Quaternary alluvium and marine deposits.

2.4.2 Hydrology
According to the USGS quadrangle map, the nearest surface water bodies are Colma Creek (an unlined drainage feature that runs east, south, then east in the vicinity of the Site) approximately

0.4-mile south of the Site, Oyster Point Channel (an extension of San Francisco Bay with piers and harbors) approximately 0.8-mile northeast of the Site, and San Bruno Channel (an extension of San Francisco Bay) approximately 1.4 miles east of the Site.

According to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, no wetlands are located on the Site. The Site is located in an area of minimal flood hazard as indicated on the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map for the Site.

According to a geotechnical investigation report prepared by Geocon Consultants, Inc. (Geocon, 2017) for the Site, described in Section 4.5, first groundwater was encountered at depths between

4.5 and 8 feet below ground surface (feet bgs); however, Geocon noted that actual groundwater levels fluctuate seasonally and with variations in rainfall, temperature, and other factors. Geocon did not conclude what direction groundwater flows at the Site (Geocon, 2017). According to the March 2021 Semi-Annual Multimedia Sampling Report, Associated Road Parcel, 0 Associated Road, South San Francisco, California dated April 20, 2021 prepared by Ramboll US Consulting, Inc. (Ramboll) for a property at 0 Associated Road (approximately 500 feet south-southwest of the Site), between 2009 and 2021, first groundwater was encountered at depths between 5.30 and

10.68 feet below ground surface feet bgs and consistently flowed to the southeast, toward San Bruno Channel (Ramboll US Consulting, Inc., 2021). This multi-media sampling report was obtained from the California State Water Resource Control Board’s GeoTracker database (GeoTracker Database).

ERIS conducted a search of federal and state water well databases within one mile of the Site (see Appendix B, ERIS, 2022). ERIS identified over 1,000 water well records within one mile of the WR3122, South San Francisco, California 94080 6 April 2022 Site. Two of the listings were identified in the Public Water Systems Violations and Enforcement database and were located over 0.5 miles north-northwest of the Site; no further information on these wells was identified. The nearest reported water well record is associated with the California Department of Water Resources and is reported approximately 162 feet west of the Site. The depth and construction details of the wells and the depth of groundwater could not be obtained from the provided records. Geosyntec identified a current Public Sampling Point for groundwater monitoring/vapor at 580 Dubuque Avenue, approximately 300 feet from the Site (San Mateo County [SMCo] Health Environmental Health Services, 2021). These wells are associated with a pumping test for future dewatering at this location.

3. USER-PROVIDED INFORMATION
This section describes the information provided to Geosyntec by OCI San Fran LLC (the User of this Phase I ESA). Per ASTM E1527-13, a User Questionnaire was provided to the User to inquire about specialized information related to the Site which was completed and returned to Geosyntec (see Appendix A).

3.1 Title Records
Geosyntec was provided with a Preliminary Report dated September 10, 2020 prepared for the Site by First American Title Insurance Company National Commercial Services. Review of the title report did not identify environmental conditions associated with the Site.

3.2 Environmental Liens or Activity and Use Limitations The User was not aware of records of liens or activity and use limitations for the Site.

3.3 Specialized Knowledge
The User did not have specialized knowledge of environmental conditions on the Site.

3.4 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information The User was not aware of commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information (as defined in USEPA All Appropriate Inquiries [AAI]) regarding the Site.

3.5 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues
The User was not aware of the valuation of the Site having been reduced or otherwise impacted by environmental issues (as defined in AAI) at the Site.

WR3122, South San Francisco, California 94080 7 April 2022

3.6 Owner, Property Manager, and Occupant Information
For this Phase I ESA, the User supplied Geosyntec with the following contact for the Site: Tonette Tamayo, General Manager, Comfort Inn & Suites SFO Airport North (CA801). Ms. Tamayo provided Geosyntec with access to the Site.

3.7 Reason for Performing This Phase I ESA
Geosyntec understands that the Client engaged Geosyntec to perform this Phase I ESA for the Site to identify “Recognized Environmental Conditions” (as defined in ASTM E1527-13) and potential environmental liabilities associated with the Site in preparation for purchasing the Site.

3.8 Additional Information
The User provided Geosyntec with several documents related to assessments previously prepared for the Site, including the following:
• Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, San Francisco Bay Development, 121 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080 dated June 11, 2020 prepared for Phase 3 Properties, Inc. by Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. (Partner).

At the time of their investigation, Partner did not have any significant findings in the form of a REC, HREC, CREC, or environmental issue. Pertinent features at the Site were the four buildings plus a storage shed, spa, concrete-paved patios and walkways, asphalt-paved parking areas, and landscaped areas. They identified that the Site is designated for commercial development by the City of South San Francisco. In their search of city directories, they found that the Site was occupied by Prime Sou in 1987, Bay City Hospitality Inc. and Comfort Suite in 2005, and Comfort Suites in 2010 and 2014.

In their database search, Partner identified that the Site was listed on Hazardous Waste Tracking System (HWTS) and Waste Manifest Data (HAZNET) databases in 1997 because “0.23 tons of waste oil and mixed oil were transported to an offsite disposal facility.” They did not find this was a significant environmental concern.

Partner identified two ponds on the Site in the 1963 and 1968 aerial photographs. They concluded that the ponds are not a significant environmental concern, stating that, “It is possible that the ponds were present at the property for sixteen years from 1957 to 1973.

Based on the length of time since the ponds were present (at least 39 years), any potential contamination resulting from the ponds is likely to have degraded due to natural attenuation. Also, it is likely that the surface soils at the property were removed, graded, and covered with engineered fill during the construction of the current buildings.” WR3122, South San Francisco, California 94080 8 April 2022 • Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Mixed-Use Development, 121 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California dated June 30, 2017 prepared for OCI San Fran LLC by Geocon Consultants, Inc.;
• Seismic Risk Assessment, San Francisco Bay Development, 121 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080 dated June 8, 2020 prepared for Phase 3 Properties, Inc. by Partner Engineering & Science, Inc.;
• Zoning Report, Comfort Inn & Suites, 121 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080 dated July 2, 2020 prepared for OCI San Fran LLC by National Due Diligence Services a Division of American Surveying and Mapping, Inc.; and • Several as-built and site plan figures associated with the Site.

Copies of the pertinent documents with respect to the environmental condition of the Site are included in Appendix A.

4. RECORDS REVIEW
Geosyntec’s records review consisted of the following, to the extent available and reasonably ascertainable within the timeframe of the report preparation: i) review of identified federal, state, and local environmental databases; ii) review of historical aerial photographs; iii) review of historical topographic maps; iv) review of city directories; v) review of select public and Client/owner-provided records related to environmental matters; and vi) review of available property tax information.

4.1 Environmental Database Search

4.1.1 Overview
Geosyntec contracted with ERIS to provide portions of the records reviewed as described below.

The environmental database search was performed by ERIS in an attempt to ascertain whether the Site or neighboring properties were suspected of having environmental conditions that could have impacted the surface or subsurface at the Site. Specific records and search distances (from the approximate Site boundaries) for the environmental databases were reported by ERIS to be consistent with ASTM Practice E1527-13 and are discussed in the ERIS Database Report (presented in Appendix B). Database descriptions are also included in the ERIS report. Relevant results for the Site and vicinity are discussed in the following sections.

4.1.2 Results – Site
The Site was identified by ERIS under one listing, described below:
• Comfort Suites Hotel is listed on the HAZNET database. The documented wastes associated with the property in 1997 include waste oil and mixed oil.

WR3122, South San Francisco, California 94080 9 April 2022

4.1.3 Results – Vicinity Sites
ERIS identified numerous sites (located within 1/8 miles or projected to be upgradient of the Site) in databases potentially indicative of release (e.g., leaking underground storage tanks, cleanup sites) or in a database indicative of solid waste disposal (SWF/LF) or land use concerns (e.g., historical military sites). Of these, the following were considered to have at least a moderate potential to have impacted the soil, groundwater, and/or soil vapor at the Site:
• South San Francisco Fire Department/Pony Express Corporation/Pony Express Courier Container/Somerset Studios at 110 E. Grand Avenue and 108 Sylvester Road, adjoining the Site approximately 70 feet to the south and hydraulically downgradient of the Site.

These properties were identified on the California Hazardous Material Incident Report System (CHMIRS), San Mateo Local Oversight Program List (LOP SANMATEO), and Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) databases (among others). A diesel tank on a big rig spilled 30 gallons which were cleaned up by the Fire Department in 1997. Based on the cleanup by the Fire Department, this incident is not anticipated to have adversely impacted the Site.

The property also had a reported release of gasoline from an Underground Storage Tank (UST) in 1988 with soil impacted. ERIS indicated that the Site has been completed and closed as of March 16, 2000 as referenced on the GeoTracker Cleanup Sites database.

Review of the GeoTracker database did not identify readily available analytical data. Based on the soil only impacts, the reported closure in 2000, and hydraulically downgradient location of this property, this property is not anticipated to have adversely impacted the Site.
• Homart Development Corp./Bethlehem Steel at 801 Gateway Boulevard and 430 Industrial Way, historically occupied the Site and the property to the northeast and east of the Site.

This property was identified on the EnviroStor database (among others). This property is further discussed in Section 4.4.2.
• Ryder Truck Rental/Olympian/1X Olympian/Paper Transport/Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) East Grand Substation at 122 and 186 E. Grand Avenue, adjoining the Site approximately 90 feet to the southwest and hydraulically downgradient of the Site. This property was identified on the Underground Storage Tank Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System (UST SWEEPS), LUST, GeoTracker, and LOP SANMATEO databases (among others). This property is further discussed in Section 4.4.2. • Union Pacific Property/Southern Pacific Option Property/Bressie & Company at 0, 500, 600-700, and 600-790 Dubuque Avenue, and Dubuque Avenue adjoining the Site approximately 210 feet to the northwest and hydraulically upgradient or cross-gradient of the Site. This property was identified on the GeoTracker, Voluntary Cleanup Program WR3122, South San Francisco, California 94080 10 April 2022 (VCP), EnviroStor, UST CLOSURE, LOP SANMATEO, CLEANUP SITES, and LUST databases (among others). This property is further discussed in Section 4.4.2. • Fibrogen Corporation/Brittania Gateway/CBRE-Britannia Gateway II, LP/Charles River Laboratories/And others at 225 Gateway Boulevard, adjoining the Site approximately 120 feet to the northeast and hydraulically cross-gradient of the Site. This property was identified on the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Large Quantity Generator (RCRA LQG), GeoTracker, and RCRA non-Corrective Action (CORRACTS) Treatment Storage and Disposal (TSD) Facility (RCRA TSD) databases (among others).

This property is further discussed in Section 4.4.2.
• Associated Road Parcel at 0 Associated Road, approximately 400 feet south and hydraulically downgradient of the Site. This property was identified on the CLEANUP SITES database. Additional documents were reviewed and discussed in Section 4.4.2. • Caltrans Maintenance Station/Caltrans District 4/Caltrans Maintenance STA-SSF/S San Francisco at 296 Airport Boulevard, adjoining the Site approximately 550 feet to the southwest and hydraulically downgradient or cross-gradient of the Site. This property was identified on the LOP SANMATEO, RCRA Small Quantity Generator (RCRA SQG), LUST, and Historical Hazardous Substance Storage Container Information (HIST TANK) databases (among others). Additional documents were reviewed and are discussed in Section 4.4.2.
• South City Ford/90645/Chevron 9-0645/Al Ames Chevron Service/South City Ford Service Center, collectively Airport Boulevard Properties, at 309, 315, 401, 411, and 421 Airport Boulevard, as well as 401 and 407 Cypress Avenue and 216 Miller Avenue, adjoining the Site approximately 600 feet to the west and hydraulically upgradient of the Site. This property was identified on the LUST, Certified Unified Program Agency San Mateo (CUPA SANMATEO), HIST TANK and RCRA SQG databases. Additional documents were reviewed and are discussed in Section 4.4.2.

Geosyntec reviewed the State of California, SWRCB GeoTracker database for information regarding closed cases of LUSTs. Records were on file for vicinity properties but not for the Site.

The search identified 16 properties within approximately one-half mile that could be hydraulically upgradient or cross-gradient. Based on their reported closures with regulatory agencies, they are WR3122, South San Francisco, California 94080 11 April 2022 not anticipated to have adversely impacted the Site, and are therefore they are listed below, but not independently reviewed.
• Housing Construction; 821 Cypress, South San Francisco, CA 94080; approximately 1,800 feet north.
• Price Company; 479 Airport Boulevard S, South San Francisco, CA 94080; approximately 1,300 feet north.
• Rollin J. Lobaugh; 930 Linden, South San Francisco, CA 94080; approximately 2,300 feet north.
• Patel Property; 720 Cypress, South San Francisco, CA 94080; approximately 1,350 feet north.
• Texaco South City (INDEP); 905 Linden, South San Francisco, CA 94080; approximately 2,550 feet northwest.
• Lonati Properties; 900 Linden, South San Francisco, CA 94080; approximately 2,400 feet northwest.
• Liberty Market; 812 Linden, South San Francisco, CA 94080; approximately 2,050 feet northwest.
• Volonte Automotive; 616 Linden, South San Francisco, CA 94080; approximately 1,350 feet northwest.
• Shell; 515 South Airport Boulevard, South San Francisco, CA 94080; approximately 850 feet northwest.
• Blandini Trust; 545 Airport Boulevard, South San Francisco, CA 94080; approximately 700 feet northwest.
• Olympic Auto Service; 401 Linden, South San Francisco, CA 94080; approximately 1,400 feet west.
• Galli’s Bakery; 324 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080; approximately 1,500 feet west.
• Unocal Station; 221 Airport Boulevard, South San Francisco, CA 94080; approximately 750 feet west.
• Pierce Trucking; 201 South Linden Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080; approximately 1,500 feet west.
• Airport Boulevard Service Station; 190 Airport Boulevard, South San Francisco, CA 94080; approximately 850 feet southwest.

WR3122, South San Francisco, California 94080 12 April 2022

4.1.4 Unplottable Properties
ERIS identified 20 “unplottable sites” which could not be mapped by ERIS due to the lack of sufficient address information. Geosyntec attempted to identify the relative location of these sites.

Listings were either incorporated into previously discussed pertinent sites or identified as not being associated with the Site. Based on information reviewed, in Geosyntec’s opinion, these listings are unlikely to have adversely impacted the Site.

4.2 Historical Use Information
Geosyntec contracted ERIS to provide standard historical records, including aerial photographs, topographic maps, fire insurance maps, and city directories. The following documents were provided to Geosyntec for review and are included in Appendix B:
• Historical aerial photographs – 1930, 1941, 1946, 1956, 1960, 1968, 1974, 1982, 1993, 2000, 2005, 2006, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020; • Historical topographic maps – 1896, 1899, 1915, 1939, 1947, 1950, 1956, 1968, 1973, 1980, 1995, 1996 and 2015;
• Fire insurance maps – no information was found for the Site or adjacent properties; and • City directories – 1961, 1966, 1970, 1977, 1982, 1987, 1991, 1996, 2001, 2006, 2012, 2016 and 2020.

A summary of the findings from the review of the historical sources is provided in Table 1 and is summarized below:
• Site – By 1896 and through at least 1899, a small structure was depicted on topographic maps on the western side of the Site. By 1930, an unimproved road was observed in aerial photographs passing through the southeast corner of the Site. By 1947, the road was depicted on a topographic map as improved. A drainage feature was observed in the Site center by 1946 which was not observed by 1956. Two man-made surface impoundments were observed in the Site center by 1968. By 1956, a rail spur was added parallel to the improved road (present through at least 1980) and the land east of the road paved; infrastructure/equipment extended onto the Site from the structure north of the Site until removed by 1968; a small structure was observed in the western corner of the Site which remained until construction of the hotel by 1993. In aerial photographs the soil was observed as graded in 1974 and 1982. By 1982, the eastern road, rail spur and paved area were removed. By 1993, the on-Site building and associated parking lot were observed.

The Site was first listed as Comfort Suites in the 1996 city directory. By 2006, the Site was listed as Comfort Suites and Paramount Hospitality Management, by 2012 as Comfort InnAirport North, and by 2016 as Comfort Inn.

WR3122, South San Francisco, California 94080 13 April 2022 • Surrounding vicinity – By 1896, the Southern Pacific Railroad ran northeast-southwest and east-west within approximately 0.125 miles to west and approximately 0.25 miles to south of the Site. A road ran along the southern border of the Site, immediately north of the San Bruno Canal and San Francisco Bay. A collection of roads and small structures were observed west of the railroad which increased in quantity by 1915. Also by 1915, the Southern Pacific Railroad moves to border the western side of the Site and a spur extends around the peninsula. By 1930, the surrounding land is used industrially, with various large structures observed within approximately 500 feet of the Site. The Bayshore Highway was observed running north-south approximately 400 feet west of the Site. By 1939, a railway was added running east-west across the road from the southern border of the Site. The Bay was filled to the south such that marsh was present within approximately 0.125 miles of the Site; the Bay was then observed within approximately 0.5 miles southeast of the Site.

The density of structures west of the freeway increased in 1930, 1939, and 1941. By 1946, a storage yard was observed in aerial photographs within approximately 250 feet of the Site. By 1947, the road south of the Site was developed into a secondary highway, the Bayshore Highway was expanded, and a train station was added to the Southern Pacific Railroad. By 1956, the marsh was filled in such that only a small strip lies to southeast within approximately 0.125 miles and Colma Creek was delineated approximately 2000 feet south of the Site. The storage yard was expanded onto the Site and the surrounding area was developed with large structures to the south, east, and north of the Site. By 1968, further commercial/industrial structures were observed in the surrounding area and the peninsula expands into the San Bruno Canal and San Francisco Bay between Oyster and San Bruno points approximately 1 mile from the Site. In 1974 the structure immediately north of the Site was no longer present. By 1980, a freeway interchange was observed connecting Bayshore Freeway with Interstate 380. By 1993, a highway off-ramp was constructed immediately west and north of the Site such that the Site was surrounded by roads on all sides. City directories list the surrounding properties as commercial, industrial, and manufacturing, including architecture/construction firms, offices, retail, auto shops, chemical, biotechnology research/laboratories, petroleum-related businesses, etc. By 2000, the surrounding areas were developed and appeared similar to present day. Pertinent entities include Stryco Manufacturing Co. (bandsaw welder manufacturer at 129 Sylvester Road; 1982-1987), M&T Chemicals Inc. (producer of chemicals, pesticides, petroleum products at 270 E Grand Avenue; 1966-1982), Pressed & Welded Products (steel company at 216 E Grand Avenue; 1977-1982), and Southern Pacific Depot (railway and train station; 1961-1966).

In summary, the review of aerial photographs, topographic maps, and city directories indicated the Site vicinity historically consisted of manufacturing and industrial operations as well as railroads since at least the late 1800s. There was possible usages indicative of hazardous materials/chemical storage, management/usage, or disposal at the Site that could pose a threat to the soil, groundwater, and/or soil vapor quality at the Site as identified in aerial photographs from 1946 and 1968. Prior WR3122, South San Francisco, California 94080 14 April 2022 investigation activities associated with the Site and/or historical operations are further described in Section 4.1.3 and 4.4.2.

4.3 Property Tax Records
Based on information provided by the San Mateo County Assessor’s Office, the Site address is identified as APN 015024230 (address identified as 121 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California) and owned by OCI San Fran LLC. The Site consists of 2.91 acres improved with a three-story, 57,623 square foot hotel constructed in 1986. The retrieved tax map parcel information is provided in Appendix C of this report.

4.4 Local, County, State, and Federal Files
Geosyntec searched local, county, state, and federal agencies’ online databases to search for records regarding the Site. In addition, Geosyntec contracted with Environmental Support Services (ESS) to contact local and state agencies to request and obtain available current or previous documentation of hazardous materials use, storage, and/or unauthorized releases associated with the Site, as readily available. The information ESS received from the agencies is provided in Appendix C. Relevant information is summarized below.

4.4.1 Local Records

4.4.1.1 San Mateo County Environmental Health Department ESS requested records from the County Environmental Health Department on February 11, 2022.

The County responded on February 16, 2022 stating that they had no records for the Site.

4.4.1.2 City of South San Francisco Fire Department
ESS requested records from the Fire Department on February 11, 2022. The Fire Department responded on February 17, 2022 stating that they had no records for the Site.

4.4.1.3 City of South San Francisco Public Works Department ESS requested records from the City Public Works Department on February 11, 2022. The Public Works Department responded on February 22, 2022 stating that they had no records for the Site.

4.4.1.4 City of South San Francisco Building Department (CSSFBD) ESS requested records from the City Building Department on February 11, 2022. The Building Department identified records for the Site and responded on February 18, 2022. By 1985, the Site was associated with address 121 East Grand Ave, when the Site was developed into the existing hotel. A Certificate of Occupancy from 1986 lists the owner as R. P. Warmington Company. A Certificate of Occupancy from 1987 lists the owner as Prime South San Francisco. The CSSFBD identified many permits and inspections, of which Geosyntec attempted to review representative WR3122, South San Francisco, California 94080 15 April 2022 permits and inspections. These documents generally appeared to be related to renovations, elevator inspections, electrical, and plumbing-type work (see Appendix C).

4.4.1.5 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) ESS requested records from BAAQMD on February 11, 2022. BAAQMD responded on February 18, 2022 stating that they had no records for the Site.

4.4.2 State Records

4.4.2.1 Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), San Francisco Bay Region ESS requested records from SFB-RWQCB on February 11, 2022. SFB-RWQCB responded on February 18, 2022 stating that they had no records for the Site, and that the lead agency is San Mateo County Environmental Health Department.

ESS requested records for pertinent surrounding properties on March 30, 2022. SFB-RWQCB identified State Water Control Board Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS) records and responded on April 7, 2022. In 2018, 201 Gateway Boulevard and 1000 Gateway Boulevard both issued a Notice of Intent general permit to discharge storm water associated with construction activity (see Appendix C). The 1000 Gateway Boulevard file also includes a risk assessment stating that the site sediment risk factor is low.

4.4.2.2 Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) – Region 2 ESS requested records from DTSC on February 11, 2022. DTSC responded on February 16, 2022 stating that they had no records for the Site.

4.4.2.3 Cal Fire - Office of the State Fire Marshal
ESS requested records from the State Fire Marshal on February 11, 2022. On February 24, 2022 the State Fire Marshal requested an extension to March 9, 2022. The State Fire Marshal responded on March 3, 2022 stating that they had no records for the Site.

4.4.2.4 State of California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), GeoTracker Database
Geosyntec reviewed the State of California Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker database for additional information regarding the Site and adjacent properties between March 11 and 21, 2022. Records were on file for vicinity properties but not for the Site. These records are summarized below.
• Ryder Truck Rental/Olympian/1X Olympian/Paper Transport/PG&E East Grand Substation at 122 and 186 E Grand Avenue, adjoining the Site approximately 90 feet to the southwest and hydraulically downgradient of the Site. This property had a reported release of gasoline from a UST to groundwater in 1990. ERIS indicated that the Site has been WR3122, South San Francisco, California 94080 16 April 2022 completed and closed as of February 23, 1996 as referenced on the GeoTracker Cleanup Sites database. Due to the reported closure and the hydraulically downgradient location of this property, this property is not anticipated to have adversely impacted the Site. • Fibrogen Corporation/Brittania Gateway/CBRE-Britannia Gateway II, LP/Charles River Laboratories/And others at 225 Gateway Boulevard, adjoining the Site approximately 120 feet to the northeast and hydraulically cross-gradient of the Site. Soil samples were collected and analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in 1997; VOCs were not detected in either the soil or groundwater samples. However, two metals were detected at or above maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for drinking water: arsenic in groundwater at a concentration of 0.05 milligrams per liter (mg/L; the maximum contaminant level [MCL] is 10 µg/L) and barium at 1.0 mg/L (MCL is 1.0 mg/L). A soil boring in the southwest corner of the property identified lead in soil at a concentration of 250 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), below the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (Water Board’s) Environmental Screening Level (2019, rev. 2) for commercial land use of 320 mg/kg for cancer risk. Based on the analytical results reported and the hydraulically cross-gradient location of this property, this property is not anticipated to have adversely impacted the Site.
• Caltrans Maintenance Station/Caltrans District 4/Caltrans Maintenance STA-SSF/S San Francisco at 296 Airport Boulevard, adjoining the Site approximately 550 feet to the southwest and hydraulically downgradient or cross-gradient of the Site. This property had two 2,000-gallon USTs containing gasoline and diesel associated with a past Caltrans station. The tanks were removed, and impacted soil excavated and removed from the property (TEC Environmental, 2012). Due to the reported case closure and the hydraulically downgradient or cross-gradient located of this property, this property is not anticipated to have adversely impacted the Site.

4.4.2.5 State of California, DTSC, EnviroStor Database
Geosyntec reviewed the State of California, DTSC EnviroStor database for additional information regarding the Site and the adjacent properties between March 11 and 21, 2022. Listings for Union Pacific Property on Dubuque Avenue and Airport Boulevard Properties on Airport Boulevard were identified. The pertinent records are summarized below and included in Appendix D. • Union Pacific Property/Southern Pacific Option Property/Bressie & Company at 0, 500, 600-700, and 600-790 Dubuque Avenue, and Dubuque Avenue adjoining the Site approximately 210 feet to the northwest and hydraulically upgradient or cross-gradient of the Site. Union Pacific RR operated at this location from the 1940s onward and was later split between an improved retail building and land owned by the City of South San Francisco.

WR3122, South San Francisco, California 94080 17 April 2022 In 2017, AllWest Environmental conducted a Phase I ESA that identified an REC of “the potential presence of undocumented bay fill material, associated chemicals that may have been used for dust suppression and weed control along the rail lines including pesticides, herbicides, petroleum hydrocarbons, and toxic preservatives that were used on the wooden rail ties” (Langan, 2021). Between September 21 and 23, 2020 Langan collected groundwater samples which revealed the following:
o Groundwater was measured at the property between 5.5 feet bgs and 11 feet bgs. o Tetrachloroethene (PCE) was detected at a concentration of 0.42 micrograms per liter (µg/L) in boring E1. This is below its MCL for PCE of 5.0 µg/L. o Mercury was detected at a concentration of 0.067 µg/L in boring E8 which is below its MCL of 2.0 µg/L.
o Arsenic was detected in groundwater at both borings E1 and E8 at concentrations of 1.7 and 1.4 µg/L, respectively, and below its MCL of 10 µg/L.

The Water Board issued a closure of the UST case on January 28, 2015 stating that groundwater monitoring data indicates that the petroleum plume associated with Tanks 1 and 2 does not extend off-site (Water Board, 2015). A GeoTracker Cleanup Sites database provided in the ERIS report indicates that Tank 3 did not impact the subsurface and disposed of in 2007. The SMCo Health System issued a closure letter for another UST case on March 16, 2011 for Tank 4, although they indicate that “an unknown amount of VOC impacted soil, as well as impacted groundwater, remains in the subsurface at the site in the vicinity of former tank #4” (SMCo Health System, 2011).

Geosyntec identified a current Public Sampling Point for groundwater monitoring/vapor at 580 Dubuque Avenue, approximately 300 feet from the Site (SMCo Health Environmental Health Services, 2021). These wells are associated with a pumping test for future dewatering during development at this location.

Based on the review of the analytical data and the distance of the property from the Site, it is unlikely that this property could adversely impact the Site. • Airport Boulevard Properties, at 309, 315, 401, 411, and 421 Airport Boulevard, as well as 401 and 407 Cypress Avenue and 216 Miller Avenue, adjoining the Site approximately 600 feet to the west and hydraulically upgradient of the Site. This property was identified by the State Water Resources Control Board’s Site Cleanup Program based on elevated trichloroethylene (TCE) detected onsite. An aquifer used for drinking water supply as well as indoor air are potential media of concern, potentially contaminated with dichloroethene (DCE), TCE, and vinyl chloride. The properties are also associated with LUST which had reported releases of gasoline and diesel.

WR3122, South San Francisco, California 94080 18 April 2022 In 2016, West Environmental Services & Technology, Inc. (WEST), conducted a Phase I ESA at Airport Boulevard Properties. The Phase I identified RECs including:
o Releases to groundwater, soil, and soil gas from gasoline USTs and waste oil USTs o Lead in soil from lead-based paint from pre-1978 building structures o Potential hazardous substances in soil, soil gas and groundwater from releases during automobile service operations
o Potential migration of VOCs from former automobile repair operations o Potential hazardous substances and petroleum products in soil from blacksmith shop operation
o Potential for releases of dry-cleaning wastewater at 204 Miller Avenue to migrate beneath the property and for releases of dry-cleaning solvents to soil gas and groundwater
o Potential presence of hazardous substances and petroleum products in soil from releases during use of the property for vehicle parking o Potential for residual petroleum products and hazardous substance in groundwater o Potential migration of VOCs in soil gas from historical releases at 305 and 315 Airport Boulevard
o Potential for releases of petroleum hydrocarbons and VOCs to groundwater at 305 and 315 airport boulevard
WEST conducted a Phase II ESA to collect soil, soil gas, and water samples. The response actions taken included excavating approximately 8 feet of soil beneath 400 Cypress Avenue. After those actions, the current environmental Site conditions were summarized as such (West, 2021):
o 398 Cypress Avenue: lead in soil up to 776 mg/kg, above its DTSC-screening level (SL) of 80 mg/kg for residential use. The 95 percent UCL for lead in soil was calculated at 220 mg/kg, which was below the applicable DTSC-SL of 320 mg/kg for commercial use.
o TCE up to 14,000 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3), equal to the Site-specific screening level for its intended use as a lobby.
o Groundwater at 8-10 feet below the foundation, flowing to the southeast. VOCs and petroleum hydrocarbons below applicable screening levels, but with high salinity so the groundwater not suited for municipal, industrial, or agricultural uses.

WR3122, South San Francisco, California 94080 19 April 2022 Based on the review of the analytical data and the distance of the property from the Site, it is unlikely that this property could adversely impact the Site. • Homart Development Corp./Bethlehem Steel at 801 Gateway Boulevard and 430 Industrial Way, historically occupied the Site and property to the northeast and east of the Site.

Homart acquired the property in 1980. According to the listings, the Homart property was formerly occupied by Bethlehem Steel, a steel manufacturing/mill/fabrication plant which operated at least 1903 to 1977.

The Homart property was identified by DTSC to be impacted with metals (including lead, zinc, nickel, and chromium), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH). During redevelopment, the California Department of Health Services (now DTSC) and the San Francisco Bay RWQCB requested that Homart investigate the presence of hazardous wastes and potential for a risk to human health.

In 1982, Kennedy/Jenks Engineers (KJE, 1982) conducted an investigation and remediation in the northwestern portion of the former Bethlehem Steel facility to remove soil, product containing oil, and PCBs. In November 1983, the remediation was certified as being completed by the Department of Health Services. In 1984, a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (Declaration) was recorded between SimonWoolley South San Francisco Hotel and the Department of Health & Human Services (DHS) for Lots 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7, and Parcels 3A, 3C, 8A, and 8B restricting the property to commercial uses with notification requirements to the DHS for soil excavation activities.

The Site is located within Parcels 8A and 8B.

A 1998 report was prepared by Erler & Kalinowski, Inc. (EKI, 1998) to support the reevaluation of Covenant for Parcels A, B, C, 2A, 2B, 2C, Lots 1, 3A, 3B, and 9. Parcels 8A and 8B were not included in this reevaluation. However, based on the analytical data reported in EKI’s 1998 report, the DTSC amended the Covenant in 2000 to limit the restrictions to only Parcels 4 and 5 of Lot 9 and Parcel 1 of Lot 1; these parcels are located northeast of the Site. The restrictions for the remaining parcels and lots, including the Site, were rescinded in 2001 (DTSC, 2001).

4.4.2.6 California Department of Conservation Geologic Energy Management Division Database
Geosyntec searched the online California Department of Conservation Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM)2 database for information pertaining to oil and gas wells on the Site. No oil/gas wells or oil fields were identified on the Site or in the general vicinity of the Site. 2 https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/#openModal WR3122, South San Francisco, California 94080 20 April 2022

4.4.3 Federal Records
Review of the USEPA Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO)3 database did not identify records in connection with the Site. Vicinity listings did not have reported violations that are likely to have adversely impacted the Site. This database is used to track compliance, releases, and other information for facilities handling hazardous materials.

Review of the USEPA National Priorities List (NPL)4 database did not reveal records in connection with the Site or surrounding properties. This database lists sites of national priority among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States and its territories.

Review of the USEPA Envirofacts5 database did not identify records in connection with the Site addresses. This database is used to track EPA environmental data that may affect air, water, and land anywhere in the United States.

Review of the Air Force Civil Engineer Center website6 and Base Realignment and Closures Sites website7 did not reveal military sites in the vicinity of the Site.

4.5 Client- or Owner-Provided Environmental Assessment Documents The client provided a geotechnical investigation report performed by Geocon Consultants, Inc. in June of 2017. This investigation identified artificial fill at the Site at depths ranging from 7 to 11 feet. One boring contained fill with signs of “lime- or cement-treatment” (see Appendix A, Geocon, 2017). Additionally, Bay Mud was encountered in three soil borings up to a depth of approximately 15.5 feet. The material was described as “soft to medium stiff organic-rich, highly plastic clays with fine sands.” No additional pertinent information was obtained from the report.

5. SITE RECONNAISSANCE

5.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions
A reconnaissance of the Site was conducted by Geosyntec representatives Megan Ogburn and Kimberly Brandt on March 17, 2022. Photographs taken during the reconnaissance are included in Appendix E. Adjoining properties were peripherally observed from the perimeter of the Site. 3 https://echo.epa.gov
4 https://epa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=33cebcdfdd1b4c3a8b51d416956c41f1 5 https://enviro.epa.gov/ 6 https://ar.afcec-cloud.af.mil/Search.aspx 7 https://www.epa.gov/fedfac/base-realignment-and-closure-brac-sites-state WR3122, South San Francisco, California 94080 21 April 2022 As part of the Site reconnaissance, Geosyntec looked for evidence of the presence of hazardous substances used, stored, or discarded, and inspected the Site for areas of disturbed or discolored soil, suspect equipment and/or building materials which may contain hazardous substances, areas of distressed vegetation, wastewater discharge areas, storage tanks/septic systems, waste management/disposal areas, lagoons, pits, sumps, surface water management areas, and stained surfaces.

Geosyntec was unable to observe the entirety of the elevator shafts. In addition, Geosyntec was not able to access two of the three mechanical rooms associated with the elevators or access the containers located in the parking lot on the north side of the Site.

5.2 Utility Service & Materials Management Provider Information At the time of the Site visit, electricity, potable water/sewer, and natural gas were provided at the Site. No overhead electrical lines were observed throughout the Site. Electricity and natural gas are supplied by PG&E, solid waste removal is provided by South San Francisco Scavenger Company, potable water is provided by California Water Service, and additional disposal provided by Blue Line Transfer Inc. No used oil, hazardous waste, or used batteries were reportedly generated at the Site.

5.3 Interior and Exterior Observations
Observations made by Geosyntec during the Site reconnaissance are documented as follows:

Geosyntec Site Reconnaissance Observations
ASTM Section Feature or Condition Description
Interior and Exterior Observations

9.4.2.3 &

9.4.2.8 Hazardous Substances or
Petroleum Products
A flammable cabinet containing cleaning products and hazardous substances was observed (see photograph 9). No staining or releases associated with the cabinet. Chemicals in the cabinet included:
- Five one-gallon gasoline canisters used for landscaping purposes
- Eight bottles of aerosol paints
- Eight 1-gallon containers of wood stains
- Four 1-gallon containers of concrete compound
- None tubes of caulk
- Six one-gallon containers of paint and paint thinner
- One quart of engine oil
- Three 1-gallon cans of acetone
Approximately four 1-gallon and three 5-gallon containers of paint were observed stacked on the maintenance room floor. One 5-gallon WR3122, South San Francisco, California 94080 22 April 2022 Geosyntec Site Reconnaissance Observations
ASTM Section Feature or Condition Description
container of concrete compound and tile adhesive were also observed.

No staining indicative of a spill was observed near the products.

9.4.2.4 Underground Storage
Tanks (USTs) No evidence of USTs was identified.

9.4.2.4 Aboveground Storage
Tanks (ASTs)
No evidence of ASTs was identified.

9.4.2.5 Odors No notable odors were identified. Geosyntec’s interviewing effort addressed but did not identify past odor conditions of concern.

9.4.2.6 Pools of Liquids No pools of liquid indicative of a chemical release were identified.

Geosyntec’s interviewing effort addressed by did not identify past pools of liquid at the Site.

9.4.2.7 Drums and Containers >
5 Gallons
No drums or containers greater than 5 gallons were identified during Geosyntec’s reconnaissance of the Subject Property. Geosyntec’s interviewing effort addressed but did not identify such containers.

9.4.2.9 Unidentified
Substances/Containers
No unidentified containers were identified during Geosyntec’s reconnaissance of the Subject Property. Geosyntec’s interviewing effort addressed but did not identify such containers.

9.4.2.10 Polychlorinated Biphenyl
(PCB) Items
Four pad-mounted transformers were present at the Site. One transformer was public utility owned transformer (see photograph 13), and three privately-owned transformers were associated with elevators on Site (see photograph 12). The age and PCB content (if any) of the transformers was not reported, and PCB labels were not observed. There was no staining visible on or beneath the transformers. Each of the three elevators was equipped with a hydraulic elevator motor. The PCB content of the hydraulic oil is unknown.

Interior Observations

9.4.3.1 Heating and Cooling
Systems
Forced air heating and cooling systems were observed throughout the building. The rooms were equipped with air conditioning units.

9.4.3.2 Stains/Corrosion No interior staining was observed. Geosyntec’s interviewing effort addressed but did not identify past staining at the Site.

9.4.3.3 Drains and Sumps Storm drains were observed in the courtyards and parking lot (see photograph 18). Sumps associated with ice machines pump water to floor drains in six vending areas (see photograph 8). One sump and drain were observed in the food preparation room.

Exterior Observations

9.4.4.1 Pits, Ponds, or Lagoons No pits, ponds, or lagoons were observed.

9.4.4.2 Stained Soil or Pavement Staining that appeared to be associated with storm water runoff toward a drain was observed on a cement pad outside the maintenance office.

The stain was not oily and is likely stormwater runoff containing dirt (see photograph 19). Staining from vehicle parking was observed on the parking lot (see photograph 16).

WR3122, South San Francisco, California 94080 23 April 2022 Geosyntec Site Reconnaissance Observations
ASTM Section Feature or Condition Description

9.4.4.3 Stressed Vegetation No obviously stressed vegetation indicative of a chemical discharge or application was observed at the Site.

9.4.4.4 Solid Waste General refuse waste and recycling bins were observed on the north side of the building (see photograph 15). No other notable amounts of solid waste were observed at the Site.

9.4.4.5 Wastewater or Stormwater
Discharge
No wastewater discharge was observed on the Site, with the exception of domestic waste. Stormwater at the Site drains from the roof of the building through gutters that empty out at the base of the building and runs towards storm drains in the courtyard and parking lot.

9.4.4.6 Wells No wells (water production or monitoring) were observed at the Site.

9.4.4.7 Septic Systems No evidence of septic systems was observed at the Site during Geosyntec’s visit.

5.4 Adjoining Property Reconnaissance
Geosyntec did not visit the adjoining properties but did observe them from vantage points on the Site and on public roads near the Site. Our limited inspection of adjoining and vicinity properties did not reveal conditions suggesting obvious environmental impairments with the ability to impact the Site at the adjoining properties during the time of our Site reconnaissance.

6. INTERVIEWS

6.1 Interview with Current Owner/Occupant
On March 17, 2022, Ms. Megan Ogburn and Mrs. Kimberly Brandt conducted an interview with Ms. Tonette Tamayo, General Manager of the Comfort Inn & Suites SFO Airport North and the Site owner’s representative. Ms. Tamayo indicated that she has been associated with the Site for 16 years. Ms. Tamayo supplied information regarding Site features, operations, and history. The information gathered during the interview is included in this document.

Ms. Tamayo provided us with the utility providers for the Site and indicated that the building was constructed in 1986 and is 57,623 square feet. She indicated that the building has always been a Comfort Inn & Suites but was previously owned by SSF Investments. She has no knowledge of the Site’s historical use.

Ms. Tamayo was not aware of any stained soil, sumps, wells, septic tanks, odors, pools of liquid, underground storage tanks, or the condition of the elevator pits at the Site.

The information provided by Ms. Tamayo was in agreement with the information presented throughout this report.

WR3122, South San Francisco, California 94080 24 April 2022

6.2 Interview with Previous Owner/Occupant
Geosyntec was not provided with contact information for any of the former property owners; Geosyntec did not conduct an interview with former owner representatives.

6.3 Interview with Local Agencies
In accordance with the Client agreed-to scope of work associated with this Phase I ESA, Geosyntec did not interview local agency personnel.

7. FINDINGS, OPINIONS, AND DATA GAPS
In the following sections, Geosyntec presents our findings and opinions, data gaps, and conclusions (Sections 7.1 through 7.3) regarding any identified RECs, Controlled RECs (CRECs), Historical RECs (HRECs), and/or de minimis conditions associated with the Site.

7.1 Findings and Opinions
Geosyntec has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E1527-13 of the Site described herein. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 1.4 of this report. The Phase I ESA performed by Geosyntec has revealed the following conditions as defined by ASTM:

Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs)
• No RECs were identified during the course of this assessment.

Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions (CRECs)
• No CRECs were identified during the course of this assessment.

Historical Recognized Environmental Condition (HREC)
• Historical Land Use Restriction: The Site and adjoining land to the northeast and east were historically occupied by Bethlehem Steel, a metal processing plant, from at least 1903 to 1977. Portions of the Bethlehem Steel facility to the northeast were identified as impacted with metals and polychlorinated biphenyls, and in 1984 a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (Covenant) was executed for the Site (identified as parcels 8A and 8B in the Covenant) and other parcels associated with the former Bethlehem Steel facility with the Department of Toxic Substances Control. The Covenant for the Site and several other parcels and lots were rescinded in 2001. Therefore, this finding is an HREC for the Site.

WR3122, South San Francisco, California 94080 25 April 2022 De Minimis Conditions
• Historical On-Site and Adjoining Railroad Spur: A railroad spur traversed the eastern portion of the Site from at least 1956 to 1980 and a mass transit railroad has bordered the Site to the west since at least 1896. Railroads can be associated with the use of petroleum products, pesticides, and heavy metals, which may have impacted shallow soils at the Site.

However, because these uses cannot be ascertained, they are classified as a de minimis condition.

7.2 Business Environmental Risk
• A business environmental risk is defined by ASTM International Standard E1527-13 as a risk that can have a material environmental or environmentally-driven impact on the business associated with the current or planned use of the parcel or commercial real estate, not necessarily limited to those environmental issues required to be investigated in this practice. As discussed above, the Site was historically part of the former Bethlehem Steel property, and metals and polychlorinated biphenyl impacted soils and material were identified and remediated in other portions of the former Bethlehem Steel property. Land use restrictions associated with the remedial activities have been rescinded. Independent of contamination identified and remediated in association with the historical operations, a review of the aerial photographs indicates that a drainage feature and surface impoundments were present on the Site from at least 1943 to approximately 1974. No information was available regarding the use of the drainage feature or surface impoundments; however, artificial fill was identified on the Site during a geotechnical investigation conducted in 2017. The source of the fill material is unknown, and therefore there is the potential for residual contamination. In addition, current regulatory screening levels for evaluating hazardous materials are more stringent than when DTSC rescinded the Covenant. In support of proposed redevelopment activities, pre-characterization sampling for construction management purposes could evaluate the presence of residual chemicals that exceed current screening levels. With the proposed redevelopment of the Site that includes two to three levels of subterranean parking, it is likely that the soil excavation activities during construction would mitigate any remaining residual soil contamination. For this reason, the potential presence of residual chemicals has been identified as a BER.

7.3 Data Gaps
In accordance with ASTM E1527-13, this section documents data gaps in the information obtained and reviewed as part of this Phase I ESA and discusses the associated significance. A data gap is defined as being “a lack of or inability to obtain information required by this practice WR3122, South San Francisco, California 94080 26 April 2022 [ASTM E1527-13] despite good faith efforts by the environmental professional to gather such information”. Data gaps identified included the following:
• Due to time and scope limitations in preparing the Phase I ESA, no in-person file review was conducted with local, state, or federal agencies.
• Three elevator shafts are located on the northwest, northeast, and southeast corners of the building. Geosyntec was unable to observe the entirety of the elevator shafts. • Environmental Support Services corresponded with the City of South San Francisco Building Department and identified building permits and inspections for the Site.

Geosyntec attempted to review representative permits and inspections. These documents generally appeared to be related to renovations, elevator inspections, electrical, and plumbing-type work (see Appendix C).
• Geosyntec was unable to identify contact information and did not interview former owners/operators of the Site.

Collectively, in Geosyntec’s opinion, none are considered to be significant with respect to identification of additional RECs for the Site. These data gaps have been considered in our findings.

7.4 Non-Scope Considerations

7.4.1 Water Damage or Mold
The Site building was constructed in 1986. Ms. Tonette Tamayo, General Manager of the Comfort Inn & Suites SFO Airport North, was not aware of reported water damage or mold issues associated with the Site buildings. In addition, Geosyntec’s reconnaissance did not identify readily observable indications of water damage or potential mold. Note that our assessment did not include a thorough review of all building spaces and areas of water damage or mold may be present in areas not readily observable.

7.5 Conclusions
We have performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E1527 of 121 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080 the property. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 1.4 of this report.

This assessment has revealed no evidence of CRECs in connection with the Site except for the REC described in Section 7.1. One REC, one HREC, and two de minimis conditions were identified.

WR3122, South San Francisco, California 94080 27 April 2022

8. REFERENCES
ASTM, 2013, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment.

Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2001. Release of Environmental Covenants Conditions and Restrictions. October 9.

Environmental Risk Information Services (ERIS), 2022 City Directory, 121 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California, Order No. 220211010031. February 14.

ERIS, 2022. Database Report, Order No. 220211010031. February 16.

ERIS, 2022. Fire Insurance Maps, 121 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California, Order No. 220211010031. February 13.

ERIS, 2022. Historical Aerials, 121 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California, Order No. 220211010031. February 16.

ERIS, 2022. Physical Setting Report, 121 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California, Order No. 220211010031. February 16.

ERIS, 2022. Topographic Maps, 121 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California, Order No. 220211010031. February 17.

Erler & Kalinowski, Inc. (EKI), 1998. Reconsideration of Land Use Restrictions, The Gateway, South San Francisco, California, (EKI 960016.01). July 10.

First American Title Insurance Company National Commercial Services, 2020. Preliminary Report. September 10.

Geocon Consultants, Inc., 2017. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Mixed-Use Development, 121 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California. June.

Kennedy-Jenks Engineers (KJE), 1982. Cleanup Report, Former Fuel Oil Tank Site at The Gateway Project, Homart Development Co., South San Francisco, CA. August.

National Due Diligence Services a Division of American Surveying and Mapping, Inc., 2020.

Zoning Report, Comfort Inn & Suites, 121 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080. July 2.

Partner Engineering & Science, Inc., 2020. Seismic Risk Assessment, San Francisco Bay Development, 121 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080. June 8.

Ramboll US Consulting, Inc., 2021. March 2021 Semi-Annual Multimedia Sampling Report, Associated Road Parcel, 0 Associated Road, South San Francisco, California. April 20.

WR3122, South San Francisco, California 94080 28 April 2022 San Mateo County Health Environmental Health Services, 2021. 2010 Monitoring WellsInstallation/Destruction. October 13.

San Mateo County Health Services Agency Environmental Health Services Division, 1997.

Environmental Health Permit. May 28.

San Mateo County Health System, Case Closure, Remedial Action Oversight of Former Tank #4, Bressie and Company, 600-790 Dubuque Avenue, South San Francisco, California. March

16. State Water Resources Control Board, 2015. Order WQ 2015-0005-UST. January 25.

TEC Environmental, 2012. Monitoring Well Installation and Sampling Report. November 29.

WEST, 2021. Operation and Maintenance Plan, Cadence-Phase 1, Airport Boulevard Properties, South San Francisco, California. October.

9. SIGNATURE BY ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL
“I have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the Site. I have developed and performed all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312.” The below-signed professional’s qualifications are included in Appendix F.

DRAFT
___________________________________________
Signed by Kimberly Brandt, Senior Geologist - Geosyntec Consultants WR3122 South San Francisco, California 94080 F-1
TABLES
Table 1
Historical Records Review – Geosyntec Observations
121 East Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, California
Phase I ESA - Table 1 Page 1 of 2 Geosyntec Consultants Aerial Photographs 1 Topographic Maps City Directories
Site:
1930: An unimproved road traverses through the
southeast corner of the Site; disturbed soil is noted
west of the road. No structures are on the Site.
1941: The road is still present and no structures are on the Site.
1946: A drainage feature is located in the center of the Site and the road is still present.
1956-1960: A drainage feature is located in the center of the Site and the road is still present. The land east
of the road is paved. Infrastructure/equipment
north of Site extends onto Site. A small structure
is present in the western corner of the Site.
1968: Infrastructure equipment associated with the north structure has been removed. Two surface
impoundments are located in the center of the
Site; however, the resolution of the photograph is
low.
1974: The eastern road and paved area still remain; the small western structure remains. The soil at the
Site appears to have been graded.
1982: The eastern road and paved area have been
removed. The small western structure still
remains. The soil at the Site appears to have been
graded.
1993: A hotel is present on the Site; the land
surrounding the hotel has been paved for parking.
2000-2020: No change.

Vicinity:
1930: Land northeast to southeast of Site are used
industrially: various large structures within
approximately 500 feet and heavily disturbed soil.

A large road on the south border of Site;
marshland is south of the road. A rail line runs
northeast-southwest within approximately 100
feet west of the Site. The freeway runs north-south
approximately 400 feet west of the Site; the land
west of the freeway is used residentially and
commercially.
1941: Higher density of structures area west of the
freeway.
1946: Marshland south of the road is partially filled in.

A storage yard is within approximately 250 feet of
the Site.
1956-1960: Increased fill of marshland; delineation of
Colma Creek approximately 2000 feet south of
Site. Expansion of storage yard onto Site.

Commercial/industrial development of large
Site:
1896: Small structure depicted on the western side of Site. 1899: Land grant boundary through middle of Site running southwest to northeast. Small structure no longer depicted.
1915: The Site is vacant.
1939: Unimproved road through southeast corner of Site. 1947-1950: Land grant boundary reappears, passes through the middle of Site running southwest to northeast. Road in southeast corner of Site was improved.
1956: Rail spur (present through at least 1980) parallel to improved road in southeast corner of Site.
1968-80: Two small structures depicted on western side of Site. 1995: No structures depicted. Land grant boundary feature remains.

Vicinity:
1896-1899: Small structures present along roadways within approximately

0.125 miles west of the Site. Southern Pacific Railroad runs northeastsouthwest and east-west within approximately 0.125 miles to the west and approximately 0.25 miles to the south of Site. The Site is bordered by a road on its southern side and located immediately north of San Bruno Canal and San Francisco Bay. A mountainous area lies approximately 1 mile north of the Site.
1915: Increased development of the northeast-southwest railway which now immediately borders the western side of the Site. A railway spur extends around the peninsula. The appearance of small and large structures on the peninsula and an increased number of structures west of the Site. 1939: Bayshore Highway runs generally north-south approximately 0.2 miles west of Site. Increased roads surrounding Site; a road is between railway and western border of Site. Increased number of structures along rail the way; two large structures within approximately 0.25 miles northeast of Site. Addition of a railway running east-west across the road from the southern border of Site; the Bay is filled in such that marsh is present within approximately 0.125 miles south of Site and the Bay is within approximately

0.5 miles southeast of Site.
1947-1950: Road directly south of Site developed into secondary highway; large structures (commercial/industrial) within 0.25 miles east and north of Site and around the peninsula. Train station added to Southern Pacific Railroad on the western border of Site. Expansion of Bayshore Highway.

Belle Air Reservation approximately 1 mile south of Site. 1956: Large structures appear within approximately 0.125 miles south of the Site. The marsh is filled in such that only a small strip lies to the southeast within approximately 0.125 miles.
1968: Commercial/industrial development of the surrounding area with many structures. More parts of the marshes/San Bruno Canal/Bay filled in and developed; extension of land between Oyster and San Bruno points approximately 1 mile from Site; addition of a marina east of Oyster Point; extension of land at Sierra Point over 1 mile from Site. 1973: Higher density of structures; expansion of land at Oyster Point.

Site:
1961-1991: Street address not listed.
1996-2001: Street address listed as Comfort Suites.
2006: Street address listed as Comfort Suites and Paramount Hospitality Management. 2012: Street address listed as Comfort Inn-Airport North. 2016-2020: Street address listed as Comfort Inn.

Vicinity:
1961: Sylvester Road not listed. Businesses listed on East Grand Avenue are commercial/industrial, including offices, retail, auto shops, electric, petroleum-related businesses, etc. Pertinent entities include Southern Pacific Depot, Bethlehem Steel Co, City of SSF Fire House, Victrylite Candle Co, Applied Electronics, and Dons Auto Wreckers.
1966: Businesses listed on Sylvester Road and East Grand Avenue are commercial/industrial, including offices, retail, electric, chemical, auto shops, petroleum-related businesses, etc. Pertinent entities on Sylvester Road include Nelson Kent Refrigeration and Anderson Electrical Corporation. Pertinent entities on East Grand Avenue include Southern Pacific Depot, Pacific Motor Trucking, Bergeson Wholesale Electric, Proler Steel Corporation, M&T Chemicals Inc, Cocconi Electric Co, and Mence Chemical MFG. 1970: Businesses listed are commercial/industrial/manufacturing including offices, chemical, laboratory, electric, auto shops, petroleum-related businesses, etc. Pertinent entities on Sylvester Road include International Tool Supply Inc and Hunt-Spiller Manufacturing Division. Pertinent entities on East Grand Avenue include Cochin J D Manufacturing Co, Bergesen Wholesale Electric Inc, Whiteway Manufacturer Co, Mine Industries Inc, Goodall Rubber Co, Georgia-Pacific Corporation, M&T Chemicals Inc, Tire Jobbers Inc, California Tire Co.
1977: Businesses listed are commercial/industrial/manufacturing including chemical, medical, retail, construction, offices, auto shops, petroleum-related businesses, etc. Pertinent entities on East Grand Avenue include Bergesen Wholesale Electric, Keiths Tire Center, Georgia Pacific Cntr/Corp, M&T Chemicals Inc, Haleja Construction, Wilkinson Construction, Boss Manufacturing, and Vespa of Amer Corp. Pertinent entities on Sylvester Road include DTC Tool Company, Golden State Wax Co, Sunset Fiber Inds, and Hunt Spiller Mfg.
1982: Businesses listed are commercial/industrial/manufacturing including chemical, medical, retail, construction, offices, auto shops, petroleum-related businesses, etc. Pertinent entities on East Grand Avenue include Bergesen Wholesale Electric, Pressed & Welded Prod, Motoramic Inc, Consltd Electrical Distb, Georgia Pacific Corrugtd/Safety/Tissue, M&T Chemicals Inc, CA Tire Co, and Bosa MFG Co Industr.

Pertinent entities on Sylvester Road include DTC Tool Company, Stryco Mfg Co, and Golden St Wax Co. 1987: Businesses listed are commercial/industrial/manufacturing including offices, electric, retail, construction, auto shops, petroleum-related businesses, etc. Pertinent entities on East Grand Avenue include Mallory D N Distb, Bel Elec Supply, Motoramic Inc, Consltd Elctl Distb, Georgia Pacific Corp/Lable/Safety/SL&PLNT/Tissue, and CA Tire Co. Pertinent entities on Sylvester Road include DTC Tool Company, Stryco Mfg Co, and Golden St Wax Co.
1991: Businesses listed are commercial/industrial including retail, construction, electrical, offices, etc.

Pertinent entities on East Grand Avenue include Bell Electrical Supply Inc, Consltd electrical Distb, and Georgia Pacific SL&PLNT/Tissue. No pertinent entities on Sylvester Road. 1996: Businesses listed are commercial/industrial including retail, auto shops, construction, laboratory, offices, hospitality, etc. Pertinent entities on East Grand Avenue include Levan Auto Body Parts, LS Distributors, Atlas AC/Furnace/Heating, Desco Drilling Equipment, and Georgia Pacific Corp. No pertinent entities on Sylvester Road.
2001: Businesses listed are commercial/industrial including retail, construction, laboratory, offices, hospitality, etc. Pertinent entities on East Grand Avenue include Atlas Heating & Ventilating Co Ltd. No pertinent entities on Sylvester Road.

Table 1
Historical Records Review – Geosyntec Observations
121 East Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, California
Phase I ESA - Table 1 Page 2 of 2 Geosyntec Consultants Aerial Photographs 1 Topographic Maps City Directories
structures to south, east, and north of Site.

Expansion and partial relocation of freeway west
of Site.
1968: More structures built to north and south of Site.

Structure immediately north of Site decreases in
size.
1974: Structure immediately north of Site no longer
present.
1982: Buildings removed north-east of Site between
southern road and railway.
1993: Road constructed immediately west and north
(highway off-ramp) of Site; Site surrounded by
roads on all sides. A road within approximately
500 feet east of the Site; three structures have
been constructed and the area alongside the road
has been paved.
2000: All surrounding area commercially developed.
2005-2020: No change.
1980: More expansive freeway system connecting Bayshore Freeway to Interstate 380; higher density of structures.
1995: Structures no longer depicted on the map. Road constructed along the north border of Site; Site now surrounded by roads. A second marina has been constructed west of Oyster Point.
1996-2015: No notable changes.
2006: Businesses listed are commercial/industrial including retail, laboratory, offices, hospitality, etc. A pertinent entity on East Grand Avenue includes Atlas Heating of Marin/Heating & Ventilating Co LTd. No pertinent entities on Sylvester Road.
2012: Businesses listed on East Grand Avenue are commercial/industrial including retail, restaurants/catering, hospitality, etc. No pertinent entities on East Grand Avenue. Sylvester Road is not listed. 2020: Businesses listed are commercial/industrial including retail, restaurant/catering, hospitality, etc. No pertinent entities on East Grand Avenue. Pertinent entities on Sylvester Road include Edlen Electrical Exhibition and Mina Metals Co.

Notes:

1. Additional aerial photography review was completed using Google Earth when available.

2. Fire insurance maps provided by ERIS do not provide coverage for the Site or immediate vicinity.

WR3122 South San Francisco, California 94080 F-2

FIGURES
P:\GIS\Marketing\2022_02\121EGrandAve\Fig01_SiteLocation.mxd 3/18/2022 1:36:54 PM (Author: KWalton) 0 0.4
Miles
121 East Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, California
Site Location Map
Figure
1 WR3122 April 2022
Site Location
0 15
Miles
East Grand Avenue
Poletti Way
Dubuque Avenue
Bayshore Fwy
East Grand Avenue
Railroad Tracks
P:\GIS\Marketing\2022_02\121EGrandAve\Fig02_SiteLayout.mxd 3/25/2022 11:14:15 AM (Author: KWalton) Legend
Transformer
Public Utility Owned
Transformer
Flammable Cabinet
Trash Dumpsters and
Recycling Bins
Railroad Tracks
Site Boundary
Parcel Boundary
Notes:
- Aerial imagery source: Google Earth Pro, August 2020. 0 80
Feet
121 East Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, California
Site Layout
Figure
2 WR3122 April 2022
East Grand Avenue
Gateway Boulevard
Poletti Way
Dubuque Avenue
Bayshore Fwy
East Grand Avenue Airport Boulevard
Harbor Way
Gateway Boulevard
Railroad Tracks
P:\GIS\Marketing\2022_02\121EGrandAve\Fig03_SiteVicinity.mxd 3/25/2022 1:18:32 PM (Author: KWalton) Le ge nd
Railroad Tracks Site Boundary
Parcel Boundary
Notes:
- Aerial imagery source: Google Earth Pro, August 2020. 0 170
Feet
121 East Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, California
S ite Vicinity
Figure
3 WR3122 April 2022
PG&E S ubstation
(122 E Grand Ave )
Jack Drago Park
(130 Grand Ave )
Em bassy S uite s by Hilton
(250 Gate w ay Blvd )
Aste llas Ge ne The rapie s
(201 Gate w ay Blvd )
Aud e nte s The raputics and Distribute d Bio
(225 Gate w ay Blvd )
Ele ctrical Pow e r S tation
(590 Dubuque Ave )
Vacant
Lot
Cad e nce Apartm e nts
(398 Cypre ss Ave )
Cad e nce Apartm e nts
(398 Cypre ss Ave )
Furniture & Mattre ss
Liquid ators
(305 Airport Blvd )
Pe e t's Coffe e
(102 Grand Ave )
Multi-Te nant Re tail
(190 E Grand Ave )
76/Circle K
(221 Airport Blvd )
Pine fino Apartm e nts
(100 Bad e n Ave )
Altitud e Apartm e nts
(150 Airport Blvd )
Build ing Und e r
Construction
(214-178 Airport Blvd )
Prologis and
Balfor Be atty
(100 East Grand Ave )
Max’s Bak e ry
and Kitche n
(120 E Grand Ave )
Vacant Build ing
(130 E Grand Ave )
Mail Processing Center
Federal Aviation Administration
Southwest Regional Office
Obstruction Evaluation Group
10101 Hillwood Parkway
Fort Worth, TX 76177
Aeronautical Study No.
2021-AWP-7652-OE

Page 1 of 8 ends

Issued Date: 09/09/2021
Nick Johnson
Johnson Aviation, Inc.
6524 Deerbrook Road
Oak Park, CA 91377
** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION **
The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning:

Structure: Building 121-3b
Location: South San Francisco, CA
Latitude: 37-39-17.25N NAD 83
Longitude: 122-24-15.00W
Heights: 16 feet site elevation (SE)
295 feet above ground level (AGL)
311 feet above mean sea level (AMSL)
This aeronautical study revealed that the structure would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities.

Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, it is hereby determined that the structure would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s) is(are) met:

As a condition to this Determination, the structure is to be marked/lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 M, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, red lights-Chapters 4,5(Red),&15.

Any failure or malfunction that lasts more than thirty (30) minutes and affects a top light or flashing obstruction light, regardless of its position, should be reported immediately to (877) 487-6867 so a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) can be issued. As soon as the normal operation is restored, notify the same number.

It is required that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be e-filed any time the project is abandoned or:
_____ At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part 1) __X__ Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2) See attachment for additional condition(s) or information.

The structure considered under this study lies in proximity to an airport and occupants may be subjected to noise from aircraft operating to and from the airport.

Page 2 of 8 ends

This determination expires on 03/09/2023 unless:
(a) the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, is received by this office. (b) extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office. (c) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application.

NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST BE E-FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION

OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO

SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD.

This determination is subject to review if an interested party files a petition that is received by the FAA on or before October 09, 2021. In the event a petition for review is filed, it must contain a full statement of the basis upon which it is made and be submitted to the Manager of the Rules and Regulations Group. Petitions can be submitted via mail to Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20591, via email at [email protected], or via facsimile (202) 267-9328.

This determination becomes final on October 19, 2021 unless a petition is timely filed. In which case, this determination will not become final pending disposition of the petition. Interested parties will be notified of the grant of any review. For any questions regarding your petition, please contact Rules and Regulations Group via telephone – 202-267-8783.

This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights, frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights and frequencies or use of greater power, except those frequencies specified in the Colo Void Clause Coalition; Antenna System Co-Location; Voluntary Best Practices, effective 21 Nov 2007, will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination includes all previously filed frequencies and power for this structure.

If construction or alteration is dismantled or destroyed, you must submit notice to the FAA within 5 days after the construction or alteration is dismantled or destroyed.

This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA.

This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body.

This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight rules; the impact on all existing and planned public-use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative

Page 3 of 8 ends

impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air navigation.

An account of the study findings, aeronautical objections received by the FAA during the study (if any), and the basis for the FAA's decision in this matter can be found on the following page(s).

If we can be of further assistance, please contact Daniel Shoemaker, at (206) 231-2989, or [email protected]. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2021-AWP-7652-OE.

Signature Control No: 480828545-494091127 ( DNH )
Steve Phillips
Manager, Obstruction Evaluation Group
Attachment(s)
Additional Information
Map(s)

Page 4 of 8 ends

Additional information for ASN 2021-AWP-7652-OE
Aeronautical Study Numbers 2021-AWP-7644-OE through 2021-AWP-7655-OE Abbreviations
AGL - above ground level AMSL - mean sea level RWY - runway VFR - visual flight rules IFR - instrument flight rules nm - nautical mile Part 77 - Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace

1. LOCATION OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
This proposal is for a 295-foot AGL (311-foot AMSL) office building, which, at its closest point (2021- AWP-7646-OE), will be located approximately 9914 feet (1.63 nm) north of the RWY 10L threshold at San Francisco International Airport (SFO), CA. The SFO airport elevation is 13 feet AMSL.

To facilitate the public comment process, the 12 corners of the building filed for evaluation were circularized under Aeronautical Study Number 2021-AWP-7652-OE, which is the tallest southeastern-most corner of the building and the highest point of the building closest to the nearest runway. The Aeronautical Study Numbers, coordinates, and heights for these 12 corners are:
2021-AWP-7644-OE 37-39-19.59N 122-24-17.32W 265 ft. AGL/281 ft. AMSL 2021-AWP-7645-OE 37-39-17.65N 122-24-13.60W 265 ft. AGL/281 ft. AMSL 2021-AWP-7646-OE 37-39-16.65N 122-24-14.43W 265 ft. AGL/281 ft. AMSL 2021-AWP-7647-OE 37-39-17.99N 122-24-16.99W 265 ft. AGL/281 ft. AMSL 2021-AWP-7648-OE 37-39-16.81N 122-24-18.15W 265 ft. AGL/281 ft. AMSL 2021-AWP-7649-OE 37-39-17.56N 122-24-19.33W 265 ft. AGL/281 ft. AMSL 2021-AWP-7650-OE 37-39-19.26N 122-24-17.25W 295 ft. AGL/311 ft. AMSL 2021-AWP-7651-OE 37-39-17.83N 122-24-14.51W 295 ft. AGL/311 ft. AMSL 2021-AWP-7652-OE 37-39-17.25N 122-24-15.00W 295 ft. AGL/311 ft. AMSL 2021-AWP-7653-OE 37-39-18.32N 122-24-17.06W 295 ft. AGL/311 ft. AMSL 2021-AWP-7654-OE 37-39-17.52N 122-24-17.86W 295 ft. AGL/311 ft. AMSL 2021-AWP-7655-OE 37-39-17.95N 122-24-18.54W 295 ft. AGL/311 ft. AMSL

2. OBSTRUCTION STANDARDS EXCEEDED
The structure is identified as an obstruction under the following Part 77 standard:
a. Section 77.17(a)(2): A height that is 200 feet above ground level or above the established airport elevation, whichever is higher, within three nautical miles of the established reference point of an airport, excluding heliports, with its longest runway more than 3,200 feet in actual length, and that height increases in the proportion of 100 feet for each additional nautical mile of distance from the airport up to a maximum of 500 feet. The 12 corners of the proposed building would exceed the SFO Part 77.17(a)(2) surface by the following amounts:
2021-AWP-7644-OE Exceeds by 65 feet.
2021-AWP-7645-OE Exceeds by 65 feet.
2021-AWP-7646-OE Exceeds by 65 feet.
2021-AWP-7647-OE Exceeds by 65 feet.
2021-AWP-7648-OE Exceeds by 65 feet.
2021-AWP-7649-OE Exceeds by 65 feet.
2021-AWP-7650-OE Exceeds by 95 feet.

Page 5 of 8 ends

2021-AWP-7651-OE Exceeds by 95 feet.
2021-AWP-7652-OE Exceeds by 95 feet.
2021-AWP-7653-OE Exceeds by 95 feet.
2021-AWP-7654-OE Exceeds by 95 feet.
2021-AWP-7655-OE Exceeds by 95 feet.
b. Section 77.19(a): The surface of a takeoff and landing area of an airport or any imaginary surface established under 77.17, 77.19, or 77.23. The following corners of the proposed building would exceed the SFO horizontal surface by the indicated amounts:
2021-AWP-7645-OE Exceeds by 118 feet.
2021-AWP-7646-OE Exceeds by 118 feet.
2021-AWP-7647-OE Exceeds by 118 feet.
2021-AWP-7648-OE Exceeds by 118 feet.
2021-AWP-7649-OE Exceeds by 118 feet.
2021-AWP-7651-OE Exceeds by 148 feet.
2021-AWP-7652-OE Exceeds by 148 feet.
2021-AWP-7653-OE Exceeds by 148 feet.
2021-AWP-7654-OE Exceeds by 148 feet.

Section 77.19(b): The surface of a takeoff and landing area of an airport or any imaginary surface established under 77.17, 77.19, or 77.23. The following corners of the proposed building would exceed the conical surface at SFO by the indicated amounts:
2021-AWP-7644-OE Exceeds by 112 feet.
2021-AWP-7650-OE Exceeds by 144 feet.
2021-AWP-7655-OE Exceeds by 148 feet.

3. EFFECT ON AERONAUTICAL OPERATIONS
a. The impact on arrival, departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under VFR: The proposed building would exceed the SFO Part 77.17(a)(2) surface by 65 to 95 feet, the SFO Part 77 horizontal surface by 118 to 148 feet, and the SFO Part 77 conical surface by 112 to 148 feet. b. The impact on arrival, departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under IFR: None. c. The impact on all planned public-use airports and aeronautical facilities: None. d. The cumulative impact resulting from the proposed construction or alteration of a structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed structures: None.

4. CIRCULATION AND COMMENTS RECEIVED
The proposal was circulated for public comment on 2 August 2021. The public comment period ended on 8 September 2021, and no responses were received as of that date.

5. DETERMINATION - NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION
It is determined that the proposed construction would not have a substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft.

6. BASIS FOR DECISION

Page 6 of 8 ends

Part 77 establishes standards for determining obstructions to air navigation. A structure that exceeds one or more of these standards is presumed to be a hazard to air navigation unless the obstruction evaluation study determines otherwise. The fact that a proposed structure exceeds a Part 77 surface does not automatically make it a hazard. In this case, the proposed building would exceed the SFO Part 77.17(a)(2) surface by 65 to 95 feet, the Part 77 horizontal surface by 118 to 148 feet, and the Part 77 conical surface by 112 to 148 feet.

However, it would have no effect on instrument procedures, and no VFR issues were identified over the course of the obstruction evaluation or raised as a result of the public comment process. Additionally, the proposed building would have no effect on airport facilities or radio/visual navigation and landing aids, and would have no effect on airspace used by the military. The installation of red obstruction lights on the building will make it more visible to pilots operating in the area at night.

7. CONDITIONS
The proposed building would be located in close proximity to the flight paths of aircraft landing on SFO RWYs 10L/R and aircraft departing RWYs 28L/R. Occupants and people outside the building will be exposed to frequent loud jet aircraft noise and the sight of large commercial aircraft operating at very low altitudes near the building. This determination is based only on the effects its physical structure would have on airspace and air traffic control procedures. It does not address compatible land use issues with regard to San Francisco International Airport, which may include further restrictions based on elevation, safety, and noise. The sponsor should contact the SFO Bureau of Planning and Environmental Affairs, at (650) 821-6678, to ensure the proposed use of the land is compatible with the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport.

NOTE: While the building itself would have no effect on instrument approach or departure procedures at SFO, the cranes used to construct the building may have adverse effects on the instrument procedures. Should the minimum crane height required to construct the proposed building have long-term adverse effects on certain SFO instrument procedures, the crane height restrictions required to avoid those effects may require a reduction of the final height of the building to accommodate the reduced maximum crane height.

Page 7 of 8 ends

TOPO Map for ASN 2021-AWP-7652-OE

Page 8 of 8 ends

Sectional Map for ASN 2021-AWP-7652-OE
3030 Bridgeway Boulevard
Suite 227
Sausalito, CA 94965
415.717.6469
www.sutroscience.com
April 28, 2022

Hydrology and Water Quality Assessment
121 East Grand Avenue Development Project
121 East Grand Avenue, City of South San Francisco, California.

Prepared for:

Paul Miller
RCH Group, Inc.
6521 Rancho Murieta, CA 95683
April 2022
Hydrology and Water Quality Assessment
121 East Grand Avenue Development Project
City of South San Francisco, California
2 Introduction
Presented here is an assessment of potential adverse effects to water resources from implementation of the 121 East Grand Avenue Project (Project). The assessment has been conducted consistent with evaluation criteria under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The assessment is based on Project information (i.e., a draft Project Description), as well as other technical reports prepared by the Applicant’s consultants, which include a grading plan, a utilities plan, and a stormwater management plan, a Phase I Report, and a Geotechnical Investigation, provided to Sutro Science (Sutro) in March, 2022 by RCH Group.

The following sections provide a summary of the Project, key physical conditions, and regulatory requirements relevant to assessing hydrology and water quality related environmental impacts from implementation of the Project. The existing hydrology and water quality baseline condition relevant to the project site is described, including consideration of surface water features, existing stormwater collection systems, stormwater runoff, groundwater, flood risks, and water quality. Potential adverse effects to water resources that could result from Project implementation, with consideration of regulatory requirements, are then described and are evaluated based on significance criteria relevant to hydrology and water quality presented in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.

Project Background
The Project is located at 121 East Grand (project site) in the City of South San Francisco (City), San Mateo County, California. According to the San Mateo County Assessor, the subject property is 2.91 acres (Assessor Parcel Number 015-024-230).1 The project site is currently occupied by a Comfort Inn and Suites as well as a single-story laundry/boiler room, asphalt-paved parking areas, spa, concrete-paved patios and walkways, and landscaped areas. The project site is located on the southeast and southwest sides of Grand Avenue and the north side of East Grand Avenue within a mixed commercial and industrial area.

Under the Project, the existing structures on the project site would be demolished and the site cleared, graded, and developed. The Project proposes two 17-story research and development building “wings” connected through a glass atrium atop a two-story podium. The Project would be approximately 280 ft. in height to the top of the mechanical screen and 262 ft to the roof level. The first two floors of the building would provide public amenities and Floors 3 through 17 would include research and development and office uses and would range from 54,843 to 57,145 sq ft in area for a total of 836,865 sq ft. A 700 ft. long lighted and landscaped bicycle and pedestrian lane would traverse the site from Poletti Way, along the western, southern, and eastern frontages of the project site to Grand Avenue and East Grand Avenue. Vehicular parking would include 1,413 spaces and is proposed primarily in two below-grade levels consisting of 229,216 sq ft and an atgrade parking area of approximately 26,191 sq ft. The public amenity space proposed in the first two floors would be 107,100 sq ft. Site coverage would be 69.3%, or 87,849 sq ft. Landscaping is proposed on three of the four sides of the building. The landscape plan proposes trees and bioswale grasses. 1 Partner, 2020. PHASE I Environmental Site Assessment Report. San Francisco Bay Development. 121 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA. June 11, 2020.

Hydrology and Water Quality Assessment
121 East Grand Avenue Development Project
City of South San Francisco, California
3 Environmental Setting
The San Francisco Bay Area has a Mediterranean climate, with cool, dry summers and mild, wet winters. The mean annual precipitation at San Francisco International Airport, located 2 miles southeast, is approximately 20 inches per year with most of the rainfall occurring between November and March.2 The project site is
currently developed. The area surrounding the project site consists of urbanized land, sloping towards San Francisco Bay. No surface water features, including impoundments, wetlands, natural catch basins, settling ponds, or lagoons, are located on the project site. The Project is located in the Colma Creek watershed3 and the nearest surface water feature to the project site is Colma Creek located approximately 0.40-miles to the south of the subject property. The project site is located approximately 19 feet above mean sea level (MSL) and is generally flat, sloping gently toward the southeast.4 The depth of groundwater at the project site varies from

4.5 to 16 feet below ground surface (bgs) across the site and fluctuates seasonally between winter and summer based on rainfall and other factors.5 Shallow groundwater beneath the project site is not utilized for domestic purposes.6 The direction of groundwater flow is toward San Francisco Bay.

Surface water at the project site is mainly generated by precipitation that cannot be absorbed into the ground in the period following a storm. The majority of the project site is currently characterized as impervious surface. Stormwater from the project site drains primarily as sheet flow across the paved surfaces towards storm water drains located throughout the site and in the public right of way. Site stormwater from roofs, landscaped areas, and paved areas is directed to on-site concrete swales, which drain to the public right of way and to on-site stormwater drains connected to the City’s stormwater system which conveys storm runoff to the San Francisco Bay or nearby creeks or channels, such as Colma Creek.

The quality of surface water is primarily a function of land uses in the Project vicinity. Local land uses influence the quality of surface waters through point source discharges (i.e., discrete discharges from discharge pipes) and nonpoint source discharges (e.g., direct storm runoff from slopes). During periods of wet weather, rain carries pollutants and sediments from all parts of a watershed into surface water bodies such as storm drains, streams, rivers, and the San Francisco Bay. In an urban setting, natural drainage patterns have been altered and stormwater runoff, as well as non-storm discharges (irrigation water, accidental spills, washdown water, etc.), pick up sediments and contaminants from land surfaces, and transport these pollutants into surface and groundwater. These diffuse sources of pollutants include parking lots, bare earth at construction sites, and a host of many other sources. Common pollutants of concern from urban stormwater runoff can include pesticides, fertilizers, oils, litter and other debris, and sediment.

Floodplain zones (Special Flood Hazard Areas) are determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and used to create Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). These tools assist communities in mitigating flood hazards through land use planning. FEMA also outlines specific regulations, intended to be adopted by 2 U.S. Climate Data, San Francisco International Airport, https://www.weather.gov/wrh/Climate?wfo=mtr, accessed April 27, 2022. 3 Givler and Sowers, 2007. Creek and Watershed Map of Daly City and Vicinity. Historical Wetlands Research by the San Francisco Estuary Institute, published by the Oakland Museum of California. 4 Partner, 2020. PHASE I Environmental Site Assessment Report. San Francisco Bay Development. 121 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA. June 11, 2020.
5 Geocon Consultants, Inc., March 2021. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation . March, 2021. 6 Partner, 2020. PHASE I Environmental Site Assessment Report. San Francisco Bay Development. 121 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA. June 11, 2020.

Hydrology and Water Quality Assessment
121 East Grand Avenue Development Project
City of South San Francisco, California
4 the local jurisdictions, for any construction, whether residential, commercial, or industrial, within 100-year floodplains. The 100-year floodplain denotes an area that has a 1 percent chance of being inundated during any 12-month period. The 500-year floodplain denotes an area that has a 0.2 percent chance of being inundated during any 12-month period. The Project site is in Flood Zone X, outside the 100-year or 500-year flood zones.7
Regulatory Setting
This section describes the water resources related federal, State, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations relevant to the construction and long-term use of the Project. Described are the key regulations and regulatory requirements that are designed to protect water resources and that are applicable to construction and longterm use of the Project.

Clean Water Act - National Pollution Discharge Elimination System The federal Clean Water Act prohibits discharging pollutants to receiving waters of the United States unless the discharge is in compliance with a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit. Effluent limitations serve as the primary mechanism in NPDES permits for controlling discharges of pollutants to receiving waters. For inland surface waters and enclosed bays and estuaries, the water-quality-based effluent limitations are based on criteria in the National Toxics Rule and the California Toxics Rule, and objectives and beneficial uses defined in the applicable Basin Plan.8
NPDES Construction General Permit
The State of California adopted a Construction General Permit on September 2, 2009 (Order No. 2009-0009- DWQ as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ) (CGP). The CGP regulates construction site stormwater management. Dischargers whose projects disturb one or more acres of soil, or whose projects disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres, are required to obtain coverage under the general permit for discharges of stormwater associated with construction activity. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground, such as stockpiling or excavation, as well as construction of buildings and linear underground projects, including installation of water pipelines and other utility lines.

For the project site, the CGP is implemented and enforced by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), which administers the stormwater permitting program. To obtain coverage under this permit, project operators must electronically file Permit Registration Documents, which include a Notice of Intent, a SWPPP, and other compliance-related documents. The SWPPP identifies BMPs that must be implemented to reduce construction effects on receiving water quality based on potential pollutants. The BMPs include both sediment and erosion control measures as well as other measures to control potential chemical contaminants. Examples of typical construction BMPs include scheduling or limiting certain activities to dry periods, installing sediment barriers such as silt fence and fiber rolls, and maintaining equipment and vehicles used for construction. Non-stormwater management measures include installing specific discharge 7 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2008. National Flood Insurance Program, Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). San Mateo County and Incorporated Areas. Panel 44, Map Number 06081C0044F. April, 2019. 8 California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region, San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), incorporating all amendments approved by the Office of Administrative Law as of May 4, 2017.

Hydrology and Water Quality Assessment
121 East Grand Avenue Development Project
City of South San Francisco, California
5 controls during certain activities, such as paving operations, and vehicle and equipment washing and fueling.

The SWPPP also includes descriptions of the BMPs to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges after all construction phases have been completed at the site (post-construction BMPs).

The CGP includes requirements for a site-specific risk-level assessment,9 an active stormwater effluent monitoring and reporting program during construction (for Risk Level II and III sites), rain event action plans for certain higher risk sites,10and numeric effluent limitations for pH and turbidity as well as requirements for qualified professionals that prepare and implement the plan. The risk assessment and SWPPP must be prepared by a State-qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) and implementation of the SWPPP must be overseen by a State-qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP).

The San Mateo Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP) To comply with the CWA, San Mateo County and the twenty cities and towns in the County, including the City of South San Francisco, formed the San Mateo Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP).11 SMCWPPP is a partnership of the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) which share a common NPDES Permit, also referred to as the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP), from the RWQCB. This common permit allows each of the C/CAG co-permittees to discharge stormwater from their storm drain systems to San Francisco Bay. Under the provisions of the MRP, the City is required to take steps within its area of authority to reduce or eliminate pollutants in stormwater to the maximum extent practical.

An amendment to Provision C.3 of the SMCWPPP MRP requires new and redevelopment projects that result in the addition or replacement of impervious surfaces totaling 10,000 square feet or more, such as the proposed project, to include specific construction and post-construction stormwater treatment measures. The goal of Provision C.3 of the MRP is for the municipalities regulated by the permit, to use their permitting authority to include appropriate source control, site design, and stormwater treatment measures in new development and redevelopment projects to address both soluble and insoluble stormwater runoff pollutant discharges and prevent increases in runoff flows from these projects. This goal is primarily accomplished through the implementation of low impact development (LID) techniques. Projects regulated under C.3 requirements must implement BMPs for reducing the volume of runoff and treating all runoff on-site prior to outfall into the drainage system and also incorporate LID source control, site design, and stormwater treatment design measures onsite.

Approach to Analysis
The hydrologic and water quality assessment for the Project is based on a review of the existing conditions at the site and assessment of the changes that would occur due to the Project. The changes in the hydrological conditions at the project site are assessed to determine if implementing the Project would have a significant adverse effect on water resources, which includes consideration of whether the Project would violate water 9 The Construction General Permit defines three levels of risk (Risk Levels I, II, and III) that may be assessed for a construction site.

Risk is calculated based on the “project sediment risk,” which determines the relative amount of sediment that can be discharged given the project and location details, and the “receiving water risk” (the risk sediment discharges pose to the receiving waters). 10 Those sites that have a high potential for mobilizing sediment in stormwater and drain to a sediment-sensitive water body. 11 County of San Mateo, Planning and Building. Stormwater Treatment Requirements. Accessed online April 27, 2022 at:
https://planning.smcgov.org/stormwater-treatment-requirements Hydrology and Water Quality Assessment
121 East Grand Avenue Development Project
City of South San Francisco, California
6 quality standards or waste discharge requirements, alter existing drainage patterns of the site or area, contribute to or create polluted runoff, degrade surface and/or groundwater quality, reduce groundwater recharge, release pollutants due to flooding, or conflict with implementation of a water quality control plan.

The level of significance is based on the CEQA significance criteria listed in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and the regulatory requirements and standards that are discussed in the regulatory setting. The assessment incorporates consideration of whether compliance with regulatory requirements relevant to construction and operation of the Project would be sufficient to minimize and/or avoid significant hydrology and water qualityrelated adverse effects.

Hydrologic and Water Quality Assessment
Topic 1: Would Project implementation violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? Construction
Construction of the Project would include earthwork activities (i.e., grading, excavation, and other soildisturbing activities) and the placement of imported engineered soils. Stormwater runoff from disturbed soils associated with construction activities is a common source of pollutants (mainly sediment) to receiving waters. Earthwork activities can render soils and sediments more susceptible to erosion from stormwater runoff and result in the migration of soil and sediment in stormwater runoff to downstream water bodies.

Excessive and improperly managed grading or vegetation removal can lead to increased erosion of exposed earth and sedimentation of watercourses during rainy periods. In addition, construction would likely involve the use of various materials typically associated with construction activities such as paint, solvents, oil and grease, petroleum hydrocarbons, concrete and associated concrete wash-out areas. If improperly handled, these materials could result in pollutants being mobilized and transported offsite by stormwater runoff (nonpoint source pollution) and degrade receiving water quality.

Because the Project exceeds one acre in size, construction activities would be required to comply with NPDES regulations and obtain coverage under the State CGP. Under the CGP, the Applicant or their contractor(s) would be required to implement construction BMPs as set forth in a detailed SWPPP. SWPPPs are a required component of the CGP and must be prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) and implemented by a Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP). SWPPPs must describe the specific erosion control and stormwater quality BMPs being implemented to minimize pollutants in stormwater runoff, and detail their placement and proper installation. The BMPs are designed to prevent pollutants from coming into contact with stormwater and to keep all products of erosion and stormwater pollutants associated with construction activities from moving offsite into receiving waters. Typical BMPs to be implemented at construction sites include placement of fiber rolls or gravel barriers to detain small amounts of sediment from disturbed areas, and temporary or permanent covering of stockpiles to prevent rainfall from contacting the stockpiled material. In addition to erosion control BMPs, SWPPPs also include BMPs for preventing the discharge of pollutants other than sediment (e.g. paint, solvents, concrete, petroleum products) to downstream waters. BMPs for pollutants include conducting routine inspections of equipment for leaks, maintaining containers of supplies such that the contents are clearly labeled, the integrity of the containers is not compromised, and ensuring that construction materials are disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations.

Hydrology and Water Quality Assessment
121 East Grand Avenue Development Project
City of South San Francisco, California
7 Under the provisions of the CGP, the State-certified QSD is responsible for determining site risk level for sediment transport, developing the SWPPP, and managing its implementation. Site risk level is determined using a combination of the sediment risk of the project and the receiving water quality risk. Projects can be characterized as Risk Level 1, Level 2, or Level 3, and the minimum BMPs (stormwater controls) and monitoring that must be implemented during construction are based on the risk level. Under the direction of the QSD, the QSP is required to conduct routine inspections of all BMPs, conduct surface water sampling, when necessary, and report site conditions to the State and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board as part of CGP compliance monitoring and reporting using the Stormwater Multi-Application Reporting and Tracking System (SMARTS). Compliance with the CGP is required by law and has proven effective in protecting water quality at construction sites.

Compliance with the requirements of the CGP, including the implementation of associated BMPs as part of the SWPPP, would prevent the discharge of pollutants to surface waters or groundwater and minimize or eliminate potential degradation of surface water or groundwater quality during construction of the Project. Based on the current understanding of the Project, water quality impacts related to violation of water quality standards or degradation of water quality due to discharge of construction-related stormwater runoff from construction of the Project would be less than significant under CEQA.

Post-Construction
The Project would be subject to compliance with the City’s stormwater requirements under SMCWPPP for projects that replace over 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces. As such, the applicant would be required to conform to SMCWPPP Site Design Standards and include post-construction BMPs and LID design measures that would be incorporated into Project plans to reduce stormwater runoff volumes and treat stormwater onsite. As a Regulated Project under SMCWPPP, the Project would be required to provide stormwater treatment through LID treatment measures, including stormwater harvesting and re-use, infiltration, evapotranspiration, or biotreatment. Accordingly, the applicant would be required to design and install adequate LID stormwater treatment controls for the Project, based on the criteria detailed in the C.3 Regulated Projects Guide, as well as ensure that long-term maintenance of the controls is provided. Based on the current understanding of the Project, water quality impacts related to violation of water quality standards or degradation of water quality due to discharge of stormwater runoff following completion of Project construction (post-construction) would be less than significant under CEQA.

Mitigation: None required.

Topic 2: Would Project implementation deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge?
The Project would not involve long-term groundwater extraction. The water supply for the existing developments on the Project site is the municipal water supply system. Project construction would involve subsurface excavation (for utilities and structural support). Groundwater depths vary from 4.5 to 16 feet bgs at the project site. It is possible that subsurface excavation during Project construction could intercept shallow groundwater tables. Groundwater encountered during excavation activities would have to be pumped out of the construction trench in order to create a dry work area. However, this activity would be temporary and is unlikely to involve extensive dewatering; this activity therefore would not substantially affect groundwater Hydrology and Water Quality Assessment
121 East Grand Avenue Development Project
City of South San Francisco, California
8 levels in the vicinity of the Project. The majority of the project site and surrounding urban area is currently covered with impervious surfaces. Under the Project, there would not be a substantial change in impervious surfaces such that groundwater recharge is impeded as compared to baseline. The Project would not lower the groundwater table as a result of groundwater extraction or through a reduction in groundwater recharge.

Based on the current understanding of the Project, potential impacts relating to groundwater supply and recharge would be less than significant under CEQA.

Mitigation: None required.

Topic 3: Would Project implementation alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site? As described under Topic 1, the project site is currently developed and the majority covered with impervious surfaces that drain into the existing municipal stormwater collection system. No streams or other surface water bodies traverse the site, and the project site is not located within a natural drainage area. Construction of the Project could temporarily alter local drainage patterns; however, construction activities would be subject to the CGP, and consequently would implement a SWPPP and associated BMPs designed to control stormwater during construction, minimizing potential temporary changes in erosion, sedimentation, or flood patterns. Following construction, the project site would generally be paved or landscaped, which would prevent erosion and maintain existing runoff conditions. Following construction, Project stormwater would drain to the proposed stormwater management system (discussed under Topic 4, below) and then on to the existing municipal stormwater collection system and would be required to comply with SMCWPPP Site Design Standards to control pollutants, including sediment, in stormwater runoff and conform to the MRP. In addition, as discussed under Topic 4, below, the Project includes improvements to the existing storm water collection system to increase capacity of onsite stormwater retention and capture pollutants. Based on the current understanding of the Project, impacts relating to erosion, siltation or flooding as a result of increased stormwater runoff on- and off-site due to altered drainage patterns from implementation of the Project would be less than significant under CEQA.

Mitigation: None required.

Topic 4: Would Project implementation alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner that would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? The majority of the project site is currently covered with impervious surfaces that drain into the existing municipal stormwater collection system. Under the Project, the existing 60-inch storm drain would be relocated to the street, but not reduced in conveyance capacity. The location would be approximately parallel Hydrology and Water Quality Assessment
121 East Grand Avenue Development Project
City of South San Francisco, California
9 to and 45 feet south from the existing location.12 During construction, the project would not increase the amount of stormwater runoff to the existing stormwater collection system because areas where construction is proposed are already developed and impervious and the volume and rate of stormwater runoff would be similar to baseline conditions. Stormwater runoff would be managed in accordance with the CGP and SWPPP construction requirements discussed under Topic 1, above, to ensure sediment and other pollutants typically associated with construction activities are not mobilized and/or transported by stormwater runoff.

Following the completion of construction (post-construction), stormwater runoff would be collected, retained onsite, and treated to remove pollutants via the proposed stormwater management system. The proposed storm water management system includes the use of impervious pavers on the building podium to designate the drainage catchment area as self-treating per SMCWPPP C.3 Technical Guidance. The paver section will be designed to store runoff from the design storm within the section voids as recommended by C.3 Technical Guidance. The paver section will also be designed to allow for a collected runoff drawdown time of less than 48 hours as recommended by C.3 Technical Guidance. The podium slab below the paver section will be sloped to drain infiltrated storm water and overflow drains will be located throughout as needed to prevent excessive storage/ponding in the case of extreme storm events. Based on the current understanding of the proposed stormwater management system design and consistency with of the design with SMCWPPP technical guidance, impacts relating to exceeding the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or generating additional polluted runoff would be less than significant under CEQA.

Mitigation: None required.

Topic 5: Would Project implementation impede or redirect flood flows or risk release of pollutants due to project inundation in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones? Implementation of the Project would not result in the alteration of the course of a stream or river and the project site is not within a 100-year or 500-year flood zone nor is it subject to inundation due to tsunamior seiche. 13 On-site stormwater would be captured, treated, and conveyed via the proposed stormwater management system (as described under Topic 4, above) and would not redirect stormwater flows from large storms in a manner that could redirect flood flows off-site as compared to existing conditions. Therefore, based on the current project understanding, the Project would not cause a significant impact under CEQA related to impeding or redirecting flood flows and would not result in an increased risk of release of pollutants due to Project inundation.

Mitigation: None required.
12 BKF Engineers, undated utility relocation plan C2.0 “Utility Plan”. 13 Geocon Consultants, Inc., March 2021. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation . March, 2021.

Hydrology and Water Quality Assessment
121 East Grand Avenue Development Project
City of South San Francisco, California
10 Topic 6: Would Project implementation conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Refer to Topics 1 and 2 above. No water quality degradation is expected to occur as a result of the Project as compared to baseline conditions. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact to water quality, including groundwater and surface waters, including Colma Creek and San Francisco Bay, which are subject to the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan) water quality objectives designed to preserve and enhance water quality and protect the beneficial uses of all regional terrestrial surface water bodies (e.g., creeks, rivers, streams, and lakes), groundwaters, coastal drainages, estuaries, coastal lagoons, and enclosed bays within the RWQCB’s jurisdictional area. Construction and operation of the Project would comply with the requirements of the NPDES MRP, CGP, and the SMCWPPP C.3 requirements, which are designed to ensure stormwater discharges comply with regulatory requirements and water quality standards, such as the Basin Plan. The Project would not require ongoing groundwater withdrawals or substantially alter groundwater recharge, and therefore would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan. Based on the current Project understanding, impacts relating to conflicting with or obstruction of implementing a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan would be less than significant under CEQA.

SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE

PROJECT

NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT
Prepared by:

RCH Group
May 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT NOISE

TECHNICAL REPORT
Executive Summary 1
Introduction 2
Checklist 2
Setting 3
Discussion 11
References 16
TABLES
Table 1 – Typical Noise Levels 4
Table 2 – Existing Noise Levels 10
Table 3 – Typical Noise Levels from Construction Equipment (Lmax) 12 Table 4 – Typical Construction Activities Noise Level 13

FIGURES
Figure 1 – Noise Measurement Locations 9

ATTACHMENT
Noise Appendix
SSF 121 East Grand Avenue Project 1 Noise Technical Report May 2022 RCH Group

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report analyzes the existing noise levels and potential noise impacts from the 121 East Grand Avenue Project (the “Project”) in the City of South San Francisco, CA. The Project site is flanked by Poletti Way to the west and East Grand Avenue to the south, and southeast, and Grand Avenue to the north. The Project includes the demolition of existing structures (Comfort Inn & Suites) and development of a 17-story mixed-use life science, office and community serving retail building in the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan.

To quantify existing ambient noise levels, RCH group conducted two long-term (72-hour) and short-term (10-minute) noise measurements at the Project site. The main source of noise in the Project vicinity during the noise measurements was traffic noise from East Grand Avenue, Highway 101, and the nearby rail. To measure existing 24-hour noise levels at the Project site, a noise meter was attached to a tree at the southwest corner of the existing site (Site 1) with clear view of East Grand Avenue and Highway 101 (the primary source of noise at the Project site).

Another noise meter was attached to a tree at the east boundary of the existing site (Site 2) with a clear view of East Grand Avenue. Existing 24-hour noise levels at the Project site range from 69- 74 dB, CNEL.

Construction activities would occur during the construction hours contained in the South San Francisco Noise Ordinance. The Noise Ordinance exempts noise from construction activities that take place on weekdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., on Saturdays between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., and on Sundays and holidays between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.

All noise and vibration impacts were found be less-than-significant.

The Project site is located outside the San Francisco International Airport’s 65 dB, CNEL aircraft noise contour. Therefore, aircraft noise would result in a less-than-significant impact.

SSF 121 East Grand Avenue Project 2 Noise Technical Report May 2022 RCH Group

INTRODUCTION
This report analyzes the noise impacts from the proposed 121 East Grand Avenue Project (the “Project”) in the City of South San Francisco, CA. This report is prepared in a format to answer the noise issues identified in the Initial Study Environmental Checklist Form in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (as revised in 2019). This report provides an overview of existing noise levels measured at the Project site, local noise regulatory framework, and an analysis of potential noise impacts that would result from implementation of the Project. Potential noise impacts from the construction and operation of the Project are evaluated.

CHECKLIST
Would the project result in:

Significant
or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity
of a private airstrip or an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?

SSF 121 East Grand Avenue Project 3 Noise Technical Report May 2022 RCH Group

SETTING
Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves through a medium such as air. Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Sound pressure level has become the most common descriptor used to characterize the “loudness” of an ambient sound level. Sound pressure level is measured in decibels (dB), with zero dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of human hearing, and 120 to 140 dB corresponding to the threshold of pain. Decibels are measured using different scales, and it has been found that A-weighting of sound levels best reflects the human ear’s reduced sensitivity to low frequencies, and correlates well with human perceptions of the annoying aspects of noise. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA)is cited in most noise criteria. All references to decibels (dB) in this report will be A-weighted unless noted otherwise.

Several time-averaged scales represent noise environments and consequences of human activities.

The most commonly used noise descriptors are the equivalent A–weighted sound level over a given time period (Leq)1
; average day–night 24-hour average sound level (Ldn)2 with a nighttime increase of 10 dB to account for sensitivity to noise during the nighttime; and community noise equivalent level (CNEL)3
, also a 24-hour average that includes both an evening and a nighttime sensitivity weighting. Table 1 identifies decibel levels for common sounds heard in the environment. With regard to increases in A-weighted noise level, the following relationships occur (Caltrans, 1998a):
 Under controlled conditions in an acoustics laboratory, the trained healthy human ear is able to discern changes in sound levels of 1 dB;
 Outside of such controlled conditions, the trained ear can detect changes of 2 dB in normal environmental noise;
 It is widely accepted that the average healthy ear, however, can barely perceive noise levels changes of 3 dB;
 A change in level of 5 dB is a readily perceptible increase in noise level; and  A 10-dB change is recognized as twice as loud as the original source.

1 The Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) is a single value of a constant sound level for the same measurement period duration, which has sound energy equal to the time–varying sound energy in the measurement period.
2 Ldn is the day–night average sound level that is equal to the 24-hour A-weighted equivalent sound level with a 10-decibel penalty applied to night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 3 CNEL is the average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained by addition of 5 decibels in the evening from 7:00 to 10:00 p.m., and an addition of a 10–decibel penalty in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

SSF 121 East Grand Avenue Project 4 Noise Technical Report May 2022 RCH Group
TABLE 1. TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS
Noise Level (dB) Outdoor Activity Indoor Activity
90+ Gas lawn mower at 3 feet, jet flyover at
1,000 feet Rock Band
80-90 Diesel truck at 50 feet Loud television at 3 feet 70-80 Gas lawn mower at 100 feet, noisy urban
area
Garbage disposal at 3 feet, vacuum
cleaner at 10 feet
60-70 Commercial area
40-60 Quiet urban daytime, traffic at 300 feet Large business office, dishwasher next room
20-40 Quiet rural, suburban nighttime Concert hall (background), library, bedroom at night
10-20 Broadcast / recording studio
0 Lowest threshold of human hearing Lowest threshold of human hearing SOURCE: (modified from Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement, 1998) Noise Attenuation
Stationary point sources of noise, including construction equipment, attenuate (lessen) at a rate of 6 to 7.5 dB per doubling of distance from the source, depending on ground absorption. Soft sites attenuate at 7.5 dB per doubling because they have an absorptive ground surface such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees. Hard sites have reflective surfaces (e.g., parking lots or smooth bodies of water) and therefore have less attenuation (6.0 dB per doubling). A street or roadway with moving vehicles (known as a “line” source), would typically attenuate at a lower rate, approximately 3 to 4.5 dB each time the distance doubles from the source, that also depends on ground absorption (Caltrans, 1998b). Physical barriers located between a noise source and the noise receptor, such as berms or sound walls, would increase the attenuation that occurs by distance alone.

Vibration
Vibration is the periodic oscillation of a medium or object. The rumbling sound caused by the vibration of room surfaces is called structure-borne noise. Sources of ground-borne vibrations include natural phenomena (e.g., earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides) or human-made causes (e.g., explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment).

Vibration amplitudes are usually expressed in peak particle velocity (PPV) or root mean squared (RMS), as in RMS vibration velocity. The PPV and RMS velocity are normally described in inches per second (in/sec). PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of a vibration signal. PPV is often used in monitoring of blasting vibration because it is related to the stresses that are experienced by buildings (FTA 2018, Caltrans 2020). Vibrational effects from typical construction activities are only a concern within 25 feet of existing structures (Caltrans, 2002).

Although PPV is appropriate for evaluating the potential for building damage, it is not always suitable for evaluating human response. It takes some time for the human body to respond to SSF 121 East Grand Avenue Project 5 Noise Technical Report May 2022 RCH Group
vibration signals. In a sense, the human body responds to average vibration amplitude. The RMS of a signal is the average of the squared amplitude of the signal, typically calculated over a 1- second period. As with airborne sound, the RMS velocity is often expressed in decibel notation as vibration decibels (VdB), which serves to compress the range of numbers required to describe vibration (FTA 2018). This is based on a reference value of 1 μ inch/second. Ground-borne vibration is normally perceptible to humans at approximately 65 VdB. For most people, a vibration-velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels (FTA 2018).

Typical outdoor sources of perceptible ground-borne vibration are construction equipment, steelwheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the ground-borne vibration is rarely perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB, which is the typical background vibration-velocity level, to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings. Construction activities can generate ground-borne vibrations, which can pose a risk to nearby structures. Constant or transient vibrations can weaken structures, crack facades, and disturb occupants (FTA 2018). Construction vibrations can be transient, random, or continuous. Transient construction vibrations are generated by blasting, impact pile driving, and wrecking balls. Continuous vibrations result from vibratory pile drivers, large pumps, and compressors. Random vibration can result from jackhammers, pavement breakers, and heavy construction equipment.

Regulatory Context
Federal and State
There are no federal or state noise standards that regulate noise issues related to the proposed Project.

Local
South San Francisco General Plan
The South San Francisco Noise Element (South San Francisco General Plan, 1999) contains the San Mateo Land Use Commission noise/land use compatibility standards for review of development in noise impacted areas. The compatibility standards are specifically applicable to development within the 65 dB, CNEL noise contour of the San Francisco International Airport (Table 9.2-1 Land Use Criteria for Noise Impacted Areas, South San Francisco General Plan, page 280). The Project is not within the 65 dB, CNEL noise contour of the San Francisco International airport, therefore, the standards are not applicable to the Project.

South San Francisco Noise Ordinance
The City of South San Francisco regulated exterior noise levels through its Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32, South San Francisco Municipal Code). The Noise Ordinance contains special provisions for construction activities (§ 8.32.050). Construction activities authorized by a valid city permit shall be allowed on weekdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., on Saturdays between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., and on Sundays and holidays between SSF 121 East Grand Avenue Project 6 Noise Technical Report May 2022 RCH Group
the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.4, or at such other hours as may be authorized by the permit, as long as they meet at least one of the following noise limitations:

1. No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding ninety dB at a distance of twenty-five feet. If the device is housed within a structure or trailer on the property, the measurement shall be made outside the structure at a distance as close to twenty-five feet from the equipment as possible.

2. The noise level at any point outside of the property plane of the project shall not exceed ninety dB. (Ord. 1088 § 1, 1990).

According to § 8.32.060 of the Noise Ordinance, if the applicant can show to the city manager, or the manager’s designee, that a diligent investigation of available noise abatement techniques indicates that immediate compliance with the requirements of this chapter would be impractical or unreasonable, a permit to allow exception from the provisions contained in this chapter may be issued, with appropriate conditions to minimize the public detriment caused by such exceptions.

Any such permit shall be of as short a duration as possible, but in no case for longer than six months. These permits are renewable upon a showing of good cause and shall be conditioned by a schedule for compliance and details of compliance methods in appropriate cases. (Ord. 1088 § 1,1990)
South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR The City of South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) indicates that implementation of the Specific Plan has the potential to expose new development to stationary sources of noise and transportation noise levels that exceed the City’s normally acceptable compatibility standards (a potentially significant noise impact). The EIR also indicates that construction activities within the Plan area would result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels (a potentially significant vibration impact). The Specific Plan EIR concludes that the implementation of mitigation measures would reduce these potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level. The EIR also indicates a significant and unavoidable impact related to a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels due to traffic noise. The following mitigation measures from the Specific Plan EIR are applicable to the Project:

Mitigation Measure 4.6-1: HVAC Mechanical Equipment Shielding. Prior to the approval of building permits for non-residential development, the applicant shall submit a design plan for the project demonstrating that the noise level from operation of mechanical equipment will not exceed the exterior noise level limits for a designated receiving land use category as specified in Noise Ordinance Section 8.32.030. Noise control measures may include, but are 4 Construction activities occurring within the allowable hours of construction are exempt from the City’s Noise Ordinance (P. Perry, City of South San Francisco Building Division, personal communication, March 20, 2019). As stated in the Downtown Area Specific Plan EIR, “The City considers impacts resulting from construction noise during these hours to be less than significant.” SSF 121 East Grand Avenue Project 7 Noise Technical Report May 2022 RCH Group
not limited to, the selection of quiet equipment, equipment setbacks, silencers, and/or acoustical barriers.

Mitigation Measure 4.6-2: Site-Specific Acoustic Analysis – Nonresidential Development. Prior to the approval of building permits for new non-residential land uses where exterior noise level exceeds 70 dBA CNEL, an acoustic analysis shall be performed to determine appropriate noise reduction measures such that exterior noise levels shall be reduced below 70 dBA CNEL, unless a higher noise compatibility threshold (up to 75 dBA CNEL) has been determined appropriate by the City of South San Francisco. The analysis shall detail the measures that will be implemented to ensure exterior noise levels are compatible with the proposed use. Measures that may be implemented to ensure appropriate noise levels include, but are not limited to, setbacks to separate the proposed nonresidential structure from the adjacent roadway, or construction of noise barriers on site.

Mitigation Measure 4.6-4: Construction Vibration. For all construction activities within the study area, the construction contractor shall implement the following measures during construction:
a. The construction contractor shall provide, at least three weeks prior to the start of construction activities, written notification to all residential units and nonresidential tenants within 115 feet of the construction site informing them of the estimated start date and duration of vibration-generating construction activities. b. Stationary sources, such as temporary generators, shall be located as far from off-site receptors as possible.
c. Trucks shall be prohibited from idling along streets serving the construction site.

Mitigation Measure 4.6-5: Rail Line Groundborne Vibration. Implement the current FTA and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) guidelines, where appropriate, to limit the extent of exposure that sensitive uses may have to groundborne vibration from trains. Specifically, Category 1 uses (vibration-sensitive equipment) within 300 feet from the rail line, Category 2 uses (residences and buildings where people normally sleep) within 200 feet, and Category 3 uses (institutional land uses) within 155 feet of the rail line shall require a site-specific groundborne vibration analysis conducted by a qualified groundborne vibration specialist in accordance with the current FTA and FRA guidelines prior to obtaining a building permit.

Vibration control measures deemed appropriate by the site-specific groundborne vibration analysis to meet 65 VdB, 72 VdB, and 75 VdB respectively for Category 1, Category 2, and Category 3 uses, shall be implemented by the project applicant and approved by the City prior to receiving a building permit.

SSF 121 East Grand Avenue Project 8 Noise Technical Report May 2022 RCH Group
Sensitive Receptors
The South San Francisco General Plan Noise Element defines noise-sensitive land uses as residences, schools, churches, and hospitals. According to the General Plan, industrial and commercial land uses are generally not considered noise-sensitive land uses. There are commercial and industrial land uses north, east, and south of the Project site. An existing Caltrain line and Highway 101 are west of the Project site. The nearest sensitive land use to the Project site is an apartment building (Cadence Apartments) located approximately 690 feet west of the Project site on Airport Boulevard. There are no schools within 1,000 feet of the Project site.

Methodology and Existing Noise Environment
To quantify existing ambient noise levels, RCH group conducted two long-term (72-hour) and short-term (10-minute) noise measurements at the Project site. Metrosonics db308 Sound Level Meters calibrated before and after the measurements were used for the long-term noise measurements. A Larson Davis SoundTrack LxT Sound Level Meter calibrated before and after the measurements was used for the short-term measurements. To measure existing 24-hour noise levels at the Project site, a noise meter was attached to a tree at the southwest corner of the existing site (Site 1) with clear view of East Grand Avenue and Highway 101 (the primary source of noise at the Project site). Another noise meter was attached to a tree at the east boundary of the existing site (Site 2) with a clear view of East Grand Avenue. Existing 24-hour noise levels at the site range from 69-74 dB, CNEL. Table 2 summarizes the locations and results of the noise measurements.

Figure 1 shows the noise measurement locations on a map.

The Noise Appendix includes 24-hour noise plots for Sites 1 and 2 and hourly measurements results. Based on observations from the short-term measurements, the main source of noise in the Project vicinity was traffic noise from East Grand Avenue, Highway 101, and the nearbyrail.

FIGURE 1: NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
Legend
= Project Site
= Noise Measurement
Location
Source: RCH Group 2022 and Google Earth 2022
SSF 121 East Grand Avenue Project 9
May 2022
Noise Technical Report
RCH Group
SSF 121 East Grand Avenue Project 10 Noise Technical Report May 2022 RCH Group
TABLE 2 EXISTING NOISE LEVELS
Location Time Period Noise Levels (dB) Noise Sources
Site 1: Southwest corner of
the site, on a tree,
approximately 25 feet north
of East Grand Avenue.

March 24, 12:00 a.m.

Through March 26, 11:59
p.m., 2022
Thursday - Saturday
72-hour measurement.

Hourly Leq’s ranged
from:
61-72
CNELs: 74, 74, 73
Unattended noise
measurements do not
specifically identify noise
sources.

Site 1: Southwest corner of
the site, on a tree,
approximately 25 feet north
of East Grand Avenue.

Wednesday March 23, 2022
12:27 p.m. to 12:37 p.m.
5-minute Leq’s:
69, 69
Traffic on East Grand up to
75 dB, Heavy truck 70 dB,
Constant traffic on HWY 101
up to 69 dB.

Site 1: Southwest corner of
the site, on a tree,
approximately 25 feet north
of East Grand Avenue.

Tuesday March 29, 2022
9:51 a.m. to 10:01 a.m.
5-minute Leq’s:
73, 70
Traffic on East Grand Avenue
up to 86 dB, Constant traffic
on HWY 101 up to 69 dB.

Site 2: East corner of the
site, on a tree,
approximately 50 feet south
of East Grand Avenue.

March 24, 12:00 a.m.

Through March 26, 11:59
p.m., 2022
Thursday - Saturday
72-hour measurement.

Hourly Leq’s ranged
from:
56-70
CNELs: 70, 69, 69
Unattended noise
measurements do not
specifically identify noise
sources.

Site 2: East corner of the
site, on a tree,
approximately 50 feet south
of East Grand Avenue.

Wednesday March 23, 2022
12:40 p.m. to 12:50 p.m.
5-minute Leq’s:
65, 64
Traffic on East Grand Avenue
up to 75 dB.

Site 3: Northwest corner of
the site.

Wednesday March 23, 2022
12:53 p.m. to 1:03 p.m.
5-minute Leq’s:
74, 70
Train horn 92 dB, Traffic on
HWY 101 up to 80 dB.

Site 4: Southern boundary
of project site.

Tuesday March 29, 2022
10:31 a.m. to 10:41 a.m.
5-minute Leq’s:
66, 65
Traffic on East Grand Avenue
up to 70 dB.

SOURCE: RCH GROUP, 2022
SSF 121 East Grand Avenue Project 11 Noise Technical Report May 2022 RCH Group

SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines states that a Project would result in a significant impact to Noise if it would:
 Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
 Temporary construction noise impacts would be significant if construction occurred outside of the adopted construction hours contained in the South San Francisco Noise Ordinance. The Noise Ordinance exempts noise from construction activities that take place on weekdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., on Saturdays between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., and on Sundays and holidays between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
 Per Mitigation Measure 4.6-2 of the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR, outdoor noise levels of up to 75 dB, CNEL can be considered conditionally acceptable for non-residential areas. This analysis shall consider an exterior threshold of up to 75 dB, CNEL as a conditionally acceptable outdoor noise level. Outdoor noise levels exceeding 75 dB, CNEL would be potentially significant.  Generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; or  Per Mitigation Measure 4.6-5 of the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR, vibration exceeding 75 VdB for Category 3 uses (institutional land uses) would be significant.
 For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose persons residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

DISCUSSION
a) Would the project 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 applicable standards of other agencies? Construction Related Noise Impacts
Construction would result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project. The construction noise levels of primary concern are often associated with the site preparation phase (USEPA, 1973). Construction activities for the Project would include site grading, clearing and excavation work, as well as building construction, paving, and coating.

Construction activities would require the use of numerous pieces of noise-generating equipment, such as excavating machinery (e.g., loaders, etc.) and other construction equipment (e.g., scrapers, dozers, compactors, trucks, etc.). The noise levels generated by construction equipment would vary greatly depending upon factors such as the type and specific model of the equipment, the operation being performed, the condition of the equipment and the prevailing wind direction.

SSF 121 East Grand Avenue Project 12 Noise Technical Report May 2022 RCH Group
The maximum noise levels for various types of construction equipment that could be used during Project construction are provided in Table 3 below. Maximum noise levels generated by construction equipment used for the proposed project would range from 77 to 90 dB, Lmax at 50 feet. Table 4 provides average typical construction activity noise levels at 50 feet.

TABLE 3 TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS FROM CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT (LMAX) Construction Equipment Noise Level (dB, Lmax at 50 feet) Backhoe 78
Dozer 82
Forklift 77
Auger Drill Rig 84
Concrete Saw 90
Crane 81
Excavator 81
Paver 77
Grader 85
Compressor (Air) 78
Generator 81
Roller 80
Vibratory Concrete Mixer 80
Concrete Mixer Truck 79
Front End Loader 79
NOTES:

Lmax = maximum sound level
SOURCE: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide, 2006.

SSF 121 East Grand Avenue Project 13 Noise Technical Report May 2022 RCH Group
TABLE 4 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES NOISE LEVEL
Construction Equipment Noise Level (dB, Leq at 50 feet) Ground Clearing 84
Excavation 89
Foundations 78
Erection 85
Finishing 89
NOTES:

Average noise levels correspond to a distance of 50 feet from the noisiest piece of equipment associated with a given phase of construction and 200 feet from the rest of the equipment associated with that phase.

Leq= equivalent sound level
SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Legal Compilation, 1973.

As discussed above, the nearest noise-sensitive receptor is an apartment building approximately 690 feet west of the Project site on Airport Boulevard. Project construction noise at these apartments would be masked by rail line and traffic noise from Highway 101, Grand Avenue, and Airport Boulevard. Construction activities would occur during the adopted construction hours contained in the South San Francisco Noise Ordinance. The Noise Ordinance exempts noise from construction activities that take place on weekdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., on Saturdays between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., and on Sundays and holidays between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Therefore, Project construction would result in a less-than-significant impact.

Operational Noise Impacts
Land Use Noise Compatibility Impacts on the Project
As shown in Table 2, existing 24-hour noise levels at Site 1 are 73-74 dB, CNEL and 69-70 dB, CNEL at Site 2. Therefore, the site is less than 75 dB, CNEL threshold which is considered a Conditionally Acceptable outdoor noise level for non-residential uses (per South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR, Mitigation Measure 4.6-2). In summary, the site is noise appropriate for the proposed use. Therefore, the effect of existing noise on the Project would be a less-than-significant impact.

Stationary Noise Impacts from the Project
Operation of the Project would not produce substantial levels of off-site noise. Mechanical equipment would be required to comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance § 8.32.030 (Per South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR, Mitigation Measure 4.6-1). The Project applicant would be required to submit a design plan for the Project demonstrating that the noise level from operation of mechanical equipment will not exceed the exterior noise level limits for adjacent receiving land use categories as specified in Noise Ordinance § 8.32.030. Therefore, noise impacts from Project stationary equipment during operations would result in a less-thansignificant impact.

SSF 121 East Grand Avenue Project 14 Noise Technical Report May 2022 RCH Group
Traffic Noise Impacts from the Project
A doubling of sound energy results in a 3 dB increase in sound, which means that a doubling of sound energy (e.g., doubling the volume of traffic on a road) would result in a barely perceptible change in sound level. The Project is located directly east of Highway 101 and nearby major roadways (Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue). The City of South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR indicates a significant and unavoidable impact related to a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels due to traffic noise. However, the Project would not result in a doubling of traffic on nearby roadways and any increase in traffic noise would be negligible compared to the existing noise generated by Highway 101 and other nearby major roadways. Therefore, noise impacts from Project-related motor vehicles during operations would result in a less-than-significant impact.
______________________
b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Construction Vibration Impacts
As discussed, construction activities have the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary ground vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used and operations involved. Per Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 4.6-4: Construction Vibration, all construction activities in the Specific Plan area are required to implement the following vibration control measures:
a. The construction contractor shall provide, at least three weeks prior to the start of construction activities, written notification to all residential units and nonresidential tenants within 115 feet of the construction site informing them of the estimated start date and duration of vibration-generating construction activities. b. Stationary sources, such as temporary generators, shall be located as far from off-site receptors as possible.
c. Trucks shall be prohibited from idling along streets serving the construction site.

In most cases, vibration induced by typical construction equipment does not result in adverse effects on people or structures (Caltrans, 2013). Vibrational effects from typical construction activities are only a concern within 25 feet of existing structures (Caltrans, 2002). There are no structures within 25 feet of the Project site. Therefore, construction vibration would result in a less-than-significant impact.

Caltrain Vibration Impacts on Project
According to a study conducted on Caltrain rails, ground vibration from Caltrain passbys measured up to 89 VdB at 25 feet (Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project DEIR, 2014). Based on the Project site plan, the western building façade would be located approximately 140-150 feet SSF 121 East Grand Avenue Project 15 Noise Technical Report May 2022 RCH Group
east of the outermost track of the Caltrain rail line. At this distance, the VdB from passing commuter rails along the Caltrain rail line would attenuate to approximately 67 VdB. These levels of vibration would be below the 75 VdB threshold established by Mitigation Measure 4.6-5 of the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR for rail line vibration.

Furthermore, per Mitigation Measure 4.6-5 of the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR, a site-specific groundborne vibration analysis conducted by a qualified groundborne vibration specialist in accordance with the current FTA and FRA guidelines would be required prior to obtaining a building permit. Therefore, vibration from the adjacent Caltrain rail line would result in a less-than-significant impact. _________________________
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
The Project site is approximately 1.8 miles north of the San Francisco International Airport. The Project site is not within an aircraft insulation area as shown on Figure 9-1 Aircraft Noise and Noise Insulation Project (page 279, South San Francisco General Plan). The contours indicate the Project site is located outside the 65 dB, CNEL aircraft noise contour. Therefore, aircraft noise would result in a less-than-significant impact.
_________________________
SSF 121 East Grand Avenue Project 16 Noise Technical Report May 2022 RCH Group

REFERENCES
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Technical Noise Supplement.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 1998a. Technical Noise Supplement.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 1998b. Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway Construction and Reconstruction Projects.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2020 Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. (CT-HWANP-RT-20-365.01.01).

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2002. Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. (FTA-VA-90-1003-06).

Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project. 2014. Draft Environmental Report, SCH #2013012079. Available at: https://www.caltrain.com/projects/caltrainmodernization/calmod-document-library/pcep-deir-2014 The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1973. Legal Compilation:

Statutes and Legislative History, Executive Orders, Regulations, Guidelines and Reports.

Noise Appendix
Long Term Noise Measurement Graphs for Sites 1 & 2
Site 1: Southwest corner of the site, on a tree, approximately 25 feet north of East Grand Avenue 065
100 62
200 61
300 64
400 66
500 69
600 70
700 70
800 70
900 70
1000 72
1100 71
1200 71
1300 71
1400 72
1500 72
1600 72
1700 72
1800 72
1900 71
2000 70
2100 69
2200 67
2300 66
CNEL 74
Thursday March 24, 2022
Hour Leq - Equivalent Sound Level
58 65
62 66
68 68
69 72
72 70
70 73
55 67
67 66
68 68
57 54
68 68
70 71
72 71
81 86
81 69
72 72
72 69
69 68
81 80
93 89
82 71
60 62
68 66
67 91
83 88
84 82
86 84
70 73
73 73
71 77
77 78
86 89
85 86
Lmax - Maximum
Sound Level During
Hour L10 L90
80 76
67 63
64 67
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
Decibels (dBA)
Hour
Leq - Equivalent Sound Level Lmax - Maximum Sound Level During Hour L10 L90 Site 1: Southwest corner of the site, on a tree, approximately 25 feet north of East Grand Avenue Hour
0 65
100 62
200 61
300 62
400 66
500 69
600 70
700 70
800 70
900 70
1000 70
1100 70
1200 69
1300 70
1400 70
1500 71
1600 71
1700 71
1800 72
1900 70
2000 69
2100 69
2200 68
2300 65
CNEL: 74
67 67
67 Friday March 25, 2022
68 64
61 77
74 61
56 73
71 69
70 70
67 71
71 71
71 71
71 94
83 82
82 80
82 67
68 68
68 67
67 67
67 66
66 66
65 54
75 79
85 57
61 70 65
64 63
70 71
71 72
72 83
85 Leq - Equivalent Sound Level
83 82
85 83
73 67
66 81
76 90
71 83
84 81
Lmax - Maximum
Sound Level During
Hour L10 L90
64 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
Decibels (dBA)
Hour
Leq - Equivalent Sound Level Lmax - Maximum Sound Level During Hour L10 L90 Site 1: Southwest corner of the site, on a tree, approximately 25 feet north of East Grand Avenue Hour
0 64
100 61
200 61
300 63
400 64
500 67
600 67
700 68
800 68
900 69
1000 69
1100 69
1200 69
1300 69
1400 69
1500 70
1600 71
1700 71
1800 72
1900 70
2000 69
2100 68
2200 70
2300 66
CNEL: 73
65 64
64 67
66 66
66 68
69 69
68 66
66 65
66 67
60 67
67 62
62 65
69 69
70 63
65 81
85 84
79 81
82 78
79 98
71 72
71 70
69 70
70 70
70 70
70 71
65 67
68 59
56 Saturday March 26, 2022
61 L90
85 81
64 56
57 85
81 78
76 L10
Lmax - Maximum
Sound Level During
Hour
76 94
81 87
88 80
95 82
84 Leq - Equivalent Sound Level
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
Decibels (dBA)
Hour
Leq - Equivalent Sound Level Lmax - Maximum Sound Level During Hour L10 L90 060
100 59
200 59
300 62
400 62
500 65
600 67
700 66
800 66
900 67
1000 68
1100 66
1200 66
1300 65
1400 66
1500 70
1600 66
1700 66
1800 66
1900 64
2000 63
2100 62
2200 61
2300 59
CNEL 70
75 76
76 81
85 78
82 Lmax - Maximum
Sound Level During
Hour L10 L90
76 76
62 62
62 65
89 79
82 79
79 96
79 68
68 67
67 66
76 81
78 62
67 68
69 62
62 61
85 86
86 84
80 68
53 55
61 59
59 61
61 62
68 69
64 63
68 50
62 61
60 61
61 53
50 61
64 67
68 68
65 Hour Leq - Equivalent Sound Level
53 59
55 62
Site 2: East corner of the site, on a tree, approximately 50 feet south of East Grand Avenue Thursday March 24, 2022
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
Decibels (dBA)
Hour
Leq - Equivalent Sound Level Lmax - Maximum Sound Level During Hour L10 L90 Hour
058
100 56
200 56
300 57
400 61
500 65
600 66
700 67
800 67
900 67
1000 66
1100 65
1200 65
1300 65
1400 65
1500 65
1600 65
1700 65
1800 66
1900 64
2000 63
2100 62
2200 61
2300 60
CNEL: 69
Lmax - Maximum
Sound Level During
Hour L10 L90
60 84
79 81
87 88
Leq - Equivalent Sound Level
91 83
87 79
73 64
60 75
73 80
66 67
68 67
67 67
48 73
76 87
50 54
67 58
58 58
61 61
61 61
61 61
61 60
59 60
58 84 58
80 80
81 85
84 68
69 68
68 68
67 67
66 65
64 64
62 57
55 71
70 54
50 Site 2: East corner of the site, on a tree, approximately 50 feet south of East Grand Avenue Friday March 25, 2022
61 60
60 61
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
Decibels (dBA)
Hour
Leq - Equivalent Sound Level Lmax - Maximum Sound Level During Hour L10 L90 Hour
057
100 57
200 56
300 58
400 58
500 60
600 63
700 63
800 63
900 63
1000 63
1100 63
1200 64
1300 64
1400 64
1500 64
1600 64
1700 64
1800 64
1900 65
2000 62
2100 62
2200 68
2300 60
CNEL: 69
Lmax - Maximum
Sound Level During
Hour
75 78
85 82
76 80
83 91
83 Leq - Equivalent Sound Level
75 77
60 50
51 74
76 70
72 L10 L90
52 51
Site 2: East corner of the site, on a tree, approximately 50 feet south of East Grand Avenue Saturday March 26, 2022
55 56
57 79
84 84
78 85
77 78
76 95
65 65
65 65
64 64
65 65
65 66
65 65
60 63
65 59
58 59
66 65
65 62
62 57
59 59
53 57
55 54
59 60
59 59
60 61
61 60
59 58
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
Decibels (dBA)
Hour
Leq - Equivalent Sound Level Lmax - Maximum Sound Level During Hour L10 L90 June 2, 2022

121 E. Grand Ave
South San Francisco
Final Transportation Demand Management Plan
(Trip Reduction Plan)

Prepared for:

Phase 3 Real Estate Partners
Prepared by:
(408) 420-2411
June 2, 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TDM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... i INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... 1 TDM Planning Process.......................................................................................................... 1

1.0 REGULATORY AND SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENTS..............................................................2 City of South San Francisco .................................................................................................. 2 San Francisco Bay Area Commuter Benefits Program.......................................................... 4 San Francisco Bay Area Commuter Benefits Program Proposed Strategy EN-7 ................... 4 State Regulatory Setting....................................................................................................... 4

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.........................................................................................................5 Project Location Map ...........................................................................................................7

3.0 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES...............................................................................7 Nearby Transit Services Matrix............................................................................................. 8 Walking Distance to Local Transit Map ................................................................................ 9 Genesis One Tower Place BART Shuttle ............................................................................... 9 Genesis One Tower Place BART Shuttle Route Map............................................................. 9 Utah-Grand Shuttles........................................................................................................... 10 Utah-Grand Caltrain Shuttle Route Map ............................................................................ 10 Utah-Grand BART Shuttle Route Map ................................................................................ 10 SamTrans………. .................................................................................................................. 11 SamTrans Route 292 Map .................................................................................................. 11 Genentech Millbrae Station Connector Shuttle ................................................................. 13 Genentech Glen Park Connector Shuttle............................................................................ 14 Transit Trip Planning Resources ......................................................................................... 15 Bicycle Connections............................................................................................................ 16 San Mateo County Bicycle Map.......................................................................................... 18 San Francisco Bay Trail Map............................................................................................... 19 Bicycle Commuter Resources............................................................................................. 20 Walk Score………. ................................................................................................................ 20 SECTION I – TDM INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSICAL MEASURES ............................................ 20 Infill Development.............................................................................................................. 21 Transit-Oriented Design ..................................................................................................... 21 Building Design................................................................................................................... 21 Transit/Shuttle Center........................................................................................................ 21

4.0 BICYCLE FACILITIES .............................................................................................................22 Long-Term Bike Parking...................................................................................................... 22 Short-Term Bike Parking..................................................................................................... 22 Enhanced Bike Parking Facilities ........................................................................................ 23 Bicycle Path Development.................................................................................................. 23 Fix-it Bicycle Repair Station ................................................................................................ 24 Wayfinding Signage............................................................................................................ 24 Showers and Changing Facilities ........................................................................................ 24

5.0 PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES ......................................................................................................24

6.0 PARKING FACILITIES ...........................................................................................................25 Parking Reduction .............................................................................................................. 25 Carpool/Vanpool Parking ................................................................................................... 25 Clean Air, Clean-Fuel Vehicle Parking................................................................................. 25 Electric/Plug-in Charging Facilities ..................................................................................... 26 Carshare Vehicle Parking - Conceptual ............................................................................... 26 Motorcycle and Scooter Parking Placement....................................................................... 26

7.0 TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUTE INFORMATION KIOSK................................................27

8.0 EMPLOYEE COMMUTER RESOURCES .................................................................................28 Commute Resource Flier.................................................................................................... 28 On-Site Amenities .............................................................................................................. 30 Nearby Amenities............................................................................................................... 30

9.0 TDM SITE PLAN...................................................................................................................30 SECTION II – PROGRAMMATIC TDM MEASURES.................................................................... 32

10.0 APPLICANT COMMUTER PROGRAM MANAGEMENT .........................................................32 Commuter Concierge Amenity ........................................................................................... 32 Commute.org Shuttle Consortium ..................................................................................... 32 Commuter Incentives and Rewards.................................................................................... 32 Coordination of Trip Reduction Programs with Nearby Developments ............................. 33 Unbundled Commuter Parking........................................................................................... 33 Parking Management Technology Solution........................................................................ 34 Scheduled Mobile Bicycle Maintenance Service ................................................................ 34 Best "Site" for Commuters National Recognition............................................................... 34

11.0 TENANT COMMUTER EMPLOYEE BENEFITS .......................................................................34 Transit Subsidies ................................................................................................................ 34 Vanpool Subsidies.............................................................................................................. 35 Carpool Commuter Allowance ........................................................................................... 35 Bicycle Commuter Allowance............................................................................................. 35 Pre-tax Transit Payroll Deduction Option........................................................................... 35 Pre-tax Parking Payroll Deduction Option.......................................................................... 36 Parking Cash-Out................................................................................................................ 36 Telework/Remote Work Option......................................................................................... 36 Alternative Work Schedule Option – Flextime, Compressed Workweek............................ 36

12.0 TENANT COMMUTER SERVICE & RESOURCES ....................................................................37 Designated Employer Contact/Employee Transportation Coordinator.............................. 37 Commute Information Web Portal/Intranet ...................................................................... 38 Mock Employee Transportation Information Portal........................................................... 39 Guaranteed Ride Home Program ....................................................................................... 40 Regional Bikeshare Participation - Conceptual ................................................................... 41 Annual Bike Safety Seminar ............................................................................................... 41 Carpool and Vanpool Ride-matching Services.................................................................... 41 Carpool Incentive Programs............................................................................................... 43 Vanpool Incentive Program................................................................................................ 43 Bicycle Incentive Programs................................................................................................. 44

13.0 TENANT COMMUTER MARKETING & OUTREACH...............................................................45 New Employee Onboarding ............................................................................................... 45 Employee Transportation Fairs .......................................................................................... 45 Newsletter Articles and Emails........................................................................................... 45 Transportation Management Association Engagement..................................................... 45 Best Workplaces for Commuters Designation.................................................................... 46 SECTION III – TDM MONITORING AND REPORTING ............................................................... 47

14.0 MONITORING AND REPORTING .........................................................................................47 Tenant Performance and Lease Language – TDM Requirements....................................... 47 Annual Employee Commute Survey ................................................................................... 48 Annual Commute Survey Report........................................................................................ 48 Annual Commuter Satisfaction Survey............................................................................... 49 Triennial Driveway Report.................................................................................................. 49 Penalty for Noncompliance................................................................................................ 50 No Expiration of TDM Plan or Programs............................................................................. 52 ITE Trip Generation Estimate ............................................................................................. 52 C/CAG Trip Reduction Measures Checklist – Using Proposed C/CAG Updates................... 52

15.0 CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................55

ATTACHMENTS
Nearby Amenities
Numerical Citations in CCAG Background TDM Checklist Worksheets TDM SPECIALISTS, INC. QUALIFICATIONS
121 East Grand Ave — Preliminary TDM Plan
June 2, 2022
Page i

TDM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Transportation Demand Management TDM Plan (herein known as the TDM Plan) for the site at 121 E. Grand Avenue (Project) provides a viable and dynamic program to support a 45 percent alternative transportation mode-use rate. The TDM Plan meets the requirements put forward to the City of South San Francisco (City). This TDM Plan is consistent with the City of South San Francisco's TDM Ordinance and trip reduction guidelines provided by the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo County. The C/CAG guidelines "…identify strategies to respond to future transportation needs, develop procedures to alleviate and control congestion, and promote countywide solutions." The project understands that the efficacy of this TDM Plan is paramount, and the mechanisms in the TDM Plan will bind both the project and future tenants. Three (3) factors set the proposed TDM Plan apart from typical TDM Plans:
• Employee Transit Subsidies/Amenities: The TDM Plan will include the infrastructure, programs, and monitoring system to meet the City's requirements. In addition to the conventional TDM measures, the TDM Plan will consist of transit subsidies, guaranteed ride home, preferential carpool parking, bike parking, telework options, and annual online surveys. Highlights of the TDM Plan also include:
o Last-mile shuttle program (operated by Commute.org)
o Direct access to South San Francisco Caltrain Station o On-site amenities include a public restaurant, gym, etc. o A real-time transportation information kiosk/screen
• Enforcement Mechanisms:
o Obligate Tenants to Perform: Language codified into the tenant leases will obligate future tenant(s) to achieve trip reduction goals and offer employee commuter benefits, such as transit subsidies and participate in annual surveys. o Surveys: Online employee surveys will identify transportation mode use and track trip reduction goals.
o Triennial driveway hose counts: The project will undertake a study to identify the number of peak-hour and daily trips taken during a typical week every three years.
o City Penalty Structure: The City may assess penalties at their discretion. Financial penalties would be the direct responsibility of the project. The conditions of approval for the project may provide a financial penalty structure in the event of failure to perform or deliver annual reporting.
• Ongoing Role for TDM Consultant: The TDM Consultant who prepared the TDM Plan will coordinate with the project's Property Management team. Ongoing Commuter Concierge responsibilities will include:
121 East Grand Ave — Preliminary TDM Plan
June 2, 2022
Page ii
o Pre-occupancy engagement with tenants to transition drive-alone commuters to alternative transportation options before tenants move to the site o New employee (all personnel) orientation to alternative transportation options o Quarterly on-site promotions and events for all employees that highlight public transit, pedestrian and biking, and carpooling transit options and rewards o Support tenants with their Employee Wellness/Health/Commuter Transportation Fair/Earth Day/Bike to Work Day/Spare the Air events and promotions o Support tenants with coordination and formation of vanpools o Robust surveys of tenants and their staff to ensure compliance o Report TDM performance to the City.

The Project TDM Plan's measures below achieve a 45 percent alternative transportation modeuse rate. These measures are consistent with other very well-performing TDM Plans and tripreduction programs in South San Francisco, Foster City, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and other San Francisco Bay Area locations
The following outline provides a summary of the applicant's TDM Plan for the project:

TDM INFRASTRUCTURE, PHYSICAL MEASURES, AND MONITORING
Installation and Built Environment (obligates the applicant to provide) • Infill development
• Transit-oriented design
• Building design
• Shuttle loading zone
• Long-term bike parking (Class I)
• Short-term bike parking (Class II)
• Enhanced bike parking facilities
• Bicycle path development
• Fix-it bicycle repair station
• Wayfinding signage
• Showers and changing facilities
• Parking reduction
• Carpool/vanpool parking
• Clean air, clean-fuel vehicle parking
• Electric-vehicle (EV) parking
• Carshare Vehicle Parking - Conceptual
• Motorcycle and scooter parking placement
• Commuter/transportation kiosk (TransitScreen)
• Employee commuter resource flier
• On-site amenities and nearby amenities
• TDM site plan
121 East Grand Ave — Preliminary TDM Plan
June 2, 2022
Page iii

TDM PROGRAMMATIC MEASURES
Commuter Program Management (obligates the applicant)
• Commuter Concierge amenity service
• Commute.org shuttle consortium participation
• Commuter incentives and rewards
• Coordination of trip reduction programs with nearby developments • Parking management strategies
o Preferential vanpool parking
o Preferential carpool parking
o Carpool parking policy
o Unbundled commuter parking
o Valet, tandem, and stacker parking
o Parking management technology solution
• Best "Site" for Commuters national award
Employee Commuter Benefits (obligates the tenant)
• Transit subsidies
o Caltrain GoPass
o SamTrans Way2Go pass
• Vanpool subsidies
• Carpool subsidies
• Pre-tax transit deduction payroll option
• Pre-tax parking deduction payroll option
• Telework option
• Alternative work schedule option (flextime, compressed workweek) Employee Commuter Service & Resources (obligates the tenant) • Employee Transportation Coordinator
• Commute information web portal/intranet
• Guaranteed Ride Home program
• Regional bikeshare participation - conceptual
• Annual bike safety seminar
• Carpool and vanpool ride matching services
• Carpool allowance incentives
• Bicycle allowance incentive
Employee Commuter Marketing & Outreach (obligates the tenant) • New employee onboarding
• Employee transportation fairs
• Company newsletter articles and emails
• Transportation management association (TMA) engagement • Best Workplaces for Commuters designation
121 East Grand Ave — Preliminary TDM Plan
June 2, 2022
Page iv
TDM PERFORMANCE MONITORING & SURVEYING (obligates applicant and tenants) • Tenant performance and lease language – TDM requirements • A yearly employee commute survey
• A yearly commute survey report
• Mid-year commuter satisfaction survey
• Triennial driveway report
• Penalty for non-compliance
• No expiration of the TDM Plan
• ITE trip generation estimate
• C/CAG trip reduction measures checklist
121 East Grand Ave — Preliminary TDM Plan
June 2, 2022

Page 1 ends

INTRODUCTION
This 121 E. Grand Avenue Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan meets the project's specific needs, considering the site's logistical resources, opportunities, and constraints. The TDM Plan measures provide specific elements and actions that commit the applicant and future tenant to implementation. Executing the TDM Plan measures will increase pedestrian, bicycle, carpool, and transit uses and achieve the required alternative transportation mode-use rate.

The TDM Plan is performance-based and directs the applicant and future employers (tenants) to implement employee benefits and create a formal commute program. Commute program marketing, ongoing promotions, a guaranteed emergency ride home program, and an active Commuter Concierge will provide the synergism needed to create a successful program for future project employees. This TDM Plan contains appropriate measures and elements consistent with other well-performing Silicon Valley, San Francisco Bay Area region, and national commute programs. Annual monitoring via surveys will provide the documentation to demonstrate the TDM programs' effectiveness to meet a 45 percent alternative transportation mode-use rate.

This TDM Plan details the applicant's commitment to the City of South San Francisco (City) and its designated responsibility for implementation.

This Project design encourages alternative modes of transportation, including walking, bicycling, carpooling, vanpooling, and public transit. By balancing air quality with economic growth, 121 E.

Grand Avenue will help the City thrive as a community and meet its 2035 greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction goals.

TDM Planning Process
The following comprehensive TDM Plan will mitigate employee commute trips associated with a life science project. The project will include trip reduction elements and goals outlined in Chapter

20.400 Transportation Demand Management ordinance. The TDM Plan contains appropriate measures and features consistent with other Peninsula and regional commute programs.

This TDM Plan encompasses an array of alternative transportation mode-use strategies categorized in the following three sections:

I. TDM Infrastructure and Physical Measures
II. Programmatic TDM Measures
III. TDM Monitoring and Reporting
121 East Grand Ave — Preliminary TDM Plan
June 2, 2022

Page 2 ends

1.0 REGULATORY AND SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENTS
The TDM Plan combines services, incentives, facilities, and actions that reduce single-occupant vehicle (SOV) trips to help relieve traffic congestion, parking demand, and air pollution problems.

The following are goals that addressed through the effective utilization of a TDM Plan with the use of TDM measures:
• Reduce parking demand by converting SOV trips to an alternate mode of transportation (e.g., transit, carpool or vanpool, bicycling, or walking). • Shift travel to less congested routes by providing traveler information systems that warn motorists about delays or alternative routes.
• Support other technological solutions (e.g., compressed natural gas, electric/hybrid vehicles, or other zero-emission vehicles).
• Eliminate or shift trips from peak periods (e.g., flexible schedules, compressed workweeks, or telecommuting).

Successes achieved from TDM Planning will also significantly impact GHG emission reductions while providing sustainable mobility solutions. The sustainable solution combines innovative strategies with proven trip reduction methods, mobility-enhancing approaches, and energy consumption-reducing programs at a City-wide level. The results include mitigating GHG emissions and other pollutants, improved traffic flow and connectivity, reduced parking demand, and lower energy bills.

A summary of City, county, and State policy goals related to sustainability, congestion management, and GHG reduction follows below.

City of South San Francisco
South San Francisco General Plan1
o Land Use Policies: 2-G-8 Provide incentives to maximize community orientation of new development and promote alternative transportation modes. o Implementation Policies: 2-I-4 Require all new developments that seek a FAR bonus to achieve a progressively higher alternative mode usage.
o Alternative Transportation Systems Policies: 4.3-G-1 Develop a comprehensive and integrated bikeways system that promotes bicycle riding for transportation and recreation. o Alternative Transportation Systems Policies: 4.3-G-2 Provide safe and direct pedestrian routes and bikeways between and through residential neighborhoods and to transit routes o Alternative Transportation Systems Policies: 4.3-G-3 In partnership with employers, continue efforts to expand shuttle operations.
1 http://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=15526
121 East Grand Ave — Preliminary TDM Plan
June 2, 2022

Page 3 ends

o Alternative Transportation Systems Policies: 4.3-G-4 In partnership with the local business community, develop a transportation systems management plan with identified trip reduction goals while maintaining a positive and supportive business environment. o Alternative Transportation Systems Policies: 4.3-I-4 Require secure covered bicycle parking at all existing and future multifamily residential, commercial, industrial, and office/institutional uses.
o Alternative Transportation Systems Policies: 4.3-I-8, 9, 10, o Alternative Transportation Systems Policies: 4.3-I-11 Establish parking standards to support trip reductions by:
 Allowing parking reductions for projects that have agreed to implement trip reduction methods, such as paid parking.
o Air Quality Policies: 7.3-G-2 Encourage land use and transportation strategies that promote alternatives to the automobile for transportation, including bicycling, bus transit, and carpooling.
o Bicycle Master Plan Policies:2 1.2 Reduce reliance on travel by single-occupant passenger vehicles.
o Bicycle Master Plan Policies: 3.2 Bicycle parking facilities should be provided at schools, parks, and transit stops and shall be required to be provided at private developments, including places of work, commercial shopping establishments, parks, community facilities, and other bicyclist destinations.

South San Francisco Climate Action Plan3
The City's Climate Action Plan was adopted in 2014 to reduce energy usage and GHGs communitywide. The City also focuses on transit-oriented development proximate to Caltrain, BART, and the ferry terminal. South San Francisco is investing heavily in alternative modes of transportation to reduce reliance on single-occupancy vehicles, including the newly renovated Caltrain Station and pedestrian plaza, which will help improve transit options for employees, residents, and visitors.

The City has partnered to offer carpool programs, the free South City Shuttle, and transportation demand management strategies for commercial and residential development.

South San Francisco TDM Zoning Ordinance 2010
o Chapter 20.400 Transportation Demand
Management
Chapter 20.330 – Parking Standards (Bicycle
Parking)
o Short and long-term bicycle parking shall be
provided according to the provisions
identified in section 20.330.008 of the
SSFMC.
2 Approved General Plan Amendment Adopting the South San Francisco Bicycle Master Plan, February 9, 2011. 3 http://www.ssf.net/departments/city-manager/sustainability

20.400.001 – The specific purposes of this
chapter are the following: …promote the
more efficient utilization of existing
transportation facilities and ensure that
new developments are designed in ways to
maximize the potential for alternative
transportation usage.
121 East Grand Ave — Preliminary TDM Plan
June 2, 2022

Page 4 ends

San Mateo County Congestion Management Plan4
o All land-use changes or new developments that require a negative declaration or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and that are projected to generate a net (subtracting existing uses that are currently active) 100 or more trips per hour at any time during the a.m. or p.m. peak hour period must be reported to C/CAG within ten days of completion of the initial study prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). o In 2021, C/CAG updated its policy for San Mateo County jurisdictions. This update includes a new requirement that local jurisdictions notify C/CAG of any new development project estimated to generate at least 100 Average Daily Trips under their purview. Previously, the threshold for local jurisdictions to report C/CAG of development projects was 100 net peak hour trips or those proposed as part of a General Plan Amendment.

San Francisco Bay Area Commuter Benefits Program
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District Regulation 14, Rule 1, also known as the Bay Area Commuter Benefits Program, requires employers with 50 or more full-time employees to register and offer commuter benefits to their employees. This rule aims to improve air quality, reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and other air pollutants, and decrease traffic congestion in the San Francisco Bay Area by encouraging employees to commute to work by transit and different alternative commute modes, including telework.

San Francisco Bay Area Commuter Benefits Program Proposed Strategy EN-7 A proposed enhanced Strategy EN7 - Expand Commuter Trip Reduction Programs at Major Employers, will expand the Bay Area Commuter Benefits program. In November 2020, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) met to discuss employer and business community concerns regarding substantially increasing future levels of telecommuting. A viable alternative strategy, called enhanced Strategy EN-7, included expanding employer measures beyond telecommuting to include transit, walking, and bicycling modes, providing more flexibility for businesses. It also limits on-site office occupancy to 40 percent per average workday. While the proposed change is not in place yet, employers can find more information here.

State Regulatory Setting
The State of California has given many organizations and agencies the responsibility of creating guidelines, policies, and thresholds that meet legislation. Agencies include the Office of Planning and Research, California Air Resources Board (CARB), California Air Pollution Control Officers' Association, Council of Governments, and the Attorney General's office. ♦ Senate Bill 375 – establishes improved land use and transportation policy supporting AB32 by providing a means for achieving the AB 32 goals for cars and light trucks through land-use changes. This legislation created potentially revolutionary changes in California's regional planning processes for housing and transportation by mandating sustainable regional growth 4 www.ccag.ca.gov
121 East Grand Ave — Preliminary TDM Plan
June 2, 2022

Page 5 ends

South San Francisco City CouncilSeptember 14, 2022

South San Francisco City Council
September 14, 2022