South San Francisco City Council
September 14, 2022

121 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2022
Prepared for:

City of South San Francisco
Department of Economic and Community Development
Planning Division
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94083
Prepared By:

ALLISON KNAPP WOLLAM
Planning and Environmental Consulting
In conjunction with RCH GROUP, INC.

121 East Grand Avenue – Table of Contents of Initial Study Page TOC-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE
CHAPTER 1: LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK 1-1

1.1 Initial Study/Legislative Framework 1-1

1.2 Project Sponsor Team/Lead Agency Team 1-2

1.3 Documents Incorporated by Reference and Included in Appendix A 1-3

1.4 City of South San Francisco Project Review Process 1-5

1.5 Standard Conditions and Processes of Approval Required by Law Addressing Environmental Issues
1-6

1.6 1.7
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
Lead Agency’s Determination
1-16
1-17
CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-1

2.1 Project Location and Setting 2-1

2.2 Proposed Project 2-4

2.3 General Plan and Zoning 2-25

2.4 Required Legislative Actions and Entitlements 2-30
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
I. Aesthetics 3-1
II. Agriculture and Forest Resources 3-14
III. Air Quality 3-16
IV. Biological Resources 3-29
V. Biological Resources 3-26
VI. Energy 3-45
VII. Geology and Soils 3-51
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3-65
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3-74
X. Hydrology and Water Quality 3-82
XI. Land Use and Planning 3-91
XII. Mineral Resources 3-95
XIII. Noise 3-96
XIV. Population and Housing 3-105
XV. Public Services 3-107
XVI. Recreation 3-109
XVII. Transportation 3-111
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources 3-119
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems 3-120
XX. Wildfire 3-131
XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance 3-133
121 East Grand Avenue – Table of Contents of Initial Study Page TOC-2

LIST OF FIGURES
Chapter 2 Project Description
Figure 1 Urban Context, Project Site and Area 2-3
Figure 2 View Looking North East Showing Arrival Plaza 2-5 Figure 3 Vehicular and Service Access and Fire Safety Access Figure 4 Public Amenities
Figure 5 Plazas and Function
Figure 6 Proposed Landscape Plan
Figure 7 Approximate Location of Easements
Figure 8 Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
Figure 9 Draft 2040 General Plan – East of 101 Sub Area 2-6
2-8
2-9
2-13
2-15
2-26
2-28
Chapter 3 Environmental Checklist
Aesthetics Figure 1 View From Sign Hill Trail 3-7
Aesthetics Figure 2 East View From City Hall 3-8
Transportation Figure 1 Transportation Improvements Incorporated Into The Project 3-115 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 1 OF INITIAL STUDY PAGE 1-1 1 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

1.1 INITIAL STUDY/LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which can be found in the California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines found in California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3, (CCR) Section 15000 et seq., as amended. This Initial Study identifies the potential environmental impacts associated with demolition, grading, construction, and future occupancy of the Project which includes any reasonably foreseeable impacts associated with the Project in its entirety. CEQA (PRC Section 21065) defines a Project as:

An activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and which is any of the following:
a) An activity directly undertaken by a public agency.
b) An activity undertaken by a person which is supported, in whole or in part, through contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more public agencies.
c) An activity that involves the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more agencies.

The Project Sponsor is seeking legislative and entitlement approvals, described in Chapter 2 Project Description, Legislative Framework to construct a 17-story mixed-use life science and office building at 121 East Grand Avenue in South San Francisco, California. The project proposes 15 stories of life science and office uses above two floors of public amenities. All parking would be on three levels at and below grade. Project details are in Chapter 2.

The proposed project (Project) meets criteria “c”, identified above, and therefore requires environmental review. Preparation of an environmental analysis and subsequent environmental determination is required prior to or simultaneously with legislative and entitlement review.

Environmental review does not constitute Project approval but is an independent analysis of potential Project impacts and mitigation measures. The Lead Agency may, after review of the entirety of the record, find that the environmental analysis is adequate and approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve the Project based upon environmental and merits review.

The Lead Agency for this document is the City of South San Francisco. The Planning Commission will hold a study session to take public comments and will make findings for recommendation to the City Council on the environmental document and the Project entitlements. The City Council will make the final decision on the Project’s environmental documents and entitlements. These meetings and actions will take place in legally noticed public hearings.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
PAGE 1-2 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE– CHAPTER 1 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK Therefore, this Initial Study is required for City Project Numbers ND21-0001and EIR20-0003 at 121 East Grand Avenue in South San Francisco, California (APN:015 024 230). The Grant Deed identifies the site as Parcel 1 that includes Parcel 8-A and 8-B, Parcel 2 and Parcel 3.

1.2 PROJECT SPONSOR TEAM/LEAD AGENCY TEAM

PROJECT SPONSOR AND OWNER
Phase3 Real Estate Development (PH3)
OCI SanFran, LLC
4380 LaJolla Village Drive, Suite 230
San Diego, CA 92122
Mr. Michael Gerrity, President
858.546.0888

PROJECT TEAM

ARCHITECT
Skidmore, Owings and Merrill
300 Clay Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Mr. Michael K. Leung, Associate Principal
415.981.1555

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
Mantle
2612 Eighth Street, Building B
Berkeley, CA 94710
Ms. Ramsey Silverberg, Founding Principal
510.927.3200

CIVIL ENGINEERING
BKF, Engineers
255 Shoreline Drive, Suite 200
Redwood City, CA 94065
Ms. Lokelani Yee, Civil Engineer
650.226.6091
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 1 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK PAGE 1-3

LEAD AGENCY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT TEAM
The Lead Agency for this Initial Study is the City of South San Francisco. The administrative record for the Project is on file at the City’s Planning Division. The following person has been assigned as the custodian and Case Planner/Project Manager for the Lead Agency:

Mr. Billy Gross, Principal Planner
Department of Economic and Community Development-Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
(650) 877-8535
The Lead Agency’s Environmental Consultant is Knapp Planning and Environmental Consulting represented by Ms. Allison Knapp.

Ms. Allison Knapp Wollam,
Knapp Planning and Environmental Consulting
511 Linden Street, Suite B
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 902-3238
Allison Knapp serves as Project Manager, preparer of the initial study, and represents the CEQA document in all hearings and meetings. The Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment was prepared by ECORP Consulting and was peer reviewed by Mr. Dan Jones of RCH Group. The Noise Technical Report was prepared by Mr. Luis Rosas and Mr. Dan Jones of RCH Group. The Hydrology and Water Quality Assessment was prepared by Sutro Science and was peer reviewed by Mr. Dan Jones of RCH Group. Mr. Dan Jones of RCH Group also prepared the air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, energy, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise sections of the Initial Study.

1.3 DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE AND

INCLUDED IN APPENDIX A

AIR QUALITY
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment, 121 East Grand Avenue Project, City of South Francisco, California, ECORP Consulting, Inc. April 2022.

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
Cultural Resource Services-In Support of 121 E. Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, San Mateo County Basin Research, Colin Busby, Ph.D, RPA, Principal. February 21, 2022.

Archaeological Resources Study of 121 E. Grand Ave., South San Francisco, Leann Taagepera, Cultural and Historic Resource Planning, Principal. June 24, 2021.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Tree Inventory Report, HortScience/Bartlett Construction, May 5, 2021.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
PAGE 1-4 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE– CHAPTER 1 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 121 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California, Project No. 8961-04-02, March 2021 and April 2021.

Geotechnical Peer Review 121 East Grand Avenue South San Francisco, California Project # 40396 7001, March 24 and April 28, 2021, Ninyo & Moore.

Seismic Risk Assessment SF Bay Development 121 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA, Partners Project # 20-281457.2, June 8, 2020.

Basis of Design 121 East Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA, Magnusson Klemenic Associates, Structural Engineers, March 3, 2022.

ENERGY
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment, 121 East Grand Avenue Project, City of South Francisco, California, ECORP Consulting, Inc. April 2022.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment, 121 East Grand Avenue Project, City of South Francisco, California, ECORP Consulting, Inc. April 2022.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Draft Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for 121 East Grand Avenue South San Francisco California 94080, Project Number WR3122, Apri120, 2022.

Determination of No Significant Hazard to Air Navigation, Federal Aviation Administration, Aeronautical Study No. 2021-AQP 7644-OF, September 9, 2021.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Hydrology and Water Quality Assessment, 121 East Grand Avenue Development Project, 121 East Grand Avenue, City of South San Francisco, California. Sutro Science. April 28, 2022.

LAND USE AND PLANNING
Documents Incorporated by Reference Available on City Website:

South San Francisco General Plan (Adopted October 1999).

Draft 2040 South San Francisco General Plan.

Southline Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 20220050452).

Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (Adopted February 2015).

Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2013102001).

NOISE
Noise Technical Report, South San Francisco 121 East Grand Avenue Project, RCH Group. May 2022.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 1 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK PAGE 1-5

TRANSPORTATION
South San Francisco Caltrain Station Eastern Access Study prepared for South San Francisco, Caltrain, Phase 3 Real Estate Partners. October 2021, Fehr & Peers and Mark Thomas (‘Access Study’).

Mobility 2020 East of 101 Transportation Plan Mobility prepared for the City of South San Francisco. Fehr & Peers, 2019 (‘Mobility 2020’).

Draft Transportation Demand Management Program, TDM Specialists, Inc, June 2, 2022.

UTILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS
121 East Grand Avenue South San Francisco-Water Demand Memorandum, Job # 20201781, Lokelani Yee, BKF Project Manager, April 25, 2022.

Water Supply Assessment for 121 East Grand Avenue Project, South San Francisco District California Water Service, eki environment & water, draft May 2022.

1.4 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PROJECT REVIEW

PROCESS
As a matter of law, the Project is required to comply with federal, state and local laws and regulations. These regulations are verified as satisfied and incorporated into the Project as a matter of demolition, grading and /or building permit issuance or permits will not be issued by the City of South San Francisco. As such, these requirements are considered a part of the Project, not a separate and distinct requirement levied through CEQA review.

City of South San Francisco project processing requires that applications for projects are first reviewed by the City’s Technical Advisory Group (TAG). TAG is comprised of representatives from Planning, Building, Police, Fire, Engineering, Parks and Recreation, and Water Quality Control. TAG review identifies changes and additions that are required in a project to comply with local, state and federal laws that are implemented through the City’s Municipal Code. The Planning Division, after TAG review, issues a letter to the applicant identifying the changes required in Project plans and supporting materials necessary to comply with prevailing laws pursuant to site development, construction and land use. The applicant is required to revise the plans and supporting documentation, or the application is not determined as complete and not processed. Revised plans and documentation are submitted to the Planning Division to be routed again to all affected City departments and divisions; again, to evaluate the application in light of their earlier comments and requirements. The process results in an application that can be determined ‘complete’ as well as identification of the Conditions of Approval (COAs) that are required should the Project be approved. Many of these COAs implement environmental mitigations that were historically identified through the environmental review process (California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA) and now have become a part of the City’s legislative requirements pursuant to its general plan, specific plans, area plans, municipal code, special districts zoning requirements, or other authority.

After a project application is complete it is subject to environmental, public and discretionary review through and by the Planning Commission and/or City Council, depending upon the type of project, as defined by the Municipal Code of South San Francisco and state law. The COAs identified through staff review of the project, and any additional ones identified through the public review process become required of the project as a matter of law. Prior to the City issuing a CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
PAGE 1-6 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE– CHAPTER 1 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK building, grading and/or demolition permit, all City departments and divisions (identified above) review the project plans for compliance with their identified COAs and any additional ones added through the public review process. Permits are not issued by the Building Division in the absence of authorization from City staff or in absence of the requirements being incorporated into the Project plans.

1.5 STANDARD CONDITIONS AND PROCESSES OF

APPROVAL REQUIRED BY LAW ADDRESSING

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
The following COAs are designed and implemented to reduce environmental impacts and are required through the City of South San Francisco’s standard review and permitting procedures. Therefore, these measures are not separately identified as mitigation measures. As is the case with all aspects of an approved project, a project’s conditions of approval cannot not be altered without additional City review and approval, which could entail subsequent or supplemental CEQA review.

Failure of the Project Sponsor to meet the required measures and/or elements of their project description relating to environmental issues may obviate the environmental document and require subsequent or supplemental CEQA review. In summary, the Project as proposed coupled with the required conditions of approval is the baseline from which environmental impacts are evaluated for the Project Described in Chapter 2 Project Description.

1. AESTHETICS
AESTHETICS LIGHT AND GLARE: Signage is required to be reviewed by staff, and in some instances the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission. Lighting, size, color, placement, design and compatibility with surrounding land uses is addressed and assured through this process. The City’s sign regulations are intended to preserve and improve appearance, protect from visual clutter and blight, protect property values and enhance community appearance, minimize diversion of vehicle operators’ attention and safeguard life, health, property and public welfare. Potential environmental impacts and the need or lack thereof for environmental clearance is also addressed and undertaken as a part of the Sign Permit procedure (Chapter 20.360 South San Francisco Municipal Code-Zoning). The Planning Division implements and monitors this requirement.

Projects are reviewed by the City’s Design Review Board consisting of professional architects and landscape architects. The Planning Commission, and in some cases the City Council, adds design elements to projects. Projects that are within a state or local scenic corridor are further addressed through the CEQA process.

2. AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
AIR QUALITY DUST CONTROL: All construction projects are required to comply with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) dust control measures. These measures are levied by the Engineering Division as a condition of building permit issuance and are monitored for compliance by staff and/or special City Engineering and/or Planning inspectors. The measures include all the Basic Fugitive Dust Emissions Reduction Measures identified by the BAAQMD.

The City requires projects to:

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 1 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK PAGE 1-7 a) All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
b) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. c) All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
d) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. e) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.

Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
f) Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The air district’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

AIR QUALITY COMBUSTION EXHAUST CONTROL: All construction projects are required to comply with the BAAQMD’s combustion exhaust control measures. The measures include Basic Exhaust Emissions Reduction Measures and some of the Enhanced Exhaust Emissions Reduction Measures identified by the BAAQMD May, 2017. The City requires projects to:
a) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]).

Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. b) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator.
c) All off-road equipment greater than 25 horsepower and operating for more than 20 total hours over the entire duration of construction activities shall meet or exceed USEPA or CARB Tier 4 Final off-road emission standards.

AIR QUALITY TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS: The potential for toxic air contaminants (asbestos and lead based paint) to be released into the environment is regulated and monitored through the Building Division in compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 during Demolition. Any applicant requesting a building or demolition permit involving a structure suspected of containing asbestos (defined as a building constructed prior to 1978) and/or lead based paint (defined as a building constructed prior to 1960) is required to obtain review and permits from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Permits are required to be posted at the job site, and if it is not there the job will be fined by BAAQMD and may be shut down by the City’s Building Division. Through this process, BAAQMD and the City Building Division ensure that asbestos and lead based paints are handled, removed, encapsulated and disposed of in accordance with prevailing law requisite to protect the environment, the people conducting the work and nearby sensitive receptors. The process typically requires surveys and removal of lead-based paints and asbestos by licensed contractors certified in the handling methods requisite to protect the environment and public health and safety. The process also provides for BAAQMD and City supervision to ensure compliance.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
PAGE 1-8 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE– CHAPTER 1 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK AIR QUALITY VEHICLE EMISSIONS: The potential for air quality degradation from vehicle emissions is regulated to some extent by Section 20.400.003 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. Table 20.400.003 in the Zoning Ordinance establishes specific program requirements for a project generating one hundred or more vehicle trips per day or a project seeking a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus. The required alternative mode (mode shift) use for projects is below standard trip rates modeled for the project without TDM measures in place. Projects with an increased FAR are required to increase their alternative mode use accordingly. The Planning Division implements and monitors this requirement.

SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CLIMATE ACTION PLAN: The City adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) on February 12, 2014 and an updated CAP is currently under review (April 2022). The CAP identifies strategies and actions to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG). Some examples include the installation of solar facilities at City buildings; requiring bioswales in private development; adopting and enforcing a construction and demolition waste recycling ordinance; adopting and implementing a transportation demand management program and providing electrical car charging stations at City facilities and moving toward an all-electric City. The City actively participates in the San Francisco International Airport noise insulation program which also reduces heat loss and hence GHG emissions in older buildings. The City also spearheads educational programs to reduce GHG emissions. Through conditions of approval development projects are required to implement a variety of GHG reduction measures. Some measures include use of renewable and alternate energy including solar and cogeneration, electric car facilities, water conservation and waste reduction.

The City of South San Francisco is currently updating the original 2014 CAP to align with new State regulations and targets related to climate change. The 2014 CAP set an emissions target for 2020 and this updated CAP extends the horizon year to 2040 while also setting a long-term goal of carbon neutrality by 2045, consistent with State targets. The 2022 CAP update outlines how the City of South San Francisco will create new policies, programs, and services that will support the community in taking strong action to reduce GHG emissions. Although the City implemented many policies and programs identified in the 2014 CAP, the City experienced steady economic and population growth over that time period. By updating its existing CAP, the City of South San Francisco reaffirms its commitment to leading the way to a more sustainable future. The City has set bold targets and developed strategies for reducing GHG emissions while increasing the City’s resilience to climate change impacts. The 2022 CAP identifies 62 actions to achieve the GHG reduction targets and has reduction targets of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (SB 32), 80 percent reduction by 2040 and carbon net neutrality by 2045.

3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE TITLE 24: All construction projects are required to comply with the California Building Code (CBC), as periodically amended. Design specifications are identified and required for projects located on sites subject to liquefaction, differential settlement, severe groundshaking. These requirements are enforced and monitored by the Engineering Division.

Compliance with the CBC is also implemented and monitored by the Building Division.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS: The City Engineering Division requires geotechnical reports as a part of the permit package for projects to be constructed on vacant land, for demolition and rebuilding and for additions to buildings that require grading and additional loading. The geotechnical reports are required to be prepared by a licensed geologist, geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist. The reports address design and construction specifications for CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 1 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK PAGE 1-9 the project including grading, site drainage, utility and infrastructure design specifications and placement and building design. The reports are peer reviewed by the City’s geotechnical consultant and are modified as recommended by the City’s consultant. Geotechnical approval is required prior to issuance of a building permit and is vetted during environmental review. The geotechnical professional of record is required to sign all project drawings. The City’s geotechnical consultant provides construction inspections, oversight and monitoring for the City. The Engineering Division implements and monitors this requirement.

4. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Properties suspected of containing hazardous materials, due to their location or use history, are required by local, state and federal law to undergo site characterization and if necessary, remediation. Permits from the South San Francisco Fire Department, San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health (SMCDEH) and/or Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and in some cases the State or local regional water quality board, such as the Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB) are required. The following table identifies the standard, industry accepted protocol for site characterization and remediation (Aaron Stessman, CSS Environmental Engineering P.E. #C054648).

Media Hazardous Materials Approach
Soil Remediation (ex-situ) Fuels • Reuse on Site (if concentration is less than 100 ppm).
• Haul and Dispose at appropriate landfill.
• Capping and Vapor barrier.
• Treat on site (see below).

Soil Remediation (ex-situ) VOCs (gasoline fuels,
solvents)
• Consult the SMCEHD for requirements.
• Haul and Dispose.
• Aeration – requires a notification to BAAQMD,
daily volumes are limited.
• Vapor Stripping – apply vacuum system to covered
piles, notify BAAQMD.
• Bioremediation - apply bio-treatment materials,
moisture and “work” soil piles.
• Thermal Desorption – various vendors provide
mobile treatment units.
• Capping and vapor barrier.

Soil Remediation
(ex-situ)
Inorganics
(metals)
• Consult BAAQMD and SMCEHD for
requirements.
• Haul and Dispose.
• Chemical Stabilization.
• Sorting – reduce waste volume by screening to target
contaminant particle size.

Soil Remediation
(in-situ)
VOCs • Consult SMCEHD for requirements.
• Soil Vapor Extraction – apply vacuum to vapor
wells, notify BAAQMD.
• In-situ chemical oxidation.
• In-Situ Vitrification – use electricity to melt waste and surrounding soils.

Soil Remediation SVOCs • Consult SMCEHD for requirements. • Bioremediation – saturate soils with bio-treatment
materials.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
PAGE 1-10 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE– CHAPTER 1 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK Media Hazardous Materials Approach
(in-situ) • Chemical Stabilization – saturate soils with chemicals to immobilize contaminants.
• In-Situ Vitrification.
• Capping .

Groundwater -
Investigation
All • If contaminants are detected in the 20 foot below ground surface soil sample an additional boring
should be completed to groundwater.
• Analyze sample for contaminants detected in soil.
• Report results to the SMCEHD and consult on
remedial alternatives.

Groundwater
Remediation
VOCs • Consult BAAQMD and SMCEHD for
requirements.
• Pump and Treat – pump from wells, treat and
discharge treated water.
• Air Sparging – inject air to volatilize contaminants
and create aerobic groundwater conditions suitable
for natural bioremediation. Generally applied in
conjunction with Soil Vapor Extraction to control
released volatiles.
• Bioremediation – inject bio-treatment materials into
affected groundwater.
• Chemical Oxidation – inject oxidation chemicals into
affected groundwater.

Groundwater
Remediation
SVOCs • Consult BAAQMD for requirements.
• Pump and Treat.
• Bioremediation.
• Chemical Oxidation.

Groundwater
Remediation
Inorganics • Consult BAAQMD for requirements.
• Pump and Treat.
• Chemical Immobilization – inject chemicals to
precipitate or chemically fix contaminants to soil
particles.

5. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: The following is a summary of applicable requirements in Provisions C.3.b.ii and C.3.c.i.2 of the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (“Municipal Regional Permit” or “MRP.”
All projects that are required to treat stormwater will need to treat the permit-specified amount of stormwater runoff with low impact development methods. These methods include rainwater harvesting and reuse, infiltration, evapotranspiration, or biotreatment (filtering stormwater through vegetation and soils before discharging to the storm drain system). However, biotreatment will be allowed only where harvesting and reuse, infiltration and evapotranspiration are infeasible at a project site. Vault-based treatment will not be allowed as a stand-alone treatment measure. Where stormwater harvesting and reuse, infiltration, or evapotranspiration are infeasible, vault-based treatment measures may be used in series with biotreatment, for example, to remove trash or other large solids (see Provision C.3.c.i.2 of the MRP).

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 1 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK PAGE 1-11 Projects that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface related to auto service facilities, retail gasoline outlets, restaurants, and/or surface parking are required to provide low impact development treatment of stormwater runoff. This requirement applies to uncovered parking that is stand-alone, or included as part of any other development project, and it applies to the top uncovered portion of a parking structure, unless drainage from the uncovered portion is connected to the sanitary sewer (see Provision C.3.b.ii.1 of the MRP). For all other land use categories, 10,000 square feet is the regional threshold for requiring low impact development, source control, site design, and stormwater treatment, although municipalities may have the authority to require treatment to the maximum extent practicable for smaller projects. The new requirements are built into the following (see below) standard requirements.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY STORMWATER RUNOFF PREVENTION (OPERATIONAL):

All projects are required to comply with the San Mateo Countywide Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP), an organization of the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo County holding a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Discharge permit. The City requires the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for new development and construction as part of its storm water management program, as levied through standard City COA’s. The requirements are implemented and monitored by the Engineering and Water Quality Control Divisions.

The measures address pollution control and management mechanisms for contractor activities, e.g. structure construction, material delivery and storage, solid waste management, employee and subcontractor training. Stormwater pollution prevention measures also affect site development and operations in order to prevent pollution due to Project occupancy. Storm water quality protection measures include and are not limited to the following. a) Walking and light traffic areas shall use permeable pavements where feasible. Typical pervious pavements include pervious concrete, porous asphalt, turf block, brick pavers, natural stone pavers, concrete unit pavers, crushed aggregate (gravel), cobbles and wood mulch.
b) Parking lots shall include hybrid surfaces (pervious material for stalls only), concave medians with biofilters (grassy swales), and landscaped infiltration/detention basins as feasible.
c) Landscape design shall incorporate biofilters, infiltration and retention/detention basins into the site plan as feasible.
d) Outdoor work areas including garbage, recycling, maintenance, storage, and loading, applicable storm water controls include siting or set back from drainage paths and water ways, provision of roofing and curbs or berms to prevent run on and run off. If the area has the potential to generate contaminated run off, structural treatment controls for contaminant removal (such as debris screens or filters) shall be incorporated into the design.
e) Roof leaders and site drainage shall be filtered and directed to the City storm drain system and harvesting of rainwater shall occur.
f) Drainage from paved surfaces shall be filtered through vegetated swales, buffer or sand strips before discharge to the City’s storm drain system.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY STORMWATER RUNOFF PREVENTION (CONSTRUCTION): The City of South San Francisco requires through COAs, Project compliance CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
PAGE 1-12 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE– CHAPTER 1 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK with the State Water Quality Control Board’s general permitting requirements which requires the applicant to secure a Construction Activities Storm Water General Permit, complete a Notice of Intent (NOI) and prepare and obtain approval of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The state issues a Waste Discharge Identification number within 10 days of receipt of a complete NOI and SWPPP. The applicant is then required to submit copies of the NOI and SWPPP to the City of South San Francisco’s Technical Services Supervisor within the Water Quality Control Plant of the Public Works Department prior to issuance of building and/or grading permits. The requirements are implemented and monitored by City Water Quality Control personnel. Construction stormwater protection measures include and are not limited to the following.
a) Identify all storm drains, drainage swales and creeks located near construction sites and prevent pollutants from entering them by the use of filter fabric cloth, rock bags, straw wattles, slope hydroseeding, cleaning up leaks, drips or spills immediately, use dry cleanup methods to clean up spills, use of berms, temporary ditches and check dams to reduce the velocity of surface flow.
b) Place rock bags at all drain inlets to filter silt and along curb and gutter to filter water before the drain inlets.
c) Place straw wattles and hydroseed the sloped areas.
d) Place straw matting at the temporary sloped areas for erosion control. e) Place drain systems to filter and then drain into drain inlets. f) Use silt fencing with straw mats and hand broadcast seed for erosion control. g) Construct temporary drainage systems to filter and divert water accordingly. h) Construct temporary rock and asphalt driveways and wheel washers to buffer public streets from dirt and mud.
i) Use part- and full-time street sweepers that operate along public streets and roads. j) Cover all stockpiled soils to protect from erosion. Use berms around stockpiled soils. k) Cover and protect from erosion plaster, concrete and other powders which create large amounts of suspended solids.
l) Store all hazardous materials (paints, solvents, chemicals) in accordance with secondary containment regulations and cover during wet weather.
m) Use terracing to prevent erosion.
n) Through grading plan review and approval, phase grading operations to reduce disturbed areas during wet weather, limit vegetation removal, delineate clearing limits, setbacks, easements, sensitive or critical areas, trees, drainage courses and buffer zones to prevent unnecessary disturbance and exposure. Limit or prohibit grading during the wet weather season, October 15 to April 15th.
o) Prevent spills and leaks by maintaining equipment, designating specific areas of a site for such activities that are controlled and away from water courses and perform major maintenance off-site or in designated areas only.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 1 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK PAGE 1-13 p) Cover and maintain all dumpsters, collect and properly dispose of all paint removal wastes, clean up paints, solvents, adhesives and all cleaning solvents properly. Recycle and salvage appropriate wastes and maintain an adequate debris disposal schedule. q) Avoid roadwork and pavement stormwater pollution by following manufacturers’ instructions.

6. NOISE
INTERIOR AMBIENT NOISE: The City of South San Francisco regulates noise exposure through state law, its General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan, and Municipal Code. The City, through its General Plan, adopted the Noise Guidelines of the State Department of Health Services in its Noise Element (1999). Table 9.2-1, Land Use Criteria for Noise Impacted Areas, (General Plan, page 280) guides land use decisions based upon noise thresholds correlating to land use classifications, acoustical analyses and mitigations.

The Draft 2040 General Plan update devotes Chapter 16 to noise. Figure 52: San Francisco International Airport Noise Exposure Map, p 370 and Table 11 Land Use/Noise Compatibility Matrix to Guide New Development, p 373 identifies noise level standards associated with various land use categories..

The City implements the Federal Aviation Administration adopted noise contours, participates in an aircraft noise insulation program and City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) airport noise planning efforts. Figure 9-1 of the General Plan Aircraft Noise and Noise Insulation Program (page 279) identifies the noise contours and program area for these planning efforts.

C/CAG updated the San Francisco International Airport noise impact boundaries in October, 2012. The new boundaries for South San Francisco are on page 118 of the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport for City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, Redwood City, California (Ricondo Associates, Jacobs Consultancy, Clarion Associates. October 2012) (ALUP). Therefore, the maps contained in the South San Francisco General Plan must be used in conjunction with the updated ALUP.

The East of 101 Area Plan requirement for interior ambient noise for commercial, office and retail is 45 dBA, Leq, echoing state law. The Noise Guidelines are implemented by the Planning Division through new project review and occasionally by both building and planning in enforcement cases.

NOISE EXTERIOR AMBIENT NOISE: The City of South San Francisco regulates exterior noise levels through the South San Francisco Municipal Code (Section 8.32.030). The Municipal Code identifies maximum noise exposure corresponding with land use and time of day. Low density residential maximum noise exposure (excluding vehicle horns and emergency vehicles) is restricted to 50 dB 10 P.M. to 7 A.M. and 60 db from 7 A.M. and 10 P.M. Higher density residential and commercial land use noise exposure is restricted to 55 dB from 10 P.M. to 7 A.M. and 65 db from 7 A.M. and 10 P.M. Industrial land uses are restricted to 70 dB anytime of the day. These noise standards are implemented largely through enforcement actions (i.e., citizen complaint and governmental response). The Fire Department’s Code Enforcement Officer implements these regulations. The following text and table are excerpted from Section 8.32.030. a) It is unlawful for any person to operate or cause to be operated any source of sound at any location within the city or allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level when measured on any other property to exceed:

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
PAGE 1-14 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE– CHAPTER 1 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK (1) The noise level standard for that land use as specified in Table

8.32.030 for a cumulative period of more than thirty minutes in any hour;
(2) The noise level standard plus five dB for a cumulative period of more than fifteen minutes in any hour;
(3) The noise level standard plus ten dB for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour;
(4) The noise level standard plus fifteen dB for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or
(5) The noise level standard or the maximum measured ambient level, plus twenty dB for any period of time.

Table 8.32.030

NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS
Land Use Category Time Period Noise Level (dB)
R-E, R-1 and R-2 zones or
any single-family or duplex
residential in a specific plan
district
10 p.m.—7 a.m. 50
7 a.m.—10 p.m. 60
R-3 and D-C zones or any
multiple-family residential or
mixed
residential/commercial in
any specific plan district
10 p.m.—7 a.m. 55
7 a.m.—10 p.m. 60
C-1, P-C, Gateway and
Oyster Point Marina specific
plan districts or any
commercial use in any
specific plan district
10 p.m.—7 a.m. 60
7 a.m.—10 p.m. 65
M-1, P-1 Anytime 70
Source: City of South San Francisco Municipal Code
Construction noise exposure is also regulated by the Municipal Code (Section 8.32.050(d)). Hours of construction are exempt from the standards identified in the preceding paragraph and are limited to 8 A.M. to 8 P.M. Monday through Friday, 9 A.M. to 8 P.M. on Saturdays and 10 A.M. to 6 P.M. on Sundays and holidays. The Building Division enforces and monitors these regulations.

Exceptions to the hours of construction and maximum temporary noise levels may be granted by the Chief Building Official.
(a) Sound Performances and Special Events. Sound performances and special events not exceeding eighty dB measured at a distance of fifty feet from the loudest source are exempt from this chapter when approval therefore has been obtained from the appropriate governmental entity.
(b) Vehicle Horns. Vehicle horns, or other devices primarily intended to create a loud noise for warning purposes, shall be used only when the vehicle is in a situation where life, health or property are endangered.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 1 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK PAGE 1-15 (c) Utilities and Emergencies. Utility and street repairs, street sweepers, franchised garbage services and emergency response warning noises are exempt from this chapter.
(d) Construction. Construction, alteration, repair or landscape maintenance activities which are authorized by a valid city permit shall be allowed on weekdays between the hours of eight a.m. and eight p.m., on Saturdays between the hours of nine a.m. and eight p.m., and on Sundays and holidays between the hours of ten a.m. and six p.m., or at such other hours as may be authorized by the permit, if 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).

7. CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING CODE (CALGREEN)
California Green Building Code Standards became effective on January 1, 2014 and is amended periodically. The mandatory and voluntary measures for residential, non-residential and mixeduse buildings are designed to reduce our carbon footprint and promote environmental sustainability; i.e., decrease impacts incumbent upon the environment resulting from human activities. The collection of regulations is contained in the California Building Code. The regulations prescribe measures to reduce water consumption, reduce building construction waste, and energy consumption in both the construction and operation of buildings and for the life of the building. The regulations prescribe methods to test, report, maintain, and improve the measures employed to promote environmental sustainability.

CALGreen also regulates the exposure (i.e., off gassing) of VOCs (volatile organic compounds), aerosols and formaldehyde and moisture and dust penetration in the use and application of building materials. Regulations address the types of as sealants, coatings, finishes, flooring (wood, carpet, particle board) and architectural finishes that are not permitted based upon the performance and potential toxicity of the substances. Design standards limit and as appropriate prohibit the amount of building heat loss and light pollution incident upon adjacent properties.

Standards address the use of potable, grey and recycled water for interior and exterior, residential and non-residential uses.

Maximum Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings are also identified and apply to interior exposure levels and noise levels at property lines. Distance thresholds are identified that trigger additional STC ratings for buildings within prescribed proximity to freeways, airports and 65dB exceedances at property lines.

Amenities to support people using bicycles are identified and include lockers, showers and secure lock-up areas. Provision of preferential parking spaces for low fuel vehicles at a percentage of overall parking provided on a site is also specified.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
PAGE 1-16 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE– CHAPTER 1 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

1.6 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
This Initial Study evaluates the Project, which is defined as that proposed by the Applicant, as modified by the City of South San Francisco’s standard COAs, and Mitigation Measures identified in the Chapter 3. Therefore, any impacts identified by the following Initial Study are those that could exceed the impacts that would be mitigated by the City’s standard permitting process and the identified mitigation measures and as such will require additional environmental review.

Environmental factors that may be affected by the Project, as defined by CEQA and as described in Chapter 3, are listed below. Factors identified in bold have been determined to have the potential for significant impacts, in absence of the mitigations identified in Chapter 3. Factors which are unshaded have been determined to pose no potential for significant impacts.

Aesthetics Hazards & Hazardous Materials Public Services Agriculture & Forest Resources Hydrology and Water Quality Recreation Air Quality Land Use and Planning Transportation
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mineral Resources Utilities & Service Systems Biological Resources Noise Cumulative Impacts
Cultural Resources Population &Housing Tribal Cultural Resources Geology & Soils Energy Wildfire
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 1 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK PAGE 1-17

1.7 LEAD AGENCY'S DETERMINATION
On the basis of the analysis contained in Chapter 3:

I find that the proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment because the Applicant has proposed measures as part of the project to reduce potential impacts to less than significant, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed Project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

X I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the Project or proposed by the Project, nothing further is required.

Mr. Billy Gross
Principal Planner
June 29, 2022
Date
121 EASTGRAND AVENUE‐ CHAPTER 2 PROJECTDESCRIPTION PAGE 2‐1 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING

PROJECT LOCATION
The Project site, located in the eastern portion of the City of South San Francisco (“City”), is in an area known as the of East of 101. The East of 101 Area has historically been known for industrial land uses and has transitioned over the past 40 years to include life science (i.e., Research and Development, “R&D”), office and visitor serving uses such as hotels while retaining industry in the southern portions of the area. These changes are the result of planning and zoning changes adopted by the City (identified in more detail in “2.3 General Plan and Zoning,” below).

The site, 121 East Grand, is flanked by Poletti Way to the west and East Grand Avenue to the south, and southeast, and Grand Avenue to the north. The site has active street frontage on three sides: west, south and east. A 20 ft wide service area runs the length of the northern side of the building. The northern side is adjacent to the Grand/East Grand Avenue flyover. The recently relocated Caltrain station, approximately 200 feet west from the Project site, is an easy walk. The Caltrain station was relocated and rebuilt to provide updated access to the loading platforms in compliance with the American Disabilities Act (“ADA Accessibility”), easier and safer access for pedestrian and bicycle users, and a better alignment with bus routes. The relocation also facilitated the creation of a high-density transit-oriented development core area (discussed in more detail in Chapter 2.3 General Plan and Zoning). The approved Caltrain plans and as-built conditions provide a pedestrian activated traffic signal and crosswalk striping allowing pedestrians to cross Poletti Way to the Project site and other points in the area. The Caltrain pedestrian tunnel, perpendicular to the tracks, provides connection for commuters to the train and links pedestrians to the east and west areas of the City.

Vehicular access to the Project site is from the north by the Oyster Point Boulevard Interchange and flyover, and Airport Boulevard (both from the north and south). Access from the south is provided by East Grand Avenue via the Grand Avenue northbound exit from US 101. All these roadways connect to US 101. Airport Boulevard also connects to Interstate 380. Grand Avenue/East Grand Avenue provides a surface street connection the areas east and west of US 101.

Grand Avenue trends in an east/west direction connecting the east and west areas of the City. Grand Avenue is approximately 3.3 miles in length beginning at Mission Road in the western part of the City and terminating at San Francisco Bay within the Genentech life science campus in the eastern area of the City. Grand Avenue contains the City’s downtown and City Hall.

The Project site is in the center of Grand Avenue/East Grand Avenue; 1.8 miles from Mission Road to East Grand Avenue and 1.5 miles from East Grand Avenue to Genentech Campus/San Francisco Bay.

Airport Boulevard is approximately 600 feet west of the site and City Hall is approximately a half mile west of the site. Restaurants, cafes, and other downtown services commence at Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue, easily walkable from the Project site through the Caltrain tunnel connection.

CHAPTER 2: PROJECTDESCRIPTION
PAGE 2‐2 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE ‐ CHAPTER 2 PROJECTDESCRIPTION

AREA AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Area: Life science uses are located north of the East Grand Avenue overpass. Jack Drago Park is located to the east of the site as is the Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) electrification yard serving Caltrain and the East of 101. A mix of life science, light industrial and food manufacturing uses are south of the Project site. A small triangular shaped parcel at the intersection of East Grand Avenue and Poletti Way is owned by the City of South San Francisco and the Gateway Business Association.

Alexandria Real Estate (ARE) is in the process of entitlement review to construct a R&D/Office project at 100 East Grand Avenue. ARE would construct 554,770 sq ft on a 5.02-acre site. Two buildings, 10 and eight stories in height, would contain R&D/Office and a third eight-story structure would contain parking. South City Ventures IQHQ is in the process of entitlement review for a 295,000 sq ft R&D project with subterranean parking on a 1.89-acre parcel at 580 Dubuque Avenue, north of the Project site. Information on these and other projects may be accessed at: https:/construction.ssf.net/ and the City’s Planning Commission and City Council agendas.

Site: The Project site is 126,847 sq ft in area, i.e., 2.91 acres. The site is relatively flat ranging from 15 ft to 20 ft above mean sea level and is shaped like a soft-edged triangle (Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Mixed-Use Development 121 East Grand Ave. SSF, CA. March 2021 Geocon Consultants, Inc.) (“GeoReport, March 2021”). Groundwater appears approximately 4.5 to 8.0 feet below ground level (“bgl”) during wet years and 8.5 to 16 ft during dry years (Geocon GeoReport, March 2021). The Project site is in Flood Zone X, outside the 100- and 500-year flood zones (Flood Insurance Map Rate Community Panel Number 13-09-1038P, September 9, 2013. Federal Emergency Management Agency).

The site is currently developed with a three-story wood framed motel and asphalted surface parking.

The motel includes 169 rooms housed in three structures. The site also includes a spa and one shed.

Building permits indicate the construction occurred in 1986 (City Building Department Records 2021) Two curb cuts provide access to the site: one off Poletti Way and the other along East Grand at Sylvester Road.
[Remainder Intentionally Blank]
121 EASTGRAND AVENUE‐ CHAPTER 2 PROJECTDESCRIPTION PAGE 2‐3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION FIGURE 1

URBAN CONTEXT, PROJECT SITE AND AREA
121 EASTGRAND AVENUE‐ CHAPTER 2 PROJECTDESCRIPTION PAGE 2‐4

2.2 PROPOSED PROJECT
The following Project description identifies, and Chapter 3 Environmental Checklist analyzes, a 17-story mixed-use life science, office and transit-oriented community serving retail project.

The maximum height is permitted to be 295 ft above mean sea level (msl) and the Project proposes 294 ft msl. Included in the 294 ft height is a 20 ft roof top mechanical screen. The Project proposes a 7.44 FAR building powered by electricity, natural gas and diesel. The analysis contained herein represents a reasonable worst-case analysis of potential Project impacts.

The height of the building is not permitted to exceed 295 ft msl, as this is the maximum currently approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (Public Notice August 8, 2021, and Final Determination September 9, 2021, ASN 2021-AWP-7652-OE, in Appendix A) (‘FAA 2021’) for the Project site. The maximum height includes all rooftop mechanical, protrusions and screening thereto.

The height of the building may be reduced as a result of Project refinements, described below. The maximum height permitted by the City is shown in Project Description Figure 8, Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. The maximum height for the project site is that permitted by the FAA.

The Project was refined during City review and prior to publication of this environmental evaluation.

The Project now proposes a 7.22 FAR. The Project is also proposing an all-electric project. The rooftop infrastructure requirements for an all-electric project may require up to a 32 ft rooftop screen and to accommodate a worst-case height of 32 ft modifications to the 17th floor may be required. , including the potential elimination of part or all of Level 17.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

SITE LAYOUT
The Project proposes two 17-story research and development building “wings” connected through a glass atrium atop a two-story podium. The two-story podium would be designed, landscaped and furnished to provide seating, gathering areas and various access points to the building. The first two floors of the building, Level 1 and Level 2, would provide public amenities and Levels three through 17 would include research and development and office uses. A 700 ft long lighted and landscaped bicycle and pedestrian trail would traverse the site from the Poletti Way crosswalk along the southern and eastern frontages of the Project site to Grand Avenue. The 30 ft wide Class IV bicycle/pedestrian facility would separate pedestrians from bicyclists and both user groups from vehicles. The City received a grant for the construction of these facilities. The Applicant proposed the enhancement of the pedestrian portion and would likely construct the facilities.

Bicycle parking would include 140 short-term spaces along the Poletti Way sidewalk, and 108 long-term spaces within an enclosed storage area accessed from both the Arrival Plaza lobby and East Grand Avenue, totaling approximately 1,593 sq ft. The Project proposes 49 more short term spaces than required by the Municipal Code to assist the East of 101 area in meeting bicycle parking needs. Figure 2 below shows a northeast view of the Project; Alexander Real Estate project is shown in the foreground and the Grand Avenue Overpass and Poletti Way are shown on the left.

CHAPTER 2: PROJECTDESCRIPTION
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 2 PROJECTDESCRIPTION PAGE 2‐5 Rendering Provided by SOM, P3RE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION FIGURE 2

VIEW LOOKING NORTH EAST SHOWING ARRIVAL PLAZA
All commercial parking would be accessed on Level 1 behind the retail component off Poletti Way.

Parking would total 1,413 spaces through a combination of valet-assist and automated parking. Vehicular parking is proposed primarily in two below-grade levels consisting of 229,216 sq ft. Accessible, valet assist, and the mechanical lift for parking would also occur on Level 1, consuming approximately 26,191 sq ft of the aforementioned total. The Project proposes a 47.5% reduction from code requirements as part of the Transportation Demand Management Program (“TDM Program”) requirements.

Other back-of-house uses are programmed for Level 1, including a 4,927 sq ft loading area with a dock leveler and refuse and recycling areas. Mechanical, storage, and lab-support areas would consume an additional approximate 30,649 sq ft, also proposed on Level 1. The back-of-house uses including the loading dock would be accessed off the 20-ft service and fire access alley running along the northern side of the building which is adjacent to the Grand Avenue overpass. Therefore, by design commercial parking access would be separated from the heavier back-of-house activities. The design minimizes potential vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle conflicts by separating vehicular activity areas from the pedestrian realm to the maximum extent feasible. The 20 ft wide service and fire lane (described below) along the northern elevation would be restricted to those uses only. The remainder of the site frontage continuing on Poletti Way and East Grand Avenue wrapping around to Grand Avenue is void of curb cuts.

City Fire Marshal Ian Hardage (February 14, 2022) directed the Project Sponsor to provide at grade fire access along all sides of the building ranging from 20 to 26 ft in width. To provide emergency access to the upper floors of the building Fire Marshal Hardage directed the Project Sponsor to limit landscaping to a maximum height of 15 ft along the façade of the building. Taller trees are permissible along the edges of the site near the bicycle and pedestrian lane, within the Confluence Plaza, and some intermediate areas. The site plan includes emergency access from East Grand Avenue through the East Access Plaza, as requested by the Fire Marshal.
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE‐ CHAPTER 2 PROJECTDESCRIPTION PAGE 2‐6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION FIGURE 3

VEHICULAR AND SERVICE ACCESS AND FIRE SAFETY ACCESS
121 EASTGRAND AVENUE‐ CHAPTER 2 PROJECTDESCRIPTION PAGE 2‐7 The Project as proposed cannot exceed a maximum height of 295 ft approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (Public Notice August 8, 2021, in Appendix A). The 17-story building would likely reach 262 ft in height. Rooftop mechanical screening would likely be 32 ft, for a maximum height up to 295 ft.

These heights may vary, but the overall height maximum is 295 ft.

Levels three-17 are programmed for office/lab and would range from 51,654 to 56,151 sq ft in area for a total of 805,764 sq ft. The public amenity space programmed in Level 1 and Level 2 would be 107,125 sq ft. Site coverage would be 69.3%, or 87,849 sq ft. The Project would include 24-hr security as with all life science developments.

Levels 1 and 2 are programmed to include amenities available to the public as well as the occupants of the building. Level 1 would include a 7,573 sq ft main gathering and lobby and a 9,328 sq ft retail space.

Retail space considerations include café, restaurant, personal services and a grab and go convenience store. Level 2 amenities are programmed for a 16,264 sq ft fitness/wellness center; a 4,489 sq ft lobby; a 5,134 sq ft pre-function space, a 13,237 sq ft conference center, a 5,546 sq ft restaurant, a 2,342 sq ft café, and a 2,551 sq ft kitchen. Area calculations may vary. The amenities would be accessed from Arrival Plaza, Poletti Way Plaza, Confluence Plaza, and East Grand Plaza.

The site is designed in a series of landscaped plazas and entry ways accessing both the public and private realms. Gathering, lighting and circulation areas are proposed on three active sides of the building.

Navigation on the site is presented by Arrival Plaza, the main and grand entry across from the Caltrain Station. Poletti Way Plaza would be the busiest in terms of commuting and mode shift options. Poletti Way Plaza would be the only side of the building that accommodates vehicular access. Multi-model transit options would also arrive and depart here. Confluence Plaza would be as its name implies, an area for people to converge, gather, eat, relax and socialize. East Access Plaza would provide pedestrian and bicycle access to and from the site, fire apparatus access to the site and a visual connection to Jack Drago Park. These four plaza areas would provide approximately 46,663 sq ft of open space.

Wind Canopy is proposed as a design element that would provide protection from sun, wind and rain.

At its proposed Level 2 placement, Wind Canopy would define the pedestrian realm and wrap around the building from west to east. The following studies assisted in shaping the design of the site plan. [Remainder Intentionally Blank]
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE‐ CHAPTER 2 PROJECTDESCRIPTION PAGE 2‐8 Ground Level
Second Level
PROJECT DESCRIPTION FIGURE 4

PUBLIC AMENITIES
121 EASTGRAND AVENUE‐ CHAPTER 2 PROJECTDESCRIPTION PAGE 2‐9 PROJECT DESCRIPTION FIGURE 5

PLAZAS AND FUNCTION
121 EASTGRAND AVENUE‐ CHAPTER 2 PROJECTDESCRIPTION PAGE 2‐10 FORM AND FUNCTION: ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE DESIGN AND ART PLACEMENT Wind Canopy weaves the public realm use and identity together. At the intersection of East Grand Avenue and Poletti Way, Wind Canopy would provide a landmark entry to the East of 101 at Arrival Plaza. Wind Canopy is proposed to wrap continuously around the building above the second story and would vary in its horizontal projection to accommodate different conditions and planned uses of the public realm and landscape elements. Wind Canopy would provide a civic-scaled presence to the publicfacing open space of the Project. Wind Canopy, as its name suggests, would buffer the strong prevailing winds and create habitable spaces along the Poletti Way Plaza frontage, as well as Arrival and Confluence Plazas.

Wind Canopy would be characterized by a metal paneled soffit to bring in dappled daylight to the outdoor space’s underneath, and a sky oculus. In the evening, the soffit is proposed to be illuminated with up-lighting to activate the public realm and provide an iconic and recognizable destination for commuters traversing in the area.

Along Poletti Way, Wind Canopy begins as a minimal projection on the north, and transitions to provide a 13.5 ft overhang along the western 150 ft-long frontage of the vehicular drop-off area at Poletti Way Plaza.

Above Arrival Plaza, Wind Canopy cantilevers 60 ft to the south, to cover approximately 2,250 sq ft of Arrival Plaza. From there, Wind Canopy continues along 170 ft of the East Grand Ave frontage, and wraps inward, into the Confluence Plaza, culminating at the main tower lobby on Level 2. The design and placement serve to draw people up to the raised Confluence Plaza. Arrival Plaza also signifies the primary building entry for tenants of the commercial, research and development office tower. The 14 ft canopy projection would line both edges of the 28,000 sq ft landscaped and furnished Confluence Plaza (180 ft length along the west wing, and 201 ft length along the east wing) to provide areas of shelter and support the functions and programs that open onto the plaza. These covered areas would provide shade and protection for cafe seating and outdoor meeting areas flanking the conference center pre-function and fitness amenities. From Confluence Plaza, the canopy continues around the east side of the building to provide a modest five ft projection that faces the East Access Plaza.

Arrival Plaza, the southwest entrance to the building, is proposed 200 ft from access to South San Francisco Caltrain Station. The Project proposes to be a ‘transportation hub’ and as such is designed to provide multi-modal commute options and services.

The cantilevered Wind Canopy forms a triangular shape, approximately 2,250 sq ft, over Arrival Plaza providing a sheltered and grand entrance to the building. Task oriented and directional accent lighting would highlight the area. The form and lighting of Arrival Plaza and Wind Canopy would provide a visual landmark inviting the community into the East of 101 area, acting as the nexus of the surrounding mode-shift options.

Arrival Plaza would dedicate a 5,178 sq ft area for pedestrians and bicyclists to arrive and depart the site, enter the building or continue to other locations in the East of 101 area. Arrival Plaza fans into a 60 ft wide arc at the intersection of the Poletti Way crosswalk thus providing a wider and unobstructed disbursement area for commuters. Arrival Plaza is proposed to be ‘bracketed’ by the landscaping proposed in Poletti Way and Confluence Plazas.

Poletti Way Plaza, connected to and north of the Arrival Plaza, would be the busiest area of the site with respect to motorized commuter travel. A rideshare pick up and drop off lane is shown to commence near the intersection of Poletti Way and East Grand Avenue and continue northward 150 ft on the CHAPTER 2: PROJECTDESCRIPTION
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 2 PROJECTDESCRIPTION PAGE 2‐11 eastern side of Poletti Way. The rideshare lane compliments the commuter bus lane constructed by Caltrain on the western side of Poletti Way. Access to the parking structure is located off Poletti Way.

Poletti Way Plaza would include a 30 ft wide and 165 ft long sidewalk creating a 5,105 sq ft circulation area protected under Wind Canopy. Retail access is provided along this frontage. Short-term bicycle parking, landscaping and seating areas are also proposed.

Poletti Way Plaza would to be landscaped with raised planters creating a strong planted edge on this active west side of the building. The planters would be divided to provide an area for smaller multistemmed species trees; Arbutus marina or Olea europaea ‘Swan Hill’ or ‘Wilsonii’. Eleven 36-inch box trees are proposed. Both species would reach a maximum height and width of 10-15 ft and be sculptural in form. Placed in raised planters below the trees, ornamental grasses are proposed to add texture and diversity to the landscape. Biotreatment gardens are proposed in the eastern portion of the planters and would be planted with Chondropetalum tectorum and Deschampsia cespitosa; both are drought and flood tolerant species suited for stormwater treatment.

Confluence Plaza takes advantage of the L-shaped building design to create a 28,000 sq ft landscaped outdoor gathering and seating area that is wind protected. A wind study was conducted to identify and address site conditions. Most open street level locations are rated between “Pedestrian Standing” (13 miles per hour (mph)) and “Business Walking” (18 mph) with sheltered locations between buildings rated mainly “Pedestrian Sitting Only” (nine mph). Small areas would be well sheltered in the apex of the buildings and be rated “Outdoor Dining” (five mph) (Design Review Board presentation, 2.15.22 pps 70, 71).

Interior access to the Confluence Plaza would be provided off Level 2. Exterior access to Confluence Plaza is provided by a series of accessible scissor pathways (approximately 300 ft in length) to and from East Grand Avenue. The area leading to Confluence Plaza is referred as ‘Confluence Terraces’.

Confluence Terraces are proposed to be flanked with landscaping, lighting and informal seating areas.

Glass wind guards and guardrails and moveable and stationary seating and tables are proposed. Moveable furnishings were proposed in response to the Design Review Board (DRB) suggestion of including some non-stationary furnishing for event planning. Confluence Plaza is designed to allow events to spill both into and out of the 5,025 sq ft pre-function space programmed on Level 2.

Proposed outdoor areas are designed to accommodate both reflective and interactive gathering spaces, accommodating one or a group of individuals. The transparent glazing on Levels 1 and 2 of Confluence Plaza would provide an interaction between interior and exterior areas. There are four entry points to the building within Confluence Plaza. Public art is proposed and currently programmed for a sculpture, and a mural. Lighting and textured surface and paving treatments are also proposed. The bicycle and pedestrian trail traverses along this frontage to the Grand and East Grand Avenue intersection. The Project Sponsor proposes to maintain the facility.

Confluence Plaza and Terraces is intended as a public garden. Raised planters in Confluence Plaza would be planted with drought tolerant ornamental grasses such as Bouteloua gracilis ‘Blonde Ambition,’ Lomandra longifolia ‘Arctic Frost,’ and Muhlenbergia capillaris ‘White Cloud’. Shrub, perennial, and succulent species would provide flowers and seasonal interest, and include Anigazanthos sp., Hesperaloe parviflora, Agastache barberi ‘Kudo’s Gold’, and Euphorbia characias ‘Tasmanian Tiger’ or other similar Mediterranean flowering plants. Ginkgo biloba ‘Autumn Gold,’ a columnar tree species or similar such as Nyssa sylvatica, is proposed to edge the terraces and plaza. This planting selection would provide shade in the summer, vibrant yellow fall foliage and habitat for aerial species. The design includes fourteen 36-inch box Gingko trees, which reach a height of 35-40 ft and a width of 15-20 ft at maturity.

CHAPTER 2: PROJECTDESCRIPTION
PAGE 2‐12 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE ‐ CHAPTER 2 PROJECTDESCRIPTION Along East Grand Avenue Quercus franietto are proposed to line the street and shade the pedestrian walkway and raised bike path. Alternative species considered are Nyssa sylvatica, Lophostemon confertus, Koelreuteria paniculate, Cedrus deodara, or Olea Europaea ‘Swan Hill’ or ‘Wilsonii’. The proposed range of planting options is in response to the need to navigate variables along the street due to unforeseen conditions with utilities, unidentified clearance requirements by emergency and maintenance vehicles, water allowance calculations as required by the Model Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance (MWELO), and availability of species at the nursery at time of planting. The design includes thirteen 36-inch box Quercus which reach a height of 40-50 ft and a width of 20-25 ft at maturity.

Lomandra longifolia ‘Breeze’ are proposed to be planted between the street trees in a continuous planter that separates the pedestrian walk from the bike lane.

East Access Plaza, located at the intersection of East Grand and Grand Avenues, is programmed to be an 8,350 sq ft landscaped bioswale and seating area. East Access Plaza is directly across from Jack Drago Park. The landscaping in this area proposes larger specimen street trees outside the area programmed for emergency access. The larger trees would also serve to visually connect with Jack Drago Park: providing a green belt on both sides of East Grand Avenue. Public art is proposed on the façade of the building adjacent to the glazing that would encompass the fitness center. Options being considered are a mural or a sculptured wall.

Cedrus deodara are proposed to mark the East Access Plaza entrance at Grand Avenue. The three Deodar Cedars would reach a height of 40 ft in windy urban conditions. Street trees along the Project and street interface are proposed to be larger specimen as heights would not be restricted here. A biotreatment planting area would be located on the western façade of the building, in part screening above ground utilities. The biotreatment garden would include flood tolerant species that would grow three ft tall, such as Chondopetalum tectorum and Cornus serecia.

In summary, the landscape architect notes (letter dated March 9, 2022 Mantle Landscape Architecture to Knapp Consulting):
“The planting palette selected for the 121 E Grand project includes species that are hardy and adapted to the current South San Francisco climate and will continue to thrive as the climate changes. Given the site’s windy environment, all selected species are hardy in wind and all trees shall be anchored with a rootball-fixing system to support them as they establish their root systems. The site planting will [be] irrigated using a Netafim system to conserve water and all trees will have two bubblers. A weather-based controller will serve all irrigation on the site. Biotreatment gardens will treat and manage for stormwater.”
[Remainder Intentionally Blank]
121 EASTGRAND AVENUE‐ CHAPTER 2 PROJECTDESCRIPTION PAGE 2‐13 PROJECT DESCRIPTION FIGURE 6

PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN
121 EASTGRAND AVENUE‐ CHAPTER 2 PROJECTDESCRIPTION PAGE 2‐14

GRADING, RETAINING WALL REINFORCEMENT, LOT MERGER EASEMENTS, UTILITY

RELOCATION, TREE REMOVAL AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
Grading and Retaining Wall Replacement: For purposes of CEQA review it is assumed the entire site would be graded and all vegetation removed to provide for subterranean parking, structure support and utility relocation. The Project proposes to reinforce the existing retaining wall adjacent to the site’s northeast property line abutting the Grand Avenue Overpass. The retaining wall would have a variable height from two to 30 ft that would correspond with the elevation slope change of the Grand Avenue Overpass sidewalk.

The preliminary grading plan indicates 175,000 cubic yards of cut to a depth of 40.67 (41 ft) below existing grade would be required to construct the Project, including improvements to the Grand Avenue Overpass. The calculation assumed a three-level below grade structure, which has been revised to two levels below grade: ergo representing a reasonable worst-case scenario. Little or no fill would be required (BKF Engineers, undated grading plan C1.0 “BKF Grading Plan”). The grading plan would be reviewed by the City’s Engineering and Building Divisions prior to issuance of grading permits.

The new reinforced concrete retaining wall would be constructed and tied back into the earth beneath the Grand Avenue Overpass with regularly spaced tiebacks for stability. (Michael Leung, SOM in concert with MKA International Construction Consultants and Engineers, email to Knapp Consulting April 29, 2022).

Lot Merger, Easements and Utility Relocation: The three parcels that make up the entire Project site would be merged into one. This action requires a parcel map approval process.

Easements are required to construct Project and area wide improvements. General locations of easement areas are shown on Project Description Figure 7 Easements and described below.  Retaining Wall for Grand Avenue Overpass: An easement would be required to allow the Project Sponsor to improve the Grand Avenue Overpass by partially removing the earthen berm supporting the facility and replacing it with a concrete reinforced retaining wall with tie backs.

The design depth of the tie backs and depth of grading will inform the parameters of the easement. A tieback easement underneath the overpass measuring approximately 50 ft deep would be needed along the entire length to allow for the construction of the retaining wall and tiebacks. The required depth of the tiebacks roughly correlates with the height of the wall and would be finalized following a detailed structural and geotechnical assessment  Construction, Use and Maintenance of the Bicycle/Pedestrian Facility: The Project Sponsor may construct the 30 ft wide pedestrian/bicycle facility. An easement is required to allow public access on private and public property. Should the City construct the facility an access easement would also be required to work on private property.  Maintenance Access for Traffic Light: The City would require access to existing traffic infrastructure supporting traffic signals at two locations on the Project site. Access would be required at the northeast corner of the Grand and East Grand Avenue Intersection and the other would be at the southwest corner of Poletti Way and East Grand Avenue.  Utility Relocation: The existing 60-inch storm drain and 14-inch domestic water line would be relocated from the Project site to the street. The relocation would be approximately parallel to and 45 ft south from the existing location. Domestic water and irrigation water connections are shown to be relocated to the street approximately 100 ft from the corner of Grand and East CHAPTER 2: PROJECTDESCRIPTION
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 2 PROJECTDESCRIPTION PAGE 2‐15 Grand Avenues. The existing easement for these utilities within the Project site would be quit claimed through the required mapping process.
 Shipping and Receiving Truck Turnaround Area: Currently a parking area exists adjacent to the northwestern property line of the Project, underneath the Grand Avenue Overpass. The Project Sponsor has a recorded easement for use of the area. The area would provide maneuvering area for large delivery trucks. The site plan, described above, purposely separated commercial parking (smaller vehicles) from shipping and receiving, utility maintenance, refuse and recycling pick-up, etc.

Various City permits are required for grading, hauling, encroachment and public improvement (see Section 2.4), prior to commencing work. These permits require various measures to protect public and worker safety, and supervision and inspections of the work being conducted.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION FIGURE 7

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EASEMENTS
CHAPTER 2: PROJECTDESCRIPTION
PAGE 2‐16 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE ‐ CHAPTER 2 PROJECTDESCRIPTION Tree Removal: Bushes, shrubs and trees are on the Project site. A tree removal plan was prepared for the Project. 69 trees representing ten species are located on the site. 49 (or 71%) of the trees are in poor condition, 17 (or 25%) are in fair condition, a coast redwood and white alder are in good condition and one white alder is dead (Tree Inventory Report, HortScience/Bartlett Construction, May 5, 2021) (‘Tree Inventory, 2021’).

Construction Schedule: WEBCOR has provided a conceptual Project schedule. Overall construction is estimated to require approximately five years. Site preparation is anticipated to commence in December 2023 and completion and issuance of occupancy permits in November 2028.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION TABLE 1

PROJECT CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
Task Name Start Date Completion Date
Hotel Shutdown 12/19/2023 12/25/2023
Site Setup 12/26/2023 2/19/2024
Demolition 1/23/2024 4/1/2024
Utility Relocation 2/27/2024 4/8/2024
Below Grade and Concrete Podium 4/9/2024 1/12/2026
Above Grade Building 1/13/2026 11/29/2028
Site Work 4/5/2028 9/19/2028
Source: WEBCOR, P3RE, 2022

GENERATORS AND BOILERS AND WATER ASSESSMENT STUDY
Generators and Boilers: The Project Sponsor may propose an all-electric building. However, the analysis for the CEQA document, as identified above, will evaluate a combination of electricity and gas.

For either scenario the Project would require back up power. Four 2,000 kilowatt standby generators, a total of 8,000 kilowatts, are proposed by the Project. The generators would have Tier 4 emissions controls per Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The building would be programmed for eight 5-Million British thermal units per hour gas-fired condensing boilers for a total of 40 Million British thermal units per hour of total heating for HVAC.

Water Assessment Study: A water assessment study was prepared for the Project (Water Supply Assessment for 121 East Grand Avenue Project, South San Francisco District California Water Service, eki environment & water, draft May 2022 [WSA]). The WSA concluded that, through the (1) development of supplemental water supplies and/or (2) implementation of conservation or demand management measures equal to the Project’s estimated net new demands consistent with the Cal Water’s Water Neutral Development Policy, the proposed Project will not affect water supply reliability within the South San Francisco District. Based on currently available information and conservative estimates of projected demand, Cal Water expects to be able to meet all future demands within its existing South San Francisco District service area (as well as the Mid-Peninsula and Bear Gulch Districts), inclusive of the proposed Project in normal hydrologic years. The shortfalls that are currently projected during dry years will be addressed through planned implementation of the South San Francisco District Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP). In addition, as described herein and in Cal Water’s 2020 UWMP, BAWSCA, Cal Water, and SFPUC are pursuing the development of additional water supplies to improve the RWS and South San Francisco District supply reliability (WSA, eki, p 5).

CHAPTER 2: PROJECTDESCRIPTION
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 2 PROJECTDESCRIPTION PAGE 2‐17 PROJECT DESCRIPTION TABLE 2

PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
Condition/Project Feature/Element Metric
Site Characteristics
Size 126,849 sq ft (2.9 acre)
Elevation 15 to 20 ft above mean sea level
FEMA Flood Zone X (outside the 100- and 500-year flood zone) Depth to Groundwater (below existing grade) 4.5 to 8.0 ft rainy year/8.5 to 16 ft dry year Proposed Project
Building Size/FAR 943,965 sq ft/ 7.44 FAR
Uses
R&D/Office 836,865 sq ft
Community Amenities 107,100 sq ft
Landscaped Public Plazas 41,528 sq ft
Bicycle Parking 250 spaces
Vehicle Parking 255,407 sq ft
Loading/Storage & Support 4,600 sq ft/30,649 sq ft
Height 294’ top of screening/262’ to top of roof
Site Coverage 69.3%/87.849 sq ft
Cut/Depth/Fill 175,000 cubic feet/41 ft/0
Generators 4 (2,000 kilowatt each) 8,000 kWh total
Boilers 8 (5 million British Thermal Units/hr i.e., 40 million BTU/hr)

REPORTS PREPARED AND MITIGATIONS PROPOSED AS PART OF THE PROJECT The Project Sponsor met with City staff and consultants during the application submittal and review process. As part of the process, reports were prepared by consultants at the direction of the City that identify measures that shall be incorporated into the Project should the Project be approved. Some existing reports also contain measures that were identified and incorporated into the Project design.

STUDIES AND PLANS
Biology
 Tree Inventory Report, HortScience/Bartlett Construction, May 5, 2021.

Circulation and Mobility
 South San Francisco Caltrain Station Eastern Access Study prepared for South San Francisco, Caltrain, Phase 3 Real Estate Partners. Fehr & Peers and Mark Thomas, October 2021 (Access Study).
 Mobility 2020 East of 101 Transportation Plan Mobility Prepared for the City of South San Francisco. Fehr & Peers, 2019 (Mobility 2020).

CHAPTER 2: PROJECTDESCRIPTION
PAGE 2‐18 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE ‐ CHAPTER 2 PROJECTDESCRIPTION Cultural Resources
 Cultural Resource Services-In Support of 121 E. Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, San Mateo County Basin Research. Colin Busby, Ph.D, RPA, Principal, February 21, 2022.  Archaeological Resources Study of 121 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, Leann Taagepera, Cultural and Historic Resource Planning, Principal, June 24, 2021.

Geotechnical
 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Mixed-Use Development 121 East Grand Ave. SSF, CA, Geocon Consultants, Inc., March and April 2021.  Response to Peer Review Comments Proposed Mixed-Use Development 121 East Grand Ave.

SSF, CA, Geocon Consultants, Inc., April 2021.
 Seismic Risk Assessment SF Bay Development 121 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA, Project # 20-281457.2, June 8, 2020.
 Basis of Design 121 East Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA, Magnusson Klemenic Associates, Structural Engineers, March 3, 2022.

Hazards
 Draft Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for 121 East Grand Avenue South San Francisco California 94080, Project Number WR3122, Apri1 20, 2022.  Determination of No Significant Hazard to Air Navigation, Federal Aviation Administration, Aeronautical Study No. 2021-AQP 7644-OF, September 9, 2021. The project sponsor will:

1. 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) and 15.

2. 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.

3. An FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration is required to be efiled within five days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2).

Water
 121 East Grand Avenue South San Francisco-Water Demand Memorandum, Job # 20201781, Lokelani Yee, BKF Project Manager, April 25, 2022.
 Water Supply Assessment for 121 East Grand Avenue Project, South San Francisco District California Water Service, eki environment & water, draft May 2022.

SUSTAINABILITY MEASURES PROPOSED BY THE PROJECT
The Project Sponsor proposes sustainable design measures throughout the Project and to incorporate the measure identified in Chapter 3 Initial Study Checklist (Michael Gerrity, President Phase 3 Real Estate, letter to Billy Gross and Allison Knapp dated May 26, 2022, see Appendix A).

CHAPTER 2: PROJECTDESCRIPTION
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 2 PROJECTDESCRIPTION PAGE 2‐19 CLIMATE ACTION PLAN (DRAFT 2022)
The 121 East Grand Project proposes to integrate sustainable design throughout the building to the extent that measures are technically and economically feasible. The approach will support the City of South San Francisco’s 2022 Climate Action Plan and the specific goals set forth in the plan. The general design approaches and strategies will include a wide variety of energy reduction, water conservation and renewable energy solutions.

The Project has committed to an All-Electric Design for long term reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the future ability to operate on 100% renewable energy provided by energy company partnerships. In response to State Senate Bill 100 and the mandated decarbonization of the California electrical grid by 2045, the development will prioritize use of all-electric sources of energy. Common areas where natural gas have been traditionally used include HVAC, domestic hot water, cooking, and process uses (e.g., laboratory, R&D). In most, if not all, of these examples, cost effective and practical all-electric alternatives exist and will be prioritized for this development. Where there are technical impediments for all-electric design approaches or they are substantially more costly, life cycle cost analyses will be performed alongside assessment of relative energy / carbon performance to inform design decisions. This design decision is in alignment with SSF 2022 Climate Action Plan Goals CP1 and CP-2.

The following items will also be considered to improve resiliency and reduce reliance on fossil fuels in accordance with the SSF Climate Action Plan Goals – CP-2:
 Review opportunities for installation of on-site renewable energy (e.g., PV, solar thermal).  Plan locations for future energy storage batteries to reduce peak loads and support grid harmonization.
 Prioritization of all-electric energy sources.
 Installation of electric vehicle charging stations.
 Reduce heat island effect of developments through use of high-albedo surfaces and / or similar technologies.
 Evaluation the purchase of off-site renewable energy to offset at least 50% of building energy use as calculated by building’s Title 24 modeled energy consumption.  Building will be wired to be solar-ready.

The following items will be considered to reduce the overall building energy use in accordance with the 2022 SSF Climate Action Plan Goals – CP-3-1:
 Optimization of building envelopes to balance building energy uses (e.g., artificial lighting, heating, cooling, fans) while also providing healthy, productive spaces for building occupants (e.g. daylight, views, thermal comfort). This reduces the building’s energy use in alignment with CP-3-1 as well as creating better working environments and improving the well-being and overall productivity of the businesses.
 Use of passive design strategies to minimize reliance on active heating and cooling systems.  Selection of energy efficient HVAC system approaches and equipment.

CHAPTER 2: PROJECTDESCRIPTION
PAGE 2‐20 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE ‐ CHAPTER 2 PROJECTDESCRIPTION  Balance of ventilation and indoor air quality outcomes alongside energy efficiency considerations.

The following items will be considered to reduce the overall building water use in accordance with the SSF 2022 Climate Action Plan Goals – CP-8:
 Use of efficient water consuming devices (e.g. plumbing fixtures, appliances, cooling equipment) to minimize demand for water and manage energy consumption of domestic hot water systems.
 Prioritize water efficient landscaping practices.
 Review opportunities to reuse water on-site (e.g. stormwater or greywater reuse) to minimize water consumption and manage site outflows.
 Undertake the following water efficiency measures as outlined by the CAP:
o Establishing a variable-speed pump exchange for water features. o Restricting hours of irrigation to occur between 3:00 a.m. and two hours after sunrise. o Installing irrigation controllers with rain sensors.
o Landscaping with native, water-efficient plants.
o Installing drip irrigation systems.
o Reducing impervious surfaces.

The 121 East Grand Project proposes to integrate sustainable design throughout the design of the building. The Project Sponsor’s goal is to reach a LEED Gold level of classification. General design approaches and strategies or a reasonable facsimile thereto include:
 Optimization of building envelopes to balance building energy uses (e.g. artificial lighting, heating, cooling, fans) while also providing healthy, productive spaces for building occupants (e.g. daylight, views, thermal comfort).
 Use of passive design strategies to minimize reliance on active heating and cooling systems.  Selection of energy efficient HVAC system approaches and equipment.  Balance of ventilation and indoor air quality outcomes alongside energy efficiency considerations.  Use of efficient water consuming devices (e.g. plumbing fixtures, appliances, cooling equipment) to minimize demand for water and manage energy consumption of domestic hot water systems.  Prioritize the use of water efficient landscaping practices.  Review opportunities to reuse water on-site (e.g. stormwater or greywater reuse) to minimize water consumption and manage site outflows.
 Review opportunities for installation of on-site renewable energy (e.g. PV, solar thermal)  Prioritization of all-electric energy sources (see further discussion below).

The Project Sponsor is knowledgeable of and will comply with the City of South San Francisco’s Climate Action Plan (CAP). A summary of the design responses mostly likely to comply with the CAP for the Project is listed below:

CHAPTER 2: PROJECTDESCRIPTION
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 2 PROJECTDESCRIPTION PAGE 2‐21  Install conduit to enable installation of electric vehicle charging stations  Reduce heat island effect of developments through use of high-albedo surfaces and / or similar technologies
 Purchase off-site renewable energy to offset at least 50% of building energy use as calculated by building’s Title 24 modeled energy consumption
 Building will be wired to be solar-ready
 Undertake the following water efficiency measures as outlined by the CAP:
i. Establishing a variable-speed pump exchange for water features. ii. Restricting hours of irrigation to occur between 3:00 a.m. and two hours after sunrise. iii. Installing irrigation controllers with rain sensors. iv. Landscaping with native, water-efficient plants.
v. Installing drip irrigation systems.
vi. Reducing impervious surfaces.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The following mitigation measures are agreed to and proposed by the Project Sponsor and identified in Chapter 3 Initial Study.

Bio 1.A.1: Tree Removal Within Nesting Season (approximately March 1 to August 31). No construction activities of any kind, including but not limited to tree and landscape removal, demolition, site grubbing, grading, etc shall occur until the following protocol is met.

The Project Sponsor, or designated representative shall retain a licensed biologist to conduct a preconstruction survey for protected birds on the site and in the immediate vicinity if any Project construction activities occur during nesting season. The survey shallbe done no more than 15 days prior to the initiation of tree removal and grading and other construction activities. In the event that nesting birds are found on the Project site or in the immediate vicinity, Project Sponsor, or designated representative shallnotify the City, locate and map the nest site(s) within three (3) days, submit a report to the City and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife ("CDFW"), establish a no-disturbance buffer of 250-ft, and conduct on-going weekly surveys to ensure the no-disturbance buffer is maintained. In the event of destruction of a nest with eggs, or if a juvenile or adult raptor should become stranded from the nest, injured or killed, the qualified biologist shall immediately notify the CDFW. The licensed biologist shall coordinate with the CDFW to have the injured bird either transferred to a raptor recovery center or, in the case of mortality, transfer it to the CDFW within 48 hours of notification.

A tree permit per South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 13.30.030 (Tree Preservation Ordinance), shall be required prior to removal of a Protected Tree, defined in section 13.30.020 as: (1) Any tree with a circumference of forty-eight inches or more when measured fifty-four inches above natural grade; or (2) A tree or stand of trees so designated by the director based upon findings that it is unique and of importance to the public due to its unusual appearance, location, historical significance or other factor; or (3) A stand of trees in which the director has determined each tree is dependent upon the others for survival. Prior to removing trees, the Project Sponsor, or designated representativ shall contact the Parks Division to determine if a removal permit is needed. The Project CHAPTER 2: PROJECTDESCRIPTION
PAGE 2‐22 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE ‐ CHAPTER 2 PROJECTDESCRIPTION Sponsor, or designated representative shall obtain City issued tree removal permits prior to commencing any tree removal activities; or,
Bio 1.B.1: Tree Removal Outside Nesting Season (approximately September 1 to February 28).

No construction activities of any kind, including but not limited to tree and landscape removal, demolition, site grubbing, grading, etc shall occur until the following protocol is met.

Tree removal outside of nesting season would preclude the need for the measures identified in 1.A.1, above. A tree permit shall be required per South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 13.30.030 (Tree Preservation Ordinance)prior to removal of a Protected Tree, defined in section 13.30.020 as: (1) Any tree with a circumference of forty-eight inches or more when measured fifty-four inches above natural grade; or (2) A tree or stand of trees so designated by the director based upon findings that it is unique and of importance to the public due to its unusual appearance, location, historical significance or other factor; or (3) A stand of trees in which the director has determined each tree is dependent upon the others for survival. Prior to removing trees, the Project Sponsor, or designated representative shall contact the Parks Division to determine if a removal permit is needed. The Project Sponsor, or designated representative shall obtain City issued tree removal permits prior to commencing any tree removal activities.

The Project would have a less than significant impact on biological resources with regard to native wildlife movement opportunities or nursery sites because the Project Sponsor would either remove trees outside of nesting season or follow the established protocol and mitigation measure during nesting season.

Archaeology Impact 1: There is a remote possibility that culturally significant soils, those containing artifacts or remains, could be located in subsurface areas of the site. Disturbance of these soils could result in a significant impact.

Archaeology Mitigation 1
Arch 1.A.1a: Employee Training and Awareness. Prior to the start of ground disturbing grading, demolition or construction, the Project Sponsor/designated representative shall ensure that a Worker Awareness Environmental Training (WAET) is conducted by a licensed archaeologist (Archaeologist) in the state of California. Training shall be scheduled in consultation with the Project Sponsor/designated representative, construction manager and other key site personnel, and the City of South San Francisco.

WAET training shall be required for all personnel participating in ground disturbing construction to alert them to the archaeological sensitivity of the Project area and provide protocols to follow in the event of a discovery of archaeological materials. The Project Sponsor/designated representative shall also ensure the occurrence of the following:

1.A.1.b: Archaeologist shall be on an “on-call” basis to review and identify any potential archaeological discoveries during ground disturbing grading, demolition and excavation operations and work shall stop within 50 feet of the find. Archaeologist shall be contacted for identification, evaluation and further recommendations consistent with California Environmental Quality Act and City of South San Francisco requirements.

1.A.1c: Grading, demolition and any other plans that require soil disturbance shall note that there is a potential for exposing buried cultural resources including prehistoric Native American burials on the site.

CHAPTER 2: PROJECTDESCRIPTION
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 2 PROJECTDESCRIPTION PAGE 2‐23

1.A.1.d: Archaeologist shall develop and distribute for job site posting an "ALERT SHEET" summarizing potential finds that could be exposed and the protocols to be followed as well as points of contact to alert in the event of a discovery.

Arch 1.B.1: Protocol in the Event of Discovery of Potentially Culturally Significant Soils, Objects or Remains

1.B.1.a: Stop work and contact the on-call archaeologist.

1.B.1.b: Should Archaeologist determine that any cultural resources exposed during construction constitute a historical resource and/or unique archaeological resource under CEQA, Archaeologist shall notify the appropriate parties of the evaluation and recommend mitigation measures to mitigate to a less-than significant impact in accordance with California Public Resources Code Section 15064.5.

Mitigation measures may include avoidance, preservation in-place, recordation, additional archaeological testing and data recovery among other options. The completion of a formal Archaeological Monitoring Plan (AMP) and/or Archaeological Treatment Plan (ATP) that may include data recovery may be recommended by the Professional Archaeologist if significant archaeological deposits are exposed during ground disturbing construction. Development and implementation of the AMP and ATP and treatment of significant cultural resources will be determined by the project proponent in consultation with any regulatory agencies.

The treatment of human remains, and any associated or unassociated funerary objects discovered during any soil-disturbing activity within the Project site shall follow the requirements of section 5097.99 of the Public Resources Code). This shall include immediate notification of the appropriate county Coroner/Medical Examiner, Project Sponsor and the City of South San Francisco.

1.B.1c: A Monitoring Closure Report shall be filed with the Applicant/Project Sponsor/designated representative and the City at the conclusion of ground disturbing construction if archaeological and Native American monitoring of excavation was undertaken Geology and Soils Mitigation 1: An updated geotechnical report(s) shall be provided to the City for peer review prior to any issuance of building, grading, grubbing or tree removal permits. The updated report(s) shall address the revised Project description and include all design measures requisite to be compliant with the California Building Code. The updated report(s) shall include at a minimum, structural design and construction specifications, including but not limited to, undergrounding of utilities addressing any construction requirements for potentially and/or corrosive soils, grading, site stabilization, drainage, utility and infrastructure design and placement, foundation design, retaining wall specifications, and soil compaction requirements and design. The report(s) shall be peer reviewed by the City’s consultant and revised accordingly until determined complete by the City.

DSASP 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 not limited to, the selection of quiet equipment, equipment setbacks, silencers, and/or acoustical barriers.

DSASP 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 CHAPTER 2: PROJECTDESCRIPTION
PAGE 2‐24 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE ‐ CHAPTER 2 PROJECTDESCRIPTION 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.

DSASP 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.

DSASP 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.

Utility and Service Systems Mitigation Measure 1: The Project Sponsor shall implement Cal Water’s net neutral policy by either (1) paying to the SSF District the required offset amount calculated according to the offset costs included in the Policy, and/or (2) conducting other activities as defined in the Policy.

PROJECT SPONSOR OBJECTIVES
The Project Sponsor has indicated the following objectives for the realization of the Project.  Design and build an iconic building that honors South San Francisco as the birthplace of Biotechnology.
 Connect and celebrate the East and West areas of the City and the Caltrain Station.  Provide a community gathering space with vibrant indoor and outdoor areas that are safe, comfortable, lighted, usable, landscaped with the environment in the forefront of design and punctuated with world class art.
 Create an ecosystem that supports scientists in their discovery of the life changing technologies of the future.
 Be a good partner and neighbor to the City of South San Francisco.

CHAPTER 2: PROJECTDESCRIPTION
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 2 PROJECTDESCRIPTION PAGE 2‐25

2.3 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING

GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The Project site is within the Gateway Planning Sub Area (Figure 2-6, Planning Sub Area p 2-26 and Figure 2-7 Specific, Area and Redevelopment Plans, p 2-37) identified in the South San Francisco General Plan (‘1999 SSF GP’). The Gateway Plan area harkens to a redevelopment plan promulgated in the 1980’s and is superseded by both state law and the City’s adoption of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (February 2015) and amended in February 2018 (“DSASP”).

DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (DSASP)
The DSASP is an important tool in implementing the City’s goals to: (1) provide more opportunities for safe and convenient alternatives to commuting in cars (i.e., mode shift); (2) increase land use densities around the South San Francisco Caltrain station thereby making mode shift options more convenient in response to Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) and Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and global warming.

The DSASP was built upon concept drawings the City prepared in 1998 to relocate the Caltrain station to align with East Grand and Grand Avenues. The relocation provided a pedestrian link between the east and west portions of the City and a safer and more convenient place to access Caltrain. Adoption of the DSASP also provided the opportunity for various funding partnerships for this capital improvement. Funding participants included voter approved monies from the San Mateo County Measure A and Peninsula Joint Powers Board and City funding (https://caltrain.comassetsSF+Improve.

Accessed January 2022).

Implementation of the DSASP resulted in ADA-compliant facilities; a bus and shuttle drop-off area on the west side of Poletti Way; a pedestrian and bicycle underpass to a new platform that connects East Grand Avenue/Poletti Way to Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard on the west side of US 101. The relocation also enables buses direct access to the east side of the train station, opening the opportunity for SamTrans bus expansion to the East of 101. The relocation also serves to increase and streamline employer-provided and Commute.org shuttles to serve the area. The tunnels will remain open 24 hours a day, year-round.

AB 32 and SB 375 direct local governments to promote and approve sustainable development. These bills define sustainable development as being that which is high density and near major transit routes designed to be safe and convenient to alternatives to driving in cars. Higher density development is clustered in a radius of ¼ to ½ mile from the major transit routes such as Caltrain and Bay Area Rapid Transit. Creating mode shift alternatives and walkable communities with supporting retail and commercial services will reduce commuter reliance on single-occupancy vehicular travel, vehicular miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions.

The DSASP brings together the City’s efforts to identify a long-term and comprehensive effort to find effective solutions to housing, employment, economic development, transportation, and environmental sustainability. The DSASP provides a mechanism to respond, “to state mandates requiring a balance between creating jobs and housing, and to position the City to develop denser, walkable housing opportunities for a new generation of residents” (Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, Staff Report to Planning Commission, December 18, 2014). Project Description Figure 8 Downtown Station Area Specific Plan shows the location of the Caltrain station, the boundaries of the DSASP, the Transit Oriented/Research and Development Zoning (TO/RD) and the Project location. 121 EASTGRAND AVENUE‐ CHAPTER 2 PROJECTDESCRIPTION PAGE 2‐26 PROJECT DESCRIPTION FIGURE 8

DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
121 EASTGRAND AVENUE‐ CHAPTER 2 PROJECTDESCRIPTION PAGE 2‐27 SHAPE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 2040 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE (DRAFT 2040GP) The City is undergoing a general plan update and anticipates final adoption in mid- to late-summer of 2022. While the update is city-wide, the substantive changes are proposed in the East of 101, Lindenville and El Camino Real sub-areas. Within the East of 101 Area, the Draft 2040GP would allow higher densities near the Caltrain station (higher than the ones envisioned in the DTSAP), and reduced densities further away. For this specific area, a maximum 8.0 FAR is proposed for development in this transitoriented core area. The City has allowed applicants to undergo the legislative process to amend planning and zoning standards to realize up to an 8.0 FAR.

A robust community benefits package is a requirement of increased density. The guiding concept is the fiscal benefit of increased density a project sponsor would realize should be shared with the City to offset affects and assist in realizing community goals. To this end, community benefits are a negotiated combination of built benefits and financial contributions.

Built community benefits include but are not limited to the creation of public plazas and open spaces, bicycle and pedestrian trails, creating visual and physical connections between the east and west areas of US 101 and creating ‘transit-hubs’ where a variety of mobility options are provided. Applicants are encouraged to construct and lease space within their projects for services such as grab and go grocery stores; cafes and restaurants; and personal retail services.

Financial contributions will assist the implementation of City visions contained in a variety of planning and capital improvement projects. City documents such as the Mobility 2020, the Access Study, and the Draft 2040GP identify mobility needs that could be implemented in the East of 101 to improve vehicular, pedestrian and bicyclist safety. These reports identify policies to create open space areas that engage the community as a whole, connect pedestrian and bicycle paths to larger linkages, and repair and/or construct sidewalks. Other considerations include reducing the drive-alone commute modality and optimizing mode-shift methods. Other documents include the City’s Capital Improvement Program, Parks and Recreation Master Plan and general plan.

The update as well as the other planning documents referenced herein are available on the City’s website (www.ssf.net) and is referred to as SHAPE/SSF 2040 (https://shapessf.com/). The Draft 2040GP (p 9) identifies the East of 101 Transit Core envisioned as:

Transit-oriented community with a walkable street pattern and a vibrant mix of highdensity multifamily and employment uses with supportive retail, services, and amenities (minimum FAR from 2.0 up to 8.0 with community benefits; residential densities range from 120 du/ac to 200 du/ac with community benefits).
[Remainder Intentionally Blank]
121 EASTGRAND AVENUE‐ CHAPTER 2 PROJECTDESCRIPTION PAGE 2‐28 PROJECT DESCRIPTION FIGURE 9
DRAFT 2040 GENERAL PLAN – EAST OF 101 SUB AREA
121 EASTGRAND AVENUE‐ CHAPTER 2 PROJECTDESCRIPTION PAGE 2‐29

ZONING CLASSIFICATION
The implementing DSASP zoning regulations are codified in Chapter 20 Zoning of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and appear in summary form within Table 20.280.003 Land Use Regulations, Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Sub District. The Project site is within an area referred to as the Transit Oriented Research and Development Core (“TO/RD”). The purpose of the TO/RD district is:

Transit Office / R&D Core (TO/RD). The Transit Office/R&D Core sub-district is located just east of the Caltrain tracks in an area bounded by East Grand Avenue on the north, Gateway Boulevard on the east, Poletti Way and US 101 on the west, and S. Airport Boulevard on the south. This sub-district is intended to provide a location for the highest intensity office or R&D uses. Suited to headquarters or other office type uses that do not include significant manufacturing, the sub-district offers the opportunity for locating high intensity uses in immediate proximity to the Caltrain Station. In addition, with the relocation of the Caltrain Station and construction of a pedestrian and bicycle rail undercrossing, this subdistrict will provide convenient access to Grand Avenue and the surrounding areas and will support commercial revitalization. (SSF General Plan, p 2-20 as updated by DTSASP, 2015).

The TO/RD District description further notes:

With the extension of the Caltrain Station and construction of the pedestrian/ bicycle underpass, this area will be well connected to the Downtown, providing an opportunity for a significant number of workers to easily access downtown amenities. Taller buildings are suitable here in conformance with the FAA height limitations. (SSF General Plan, p 2-20 as updated by DTSASP, 2015).

Currently the maximum FAR is 3.5. Approval of the Draft 2040GP would require Chapter 20.280 to be amended to reflect up to an 8.0 FAR in the TO/RD Zoning District.

This environmental document analyzes a 7.44 FAR. The Project size may be reduced through the design and entitlement process. Analyzing a 7.44 FAR will disclose a reasonable worst-case scenario at the earliest stage of the planning process.1 An addendum to this document may be prepared should the Project be reduced in size and if “only minor technical changes or additions are necessary” and no new impacts or the severity thereto have been identified, Section 15164 CEQA Guidelines (b). 1 California Code of Regulations, Title 14 Natural Resources, Division 6 Resources Agency, Chapter 3 Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), last amended December 28, 2018. Commonly referred to as “CEQA Guidelines”
CHAPTER 2: PROJECTDESCRIPTION
PAGE 2‐30 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE ‐ CHAPTER 2 PROJECTDESCRIPTION

2.4 REQUIRED LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS AND ENTITLEMENTS

LEAD AGENCY REQUIREMENTS

LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS CONDUCTED BY CITY COUNCIL
 General Plan Amendment for Floor Area Ratio (FAR) greater than 3.5  Zoning Ordinance Amendment for FAR greater than 3.5
 Community Benefits Agreement to memorialize community benefits agreement between City and Applicant

DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS CONDUCTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION
 Review and adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration-CEQA Compliance  Review of General Plan and Zoning Amendments and recommendation to City Council  Transportation Demand Management Program-Use Permit to allow a parking reduction in coordination with the TDM Program and to approve an FAR greater than 3.5  Lot Merger to merge three lots in common ownership that comprise the Project

COMMITTEE AND BOARD REVIEW
 Design Review Board
 Bikeway and Pedestrian Advisory Committee

STAFF MINISTERIAL REVIEW
 Demolition and Building Permits-Building Division
 Grading, Hauling, Encroachment and Public Improvement Permits-Engineering and Building Divisions
 TDM Program-Planning Division
 Utility Relocation-Engineering and Utility Provider

OTHER AGENCY REQUIRED PERMITS/REVIEW
 General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit Notice of Intent and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required by State and /or Federal regulations  Federal Aviation Administration Review for Building Height and Construction Crane  City and County Association of Governments (C/CAG) Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Consistency Finding, TDM Program Review and staff review for Construction Crane  Potential Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) review and permitting 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The following checklist is consistent with CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G. A “no impact” response indicates that the Project would not result in an environmental impact in a particular area of interest, either because the resource is not present, or the Project does not have the potential to cause an effect on the resource. A “less than significant” response indicates that, while there may be potential for an environmental impact, the significance of the impact would not exceed established thresholds and/or that there are standard procedures or regulations in place that would apply to the Project and hence no mitigation is required, or that, although there is the potential for a significant impact, feasible mitigation measures are available and have been agreed to and proposed by the Project to reduce the impact to a level of “less than significant.” A “potentially significant impact” response indicates that the Project could exceed established thresholds, no mitigation is currently proposed or identified and therefore the impact will be analyzed in an environmental impact report. A “less than significant with mitigation” response indicates that although the impact would be considered significant, measures are identified and required herein that will reduce the impact to less than significant.

Citations for this chapter are contained within the relevant discussion.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐1 I. Aesthetics
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are
experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

INTRODUCTION
The Project is considered a transit-oriented infill employment center project and as defined is not subject to an aesthetics evaluation notwithstanding potential impacts on cultural or historic resources (Chapter

2.7 ‘Modernization of Transportation Analysis for Transit Oriented Infill Projects’ California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code, Division 13 Environmental Quality Statute, as amended in 2021 (Section 21099)).

An ‘infill site” is one that is within an urban area that has been previously developed, or on a vacant site where at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins or is separated by only an improved public right-of-way from parcels that are developed with qualified urban uses (Section 21099(a)(4). The Project site is developed and in an urban area.

A qualified urban use is defined as “employment center project” that is located on property zoned for commercial uses with a floor area ratio (FAR) of no less than 0.75 and located within a transit priority area (Section 21099(a)(1)). The Project proposes a 7.44 FAR. The Project site is zoned TransitOriented/Research and Development (TO/RD).

A ‘transit priority area’ is defined as a project within ½ mile of a major transit stop that is either existing or planned to be included within the horizon of a transportation improvement program or applicable regional transportation plan (21099(a)(7)). The Project site is centrally located within the first ¼ mile of the City’s transit priority area or ‘Priority Development Area’. The City’s transit priority area or priority development area was formed in 2015 by adoption of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP). DSASP and the implementing TO/RD zoning district were funded by partnerships with the Association of Bay Area Governments, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the Peninsula Joint Powers Board and the City of South San Francisco. Additional funding was provided from the approved San Mateo County Measure A ballot initiative. The relocation of the Caltrain station was the nexus of these efforts to streamline train service in San Mateo and San Francisco counties and to increase densities along this corridor to facilitate mode share.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐2 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The DSASP is designed to implement many City objectives. The staff report for the DSASP adoption notes, “…the City has pursued a long-term and comprehensive effort to find effective solutions to housing, employment, economic development, transportation, and environmental sustainability … the City must respond to the demand for residential and commercial development near transit routes to reduce vehicular travel and greenhouse gas emissions from daily driving…” (Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, Staff Report to Planning Commission, December 18, 2014).

In conclusion, pursuant to Section 21099(d)(1), “aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixeduse residential, or employment center project on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered impacts on the environment.”
The following section does include an analysis of aesthetics and found all impacts would be less than significant, or no impact. The analysis is included as it serves to describe, at the earliest juncture possible, the proposed project and impacts thereto (California Code of Regulations, Title 14 Natural Resources, Division 6 Resources Agency, Chapter 3 Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), last amended December 28, 2018. Commonly referred to as “CEQA Guidelines”).

SETTING

SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
South San Francisco’s urban character is one of contrasts within a visually well-defined setting. San Bruno Mountain to the north, the ridge along Skyline Boulevard to the west, Interstate 380 to the south, and the San Francisco Bay to the east provide the City with distinctive edges. The City is contained in an almost bowl-like shape by hills on two sides. The City’s terrain ranges from the flatlands along the water to hills east and north. Hills are visible from all parts of the City; Sign Hill and San Bruno Mountain are visual landmarks. Much of the City’s topography is rolling, resulting in distant views from many neighborhoods. Geographically, the City is relatively small, extending approximately two miles in a north-south direction and about five miles from east to west. According to the United States Census Bureau South San Francisco consists of 32 square miles of which 9.1 square miles are land and 21 square miles water.

PROJECT SITE AND AREA
The Project site, located in the northeastern portion of the City of South San Francisco (“City”), is in an area known as the of East of 101. The East of 101 Area has historically been known for industrial land uses. A sign emblazoned into a hill overlooking the city states ‘South San Francisco The Industrial City’ underscoring this identity. The hill is monikered ‘Sign Hill’. The sign was created in 1923 by the South San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and the City. In 1996 the City petitioned and succeeded to have the sign placed on the National Register of Historic Places (National Historic Register #96000761, 1966).

Over the past 46 years, the East of 101 has transformed into an area that includes life science (i.e., Research and Development, “R&D”), office and visitor serving uses such as hotels while retaining industry in the southern portions of the area. Genentech, a major life science company, ushered in this change by locating in South San Francisco in 1976 (ssf.net accessed March 8, 2022). Now South San Francisco has over 200 life science companies in the East of 101 Area alone and is known as ‘The Birthplace of Biotechnology’ (ssf.net, accessed March 8, 2022). These changes are in large part the result of planning efforts championed by the City (identified in more detail in Chapter 2.3 General Plan and Zoning and Chapter 3.XI Land Use and Planning) and the natural evolution of society and land uses thereto.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐3 The design of the built environment in the Project area is changing from minimally landscaped and industrially developed parcels with surface parking to life science buildings and campuses, hotels, and local- and -visitor serving uses. Architecture and landscape and site design standards have changed over the past 46 years from one to three story buildings with surface parking surrounded by chain-link fencing to multi-story campuses, screened and/or structured parking, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and community amenities.

The Project site is surrounded by roadways, freeways, and Caltrain. Beginning on the west side of the site and moving westward, in succession, is located Poletti Way; followed by the Caltrain Station; the Grand Avenue/US 101 overpass; and Airport Boulevard resulting in a contiguous 780 ft wide band of roadways.1 The 50 ft wide band of East Grand Avenue wraps the site on the south and southeast connecting with Grand Avenue to the north. The northern Project property line is contiguous with the 110 ft wide Grand Avenue overpass.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA)/SAN MATEO COUNTY
Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport (ALUCP)
The Project site is within the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and the ALUCP jurisdiction, and approximately 1.8 mi north of San Francisco International Airport. The Project is not within two miles of a private airstrip.

The Project is required to undergo ALUC review. ALUC is a function of the City/County Association of Governments in San Mateo County (C/CAG). C/CAG board members serve as the ALUC board.

The review requirement is contained in the ALUCP to assure development within, or nearby, airspace of San Francisco International Airport environs is consistent with the ALUCP and will not result in an airspace hazard. The FAA determination of “No Significant Hazard to Air Navigation” allowing the Project a 295 ft height is part of the ALUC review process (see Chapter 2 Project Description, Section 2.2). (Aeronautical Study No. 2021-AWP 7644-OF, 09.09.2022).

CITY
1999 General Plan (1999 GP) and Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP) The 1999 GP was amended and the DSASP and was adopted in 2015. The legislative actions brought the DSASP into conformance with the amended 1999 GP. The Project site is identified as a highdensity transit-oriented site in these documents. See Project Description Figure 1 Urban Context, Project Site and Area and Project Description Figure 8 Downtown Station Area Specific Plan.

The DSASP and TO/RD zoning ushered in the height limits approved by the FAA. FAA review and no hazard safety determination allows a height of up to 295 ft pursuant to the DSASP.

The South San Francisco Caltrain station is the center of the ½ mile radius comprising the TO/RD District. The TO/RD District is identified in two zones, ¼ and ½ mile radius. The policies of higher 1 Google Earth measured approximately midpoint from 121 East Grand western property line to edge of sidewalk along Airport Boulevard.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐4 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST density development within a ½ mile radius of a major transit station are in concert with state law designed to encourage higher development densities near transit stations to encourage mode shift.2 Draft 2040 General Plan (Draft 2040GP)
As noted in Chapter 2.3 General Plan and Zoning the City is in the process of a general plan update.

The update will usher in an increased intensity and diversity of land uses in the East of 101. Within the East of 101 Area, the update would allow higher densities near the Caltrain station (up to an 8.0 FAR), and reduced densities further away. The City has allowed applicants to undergo the legislative process to amend planning and zoning standards to realize up to an 8.0 FAR within the TO/RD District, while the general plan is undergoing review and adoption.

Negotiation and approval of a community benefits package is a requirement for density over the conditionally permitted 3.5 FAR. Increased density up to an 8.0 FAR is an entitlement, not a guaranteed right, and as such density may be conditionally approved based upon an agreement negotiated between the City and the developer. Community benefits take the form of built benefits and financial contributions.

Built community benefits include but are not limited to the creation of public plazas and open spaces, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and creating visual and physical connections between the east and west areas of US 101. Applicants are encouraged to construct and lease space within their projects for services such as grab and go grocery stores; cafes and restaurants; and personal retail services. The provision of services and a lively streetscape associated with plazas and cafes will encourage the use of different transit options and reduce the need to leave an area to obtain these services, thus reducing impacts associated with vehicular use.

Financial contributions will assist the City in implementation of visions, policies and programs contained in a variety of planning and capital improvement documents. City documents such as the “Mobility 2020” report (Fehr & Peers Traffic Engineers, 2019) identify mobility needs that could be implemented in the East of 101 to improve vehicular, pedestrian and bicyclist safety and expand and connect bicycle and pedestrian trails. Other documents include but are not limited to the City’s Capital Improvement Program, Parks and Recreation Master Plan, bicycle and pedestrian plans, and general plan.

These plans address the provision of emergency services, parks and open spaces, connection and completion of sidewalks and bicycle trails, additional transit options and facilities thereto, provision of market rate and affordable housing, construction and staffing services such as grocery and convenience stores, medical and dental offices, and personal services. One of the goals identified in Draft 2040GP is the creation of “complete neighborhoods” where most if not all the needs of a neighborhood can be accessed by a 20-minute walk (Draft 2040GP, p 69). Another important goal is “complete streets” street networks that provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities for people of all ages and abilities; access to public transportation to get people anywhere in the city or the Bay Area; and that accommodate emerging transportation innovations and micro-mobility, such as scooters, bike share, and electric buses and vehicles (p 10 Draft 2040GP).
2 Senate Bill (SB) 743 (2013) was enacted to assist in achieving state climate policy and sustainability goals. SB 743 eliminates traffic delay as an environmental impact under the California Environmental Quality Act and replaces the analysis with Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Additionally, Subsection (b)(1) of new section 15064.3 (California Code of Regulations Title 14 Natural Resources, Division 6 Resources Agency, Chapter: Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (‘CEQA Guidelines’) as amended December 28, 2018 (CEQA Guidelines) provides that “[g]enerally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high-quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant impact”, described in more detail in Section 3.XVII Transportation.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐5 The City is actively seeking ways to connect the east and west areas of the city currently separated physically and visually by US 101. The relocation of the Caltrain Station to Grand Avenue at Airport Boulevard, discussed in Chapter 2. Project Description Section 2.1 and above, is one of the completed strategies in realizing this east/west connection. The Caltrain tunnel provides access to the train platform and connects the east and west areas of the city through the pedestrian/bicycle facilities that are open 24-hrs a day. The Project site is 200 ft from this connection on the east side of US 101.

Design Review
Through a multi-level City review from staff, and the Design Review Board (DRB), Planning Commission and City Council, site design, architecture and landscape design achieve sustainability levels identified in “Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design” (LEED). LEED provides a framework for healthy, highly efficient, and cost-saving green buildings and is the most widely used green building rating system in the world (http://usgbc.org, accessed March 8, 2022). Design review also addresses the aesthetics of a project, presence in the neighborhood and overall architectural and landscape design.

PROJECT ELEMENTS

OVERALL
The Project proposes two 17-story research and development building “wings” connected through a glass atrium atop a two-story podium with a 262 ft building height The 32 ft mechanical screen would bring the total height of the building to 294 ft. Building materials would largely be steel and glass. Two types of insulated glazing are proposed: creamy white opaque and shadowbox. Balconies are proposed on the south and east elevations where the office functions would be located above Level 2. These balconies surround the open sky “Confluence Plaza” a 28,000 sq ft public plaza located along the East Grand Avenue frontage. Although three of the four elevations of the building would be activated with public uses it is the Confluence Plaza that is designed to accommodate a variety of opportunities to site, eat, gather, read, converse, and enjoy.

The two-story podium is proposed to be designed, landscaped and furnished to provide seating, gathering areas and various entry points to the building. The first two floors of the building would provide public amenities and Floors three through 17 would include research and development and office uses. A 700 ft long lighted and landscaped bicycle and pedestrian trail would traverse the site from Poletti Way, along the western, southern, and eastern frontages of the Project site to the intersection of Grand Avenue and East Grand Avenue.

DESIGN ELEMENTS AND ACCESS
There are four entry areas to the Project site: “Arrival Plaza”, “Poletti Way Plaza”, “Confluence Plaza”, and “East Access Plaza.” Each are designed with a specific purpose, as described in Chapter 2 Project Description. These areas are identified through a combination architectural features, lighting, landscaping and art. These landscaped and furnished areas total approximately 46,663 sq ft.

These four areas are all connected seamlessly around the building and provide different but interconnected purposes. “Wind Canopy”, a structural element proposed at the second story level, would wrap around the building from west to east and serve as a design and functional element. The second-story placement would define the pedestrian realm and provide some buffer from wind, rain and sun. Please refer to Chapter 2 Project Description for a detailed description of these areas.

Arrival Plaza is a 5,178 sq ft arrival plaza located 200 feet from the access to Caltrain. Through its size and design this plaza is intended to identify the main entrance to the building and get people quickly out CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐6 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST of Poletti Way and into the pedestrian realm. Ergo, by design Arrival Plaza does not include landscaping and seating. No elements that could impede safe access out of Poletti Way into the pedestrian realm are programmed in this area.

Poletti Way Plaza is designed with a 30 ft wide and 150 ft long sidewalk creating a 5,105 sq ft landscaped circulation area. Poletti Way Plaza includes seating, bicycle parking and access to the café or other retail along this frontage.

Confluence Plaza: The L-shaped building design provides a wind protected area to include a 28,000 sq ft landscaped outdoor gathering and seating area. The Confluence Plaza would include stairs and an accessible ramp that weaves from East Grand Avenue to the top of the plaza. Informal and formal seating areas are programmed into the landscape plan. Access to Level 1 and Level 2 amenities is provided in this area.

East Grand Plaza: The 8,350 sq ft outdoor area brings the bicycle and pedestrian trail to Grand Avenue and provides a visual link to Jack Drago Park. Street trees and bioswale grasses are the proposed planting palette (see Figure 6 Proposed Landscape Plan in Chapter 2, Project Description.)

IMPACTS
a) Scenic Vistas
Significance Criteria: For the purpose of assessing impacts of a project on scenic vistas, the threshold of significance is exceeded when a project would result in the obstruction of a designated public vista, or in the placement of an arguably offensive or negative-appearing project within such a vista. Any clear conflict with a general plan policy or other adopted planning policy regarding scenic vistas would also be considered a potentially significant adverse environmental impact.

The City does not have a view preservation ordinance or policies thereto (1999 GP, proposed Draft 2040GP and interview with Billy Gross, Principal Planner March 2, 2022). The potential impacts on scenic vistas are considered less than significant pursuant to CEQA Section 21099. An analysis on aesthetics is included from two important publicly accessed view corridors and is for informational purposes.

The two view corridors selected for this evaluation are along a Sign Hill Park Trail and a street view in front of City Hall at 400 Grand Avenue. These points were selected because they:

1. Represent areas where the public frequents.

2. Both are historic landmarks.

3. Represent different views, one at street level and one atop a hill.

Sign Hill provides vistas to the East of 101 Area, San Francisco Bay and beyond. Grand Avenue provides a street level view to the east from the west of US 101.

As noted previously, the Sign Hill sign is on the National Register of Historic Places. South San Francisco City Hall, located at 400 Grand Avenue, was constructed in 1920 by architects Werner and Coffee, from San Francisco. The architecture is neo-colonial-Georgian and was modeled after Philadelphia’s Independence Hall. President Hoover’s motorcade traveled along Grand Avenue in 1932 and Robert Fitzgerald Kennedy’s U.S. Presidential campaign motorcade traveled the same route in 1968 (Everything South City; https://www.ssf.net, accessed March 17, 2022). City Hall was added to the list of National Register of Historic Places in 1986, HR-86-001.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐7 View From Sign Hill Park Trail
Sign Hill Park includes approximately 66 acres of public open space, hiking trails and habitat preservation areas. Sign Hill Trail located north of Diamond Avenue ranges in elevation from approximately 230 ft to 584 ft above mean sea level (msl) (Google Earth, accessed March 16, 2022). The image in Aesthetics Figure 1 is taken approximately 482 ft above msl. The view corridor from Sign Hill Park and Sign Hill Trail would largely be one looking down onto the East of 101 area given the differences in elevation and the 295 ft building height. Views from this vantage point are and would continue to be panoramic.

Three buildings, the Project being one, penetrate the horizon where the Bay meets land and sky, but do not eclipse the view. The staggered heights and various building setbacks articulate the view from Sign Hill Park trail.

The 780 ft band of transportation infrastructure on the eastern side of the Project assures an open view corridor for the reasonably foreseeable future. The separation between the 100 East Grand and Project site buildings would be approximately 123 ft thus retaining a view corridor. Views of San Francisco Bay, sky and the East Bay would not be obstructed. This view corridor would remain for the reasonably foreseeable future. The Project would have a less than significant impact on scenic resources.

AESTHETICS FIGURE 1

VIEW FROM SIGN HILL TRAIL
View East from Grand Avenue at City Hall
Existing views from the west to the East Grand Avenue corridor are largely unremarkable and eclipsed by transportation infrastructure, most notably the elevated portion of US 101. The multifamily residential buildings, approximately 85 ft in height, along the southeastern side of Airport Boulevard would help screen the underbelly of US 101 and Caltrans support infrastructure from view. The 100 East Grand Avenue project, 580 Dubuque Avenue project and the Project would provide visual interest and draw one’s attention from US 101 to the East of 101 Area. The Project alone and in combination with the aforementioned projects, would improve views to the East of 101 area.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐8 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The Project would identify the location of the east side of the Caltrain Station from all directions and draw one’s attention from the roadways. As the City implements the policies in the Draft 2040 GP, the East of 101 Area will become a vibrant, well designed ‘complete neighborhood’ with an active pedestrian street presence, goods and services, and a sense of place. The Project and other planned development would visually identify the East of 101 area as a “place to go”.

In summary, the Project would not obstruct street views from the downtown corridor into the east of US 101. The Project would provide a visual landmark identifying the East of 101 area drawing one’s view away from elevated freeways, streets and avenues. The Project would not obstruct views but would provide a view corridor and identify the east and west connection point by turning its attention to the Caltrain station and the eastern area of the City. The City’s design process would continue to ensure attractive, viable and sustainable development.

AESTHETICS FIGURE 2

EAST VIEW FROM CITY HALL
Closer views of the Project would revel architectural and site details. The proposed landscaping, public art and lighting would provide an easily negotiable and “useable” experience for all user groups. The Project would provide a variety of goods and services including public plazas, linkages to multi-modal transportation options, bicycle and pedestrian paths, retail services and seating, eating, gathering and meeting areas. Plaza areas are identified by use and accented with lighting, art and landscaping. Impacts to public scenic vistas would be less than significant. The site is “readable” in that entryways are well lit and marked with defining architecture.

The Project would not result in an “arguably offensive or negative-appearing project within a scenic vista” but provide a linkage from the west to the east of US 101.

Planning policies are addressed in c, below.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐9 b) Substantially Damage Scenic Resources, i.e. including those within a State Scenic Highway
Significance Criteria: For the purposes of assessing impacts of the Project on scenic resources, the threshold of significance is exceeded by any Project-related action that would substantially damage scenic resources (i.e., trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state [or local] scenic highway).

The Project site is not within or near a designated scenic highway designated as scenic. Therefore, there are no scenic resource impacts within a scenic highway. Additionally, there are no historic resources on the Project site (see Chapter 3, Section V. Cultural Resources.).

No rock outcroppings or trees of significance are located on the site (A. Knapp, site visit March 14, 2022, and Tree Inventory, 2021 HortScience/Bartlett Construction, see Chapter IV Biological Resources). The Tree Inventory identified 69 trees on the site of which 67 are in poor, fair or dead condition and two are in good condition. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on scenic resources, trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings. c) For a Project located in an Urbanized Area, would the project Conflict with Applicable Zoning and other regulations Governing Scenic Quality
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.

The Project site is in an urbanized city. The Draft 2040 GP identifies the existing population, housing and jobs based upon 2018 census data and projected the 2040 buildout anticipated by the plan.

AESTHETICS TABLE 1

ESTIMATED GROWTH PROJECTIONS
2018 2040 % Change
Population 67,400 107,200 59
Housing Units 21,200 39,080 84
Employment 52,600 137,000 162
Source: City of South San Francisco Draft 2040 General Plan, p 67 The City’s website notes that the population “has tripled since World War II with the opening of such subdivisions as Buri, Winston Manor and Westborough on the slopes west of El Camino. It has grown from 4,411 in 1920 to 67,082 in 2019” (ssf.net/our-city/about-south-san-francisco, accessed March 14, 2022). The City of South San Francisco is urbanized. Therefore, the Project site is in an urbanized area.

The City does not have a view preservation ordinance or policies thereto (1999 GP, Draft 2040GP and interview with Billy Gross, Principal Planner, March 2, 2022).

The Project underwent review with the DRB on February 15 and April 19, 2022. DRB indicated overall acceptance of the Project design and on February 15th had the following refinements to address for the subsequent meeting.
 Study and potentially expand the proposed accessible ramping on the east to make it easier for people coming from Jack Drago Park.
 Investigate and identify ways the Access Plaza could be transformed or adjusted to accommodate event space.
 Add seating elements for Poletti Way drop-off waiting area.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐10 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST  Tower Architecture needs to be complex, but not complicated. Consider detail refinements to the North and West facades.
 Review articulation of rooftop mechanical screens.
 Provide additional information on the proposed landscape palette, including the survivability, location and size of tree species.
 Provide more information on the bioswale deign.
 Recommend using “Satin Aluminum: as opposed to “Silver Painted Aluminum” for durability.  Describe the mechanics of the parking and location of recycling and garbage areas.  Overall, do not make wholesale changes to the design.

The DRB studied the revisions to the Project on April 19, 2022. The DRB noted:
 Accepted and applauded the design changes including the Wind Canopy oculus.  Preference for Scheme 1 for the facade modification and Single Ramp Option 2 site mid-point for accessibility.
 Recommended approval with conditions and to proceed to the Planning Commission.

DRB noted that the comments related to the landscape species be addressed in the Planning Commission meeting. DRB also commended the Project Sponsor for their studies and although minor the changes were critical to Confluence Plaza for group seating capacity.

The plant selection comments were to provide additional information on the proposed landscape palette, including the survivability, location and size of tree species. The landscape architect responded to these comments subsequently in Biology Table 1 Proposed Tree Planting in Chapter 3, Section IV Biological Resources.

Development Trends in the Project Area
There are approximately 17 parcels located within the east side of the ¼ mile TO/RD District radius within the area that an 8.0 FAR could be permitted. Three of the parcels are developed with land uses that will likely remain for the foreseeable future; the PG&E electrification yard, Jack Drago Park and the Caltrain parking lot. The PG&E electrification yard is 125 ft southeast, Jack Drago Park 100 ft east of the Project site and Caltrain surface parking is approximately 250 ft northwest. As of April 1, 2022, three parcels (including the Project) are undergoing City entitlement review within the ¼ mile TO/RD District.
 100 East Grand Avenue, approximately 60 ft south of the Project site, proposes to construct a 554,770 sq ft (2.55 FAR) project on a 5.02-acre site with a maximum height of 185 ft with aboveground structured parking.  580 Dubuque Avenue, approximately 500 ft northwest of the Project site, proposes to construct a 295,000 sq ft (3.60 FAR) project on a 1.89-acre parcel with a maximum height of 155 ft and subterranean parking.
 121 East Grand Avenue, the Project, proposes 943,965 sf ft (7.44 FAR) project on a 2.9-acre site (126,847 sq ft) with structured and subterranean parking and 295 ft height to the top of the mechanical screen.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐11 Other parcels within the TO/RD District will likely see a change in land use as market conditions vary and land uses continue to shift. Development densities will likely be similar to the three projects identified above: higher density on smaller lots close to Caltrain. Another factor shaping density is the community benefits package required of developers requesting densities higher than a 3.5 FAR.

Aesthetics Figure 1 View from City Hall and 2 View from Sign Hill Trail illustrate the type of skyline, view corridors and placement of future development in the TO/RD District. Views would be enhanced with newer construction, roadways would provide view corridors from a distance and closeup, public open space would enhance the urban environment and the shape of development, and the varying height and shape of buildings would all provide views. Civic engagement would replace isolation, connections between the eastern and western portions of the City would be enhanced and a sense of place would grow. The Project would have no impact to view preservation ordinances or general plan policies. The Project would implement vision statements identified in the Draft 2040GP (see Chapter 3, Section XI Land Use and Planning). Through the City’s review process and the varying lot sizes and locations it is reasonable to assume that development in the Project area will be similar to 580 Dubuque, 100 East Grand and 121 East Grand in terms of density, placement, services and view corridors. The Project would not conflict with a general plan policy or other adopted planning policy regarding scenic vistas. Again, the Project is considered a transit-oriented infill employment center project and as defined is not subject to an aesthetics evaluation notwithstanding potential impacts on cultural or historic resources (Chapter 2.7 ‘Modernization of Transportation Analysis for Transit Oriented Infill Projects’ California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code, Division 13 Environmental Quality Statute, as amended in 2021 (Section 21099). This analysis is informational only. d) Light or Glare
Significance Criteria: Project related creation of any new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area would be regarded as a significant environmental impact.

Substantial light and glare are typically associated with high intensity bright glaring light that spills off site or is pointed in such a direction that it can affect and can temporarily blind a person’s vision. Other considerations include needlessly pointing light into the sky. These types of lights have historically been associated with military use during World War II, that later evolved into domestic “search” or “event” lights. Searchlights are used for advertising fairs, festivals and other types of public events, in areas where they are permitted by city or county municipal codes. These rotating beam lights can be seen for miles around the spot they are advertising. Other sources of light pollution include unshielded light fixtures and wide beam fixtures that essentially spill outside the area requiring the lighting.

The City of South San Francisco does not allow these types of lights. South San Francisco Municipal Code (“SSFMC”) Section 20.300.008 contains lighting and illumination regulations. 20.300.008.B.4 provides lighting shall “not produce offensive light or glare into the public right-of-way”. Moreover,

20.300.008.B.5 requires shielding of lights and city review of site lighting to assure conformance with the ordinance. The Project would be required to comply with these requirements.

The Project proposes shielded, downcast, task-oriented and accent lighting. Lighting is proposed to announce pathways and entries to the building, key and crucial elements of site safety and readability for users. Pathway lighting and landscape lighting is proposed. Soft accent lighting that may include one or a variety of colors is being considered for the west and potentially northern elevations of the building.

Lighting is proposed for site readability, safety and visual interest. The Project is not near any light sensitive receptors and is surrounded by transportation infrastructure. The Project would not result in CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐12 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST creating a substantial new offsite source of light or glare. Project lighting would result in a less than significant impact.

Aesthetics Finding:
(1) The Project would not obstruct street views from the downtown corridor into the east side of U.S. 101. The Project would not obstruct views but would provide a view corridor and identify the east and west connection point by turning its attention to the Caltrain station and the eastern area of the City. The City’s design process would continue to ensure attractive, viable and sustainable development. The Project would provide a visual landmark identifying the East of 101 area drawing one’s view away from elevated freeways, streets and avenues. The site is “readable” in that entryways are well lit and marked with defining architecture. Impacts to public scenic vistas would be less than significant. (2) The Project site is not within or near a designated scenic highway designated as scenic.

Therefore, there are no scenic resource impacts within a scenic highway. Additionally, there are no historic resources on the Project site (see Chapter 3, Section V. Cultural Resources.).

No rock outcroppings or trees of significance are located on the site (A. Knapp, site visit March 14, 2022, and Tree Inventory, 2021 HortScience/Bartlett Construction.) The Tree Inventory identified 69 trees on the site of which 67 are in poor, fair or dead condition and two are in good condition. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on scenic resources, trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings.

The Project would provide a view corridor and identify the east and west connection point by turning its attention to the Caltrain station and the eastern area of the City. The City’s design process would continue to ensure attractive, viable and sustainable development. (3) The Project site is not within or near a designated scenic highway. Therefore, there are no scenic resource impacts within a scenic highway. Other parcels within the TO/RD District will likely see a change in land use as market conditions vary and land uses continue to shift.

Aesthetics Figure 1 View from City Hall and 2 View from Sign Hill Trail illustrate the type of skyline, view corridors and placement of future development in the RO/RD District.

Views would be enhanced with newer construction, roadways would provide view corridors from a distance and closeup, public open space would enhance the urban environment and the shape of development, and the varying height and shape of buildings would all provide views. Civic engagement would replace isolation, connections between the eastern and western portions of the City would be enhanced and a sense of place would grow. The Project would have no impact to view preservation ordinances or general plan policies. The Project would implement vision statements identified in the Draft 2040GP (see Chapter 3, Section XI Land Use and Planning.

Through the City’s review process and the varying lot sizes and locations it is reasonable to assume that development in the Project area will be similar to 580 Dubuque, 100 East Grand and 121 East Grand in terms of density, placement, services and view corridors. The Project would not conflict with a general plan policy or other adopted planning policy regarding scenic vistas. Moreover, the Project is considered a transit-oriented infill employment center project and as defined is not subject to an aesthetics evaluation notwithstanding potential impacts on cultural or historic resources (Chapter 2.7 ‘Modernization of Transportation Analysis for Transit Oriented Infill Projects’ California Environmental Quality Act, Public CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐13 Resources Code, Division 13 Environmental Quality Statute, as amended in 2021 (Section 21099).
(4) Lighting is proposed for site readability, safety and visual interest. The Project proposes shielded, downcast, task-oriented and accent lighting. Lighting is proposed to announce pathways and entries to the building, key and crucial elements of site safety and readability for users. Pathway lighting and landscape lighting is proposed. Soft accent lighting that may include one or a variety of colors is being considered for the west and potentially northern elevations of the building. Lighting is proposed for site readability, safety and visual interest. The Project is not near any light sensitive receptors, but is surrounded by transportation infrastructure. The Project would not result in creating a substantial new offsite source of light or glare. Project lighting would result in a less than significant impact.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐14 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST II. Agriculture and
Forestry Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?

SETTING
The site is currently developed with a three-story wood framed hotel and asphalted surface parking. The hotel includes 169 rooms housed in three structures. The site also includes a spa and one shed.

A tree removal plan was prepared for the Project (Tree Inventory Report, HortScience/Bartlett Construction, May 5, 2021. “Tree Inventory, 2021”). In summary, 69 trees representing ten species were evaluated on the Project site. 49, (or 71%) of the trees were in poor condition, 17 (or 25%) were in fair condition, a coast redwood and white alder were in good condition and one white alder was dead.

Vegetation and tree removal and replanting are vetted in Chapter 3 Section IV, Biological Resources.

The City does not have any timber or farmlands, as defined below, within its boundaries (Draft 2040 GP and 1999GP).

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐15

IMPACTS
a, b and e) Farmland Impacts
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use, conflict with current zoning for agricultural use or the provisions of a current Williamson Act contract or involve any environmental changes that could result in the conversion of farmland currently in agricultural uses to non-agricultural uses.

The Project site contains no farmland, is not zoned agricultural or adjacent thereto, and as such would not involve the conversion of Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The Project site is not in Williamson Act Contract. The Project site is not nearby or adjacent to any agricultural use and as such would have no impact to farmland. c, d and e) Forest Land Impacts
Significance Criteria: A significant impact would result from a conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in the Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 4526) or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104 (g)) or result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

The site is not zoned for timberland production or in use as such, or in proximity to such a use. Removal of trees to construct the Project would not cause rezoning of forest land (as defined in the Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526) or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)). The Project is not nearby or adjacent to timberland or forest lands and would have no impact on timberland production or resources or forest lands.

Agriculture and Timber Resources Finding:
(1) The Project would not adversely affect any existing agricultural operations as none exist on the site.
(2) The Project would not impact agricultural resources individually or cumulatively and does not contain any Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) nor land in a Williamson Act Contract.
(3) The site is not zoned for timberland production or in use as such and would not cause rezoning of forest land (as defined in the Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526) or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)).

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐16 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST III. Air Quality
Where applicable, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?

INTRODUCTION
This section is based on the Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment (AQ/GHG Assessment) prepared for the Project by ECORP Consulting Inc. (2022), found in Appendix A of this Initial Study. This AQ/GHG Assessment was prepared using methodologies and assumptions recommended in the rules, regulations, and guidelines of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). This section presents regional and local existing conditions, pertinent emissions standards and regulations, estimated criteria air pollutants and health risk emissions attributable to the Project, and a comparison of modeled Project emissions to BAAQMD significance thresholds to determine significance. The AQ/GHG Assessment also performed an air quality health risk assessment analyzing potential health impacts from construction and operation of the Project, the results of which are detailed in impact c) of this section.

SETTING
The following includes pertinent environmental and regulatory setting information. Additional setting information can be found in the AQ/GHG Assessment.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Air quality in a region is determined by its topography, meteorology, and existing air pollutant sources.

These factors are discussed below, along with the current regulatory structure that applies to the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB), which encompasses the Project Site, pursuant to the regulatory authority of the BAAQMD.

Ambient air quality is commonly characterized by climate conditions, the meteorological influences on air quality, and the quantity and type of pollutants released. The air basin is subject to a combination of topographical and climatic factors that reduce the potential for high levels of regional and local air pollutants. The following section describes the pertinent characteristics of the air basin and provides an overview of the physical conditions affecting pollutant dispersion in the Project area.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐17 San Francisco Bay Air Basin
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) divides the state into air basins that share similar meteorological and topographical features. The Project site is in the SFBAAB. The SFBAAB is approximately 5,600 square miles in area and consists of nine counties that surround the San Francisco Bay, including all of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Napa Counties; the southwestern portion of Solano County; and the southern portion of Sonoma County.

Criteria Air Pollutants
Criteria air pollutants are defined as those pollutants for which the federal and state governments have established air quality standards for outdoor or ambient concentrations to protect public health with a determined margin of safety. Ozone, coarse particulate matter (PM10), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) are generally considered to be regional pollutants because they or their precursors affect air quality on a regional scale. Pollutants such as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) are considered as local pollutants because they tend to accumulate in the air locally. Particulate matter is also considered a local pollutant.

Toxic Air Contaminants
In addition to the criteria pollutants, toxic air contaminants (TACs) are another group of localized pollutants of concern. TACs are considered either carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic based on the nature of the health effects associated with exposure to the pollutant. For regulatory purposes, carcinogenic TACs are assumed to have no safe threshold below which health impacts would not occur, and cancer risk is expressed as excess cancer cases per one million exposed individuals. Noncarcinogenic TACs differ in that there is generally assumed to be a safe level of exposure below which no negative health impact is believed to occur. These levels are determined on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis. Carcinogenic TACs can also have noncarcinogenic health hazard levels.

There are many different types of TACs, with varying degrees of toxicity. Sources of TACs include industrial processes such as petroleum refining and chrome plating operations, commercial operations such as gasoline stations and dry cleaners, and motor vehicle exhaust. Additionally, diesel engines emit a complex mixture of air pollutants composed of gaseous and solid material. The solid emissions in diesel exhaust are known as diesel particulate matter (DPM). In 1998, California identified DPM as a TAC based on its potential to cause cancer, premature death, and other health problems (e.g., asthma attacks and other respiratory symptoms). Those most vulnerable are children (whose lungs are still developing) and the elderly (who may have other serious health problems). Overall, diesel engine emissions are responsible for the majority of California’s known cancer risk from outdoor air pollutants.

Diesel engines also contribute to California’s PM2.5 air quality problems. Public exposure to TACs can result from emissions from normal operations, as well as from accidental releases of hazardous materials during upset conditions. The health effects of TACs include cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, and death.

Diesel Exhaust
Most recently, CARB identified DPM as a TAC. DPM differs from other TACs in that it is not a single substance but rather a complex mixture of hundreds of substances. Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of particles and gases produced when an engine burns diesel fuel. DPM is a concern because it causes lung cancer; many compounds found in diesel exhaust are carcinogenic. DPM includes the particlephase constituents in diesel exhaust. The chemical composition and particle sizes of DPM vary between different engine types (heavy-duty, light-duty), engine operating conditions (idle, accelerate, decelerate), fuel formulations (high/low sulfur fuel), and the year of the engine. Some short-term (acute) effects of CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐18 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST diesel exhaust include eye, nose, throat, and lung irritation, and diesel exhaust can cause coughs, headaches, light-headedness, and nausea. DPM poses the greatest health risk among the TACs; due to their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung.

Ambient Air Quality
Ambient air quality at the Project Site can be inferred from ambient air quality measurements conducted at nearby air quality monitoring stations. See the AQ/GHG Assessment for a summary of ambient air quality data at the nearest monitoring station to the Project site. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and CARB designate air basins or portions of air basins and counties as being in “attainment” or “nonattainment” for each of the criteria pollutant standards. The federal standards are referred to as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the state standards are referred to as the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Areas that do not meet the standards are classified as nonattainment areas. The San Mateo County region of the BAAQMD is designated as a nonattainment area for the federal ozone and PM2.5 standards and is also a nonattainment area for the state standards for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5.

Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population who are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers.

CARB has identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution:
the elderly over 65, children under 14, athletes, and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis. The nearest sensitive land uses to the Project site is an apartment building (Cadence Apartments) located approximately 690 ft west of the Project site on Airport Boulevard.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

FEDERAL
Federal Clean Air Act
The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 and the CAA Amendments of 1971 required the USEPA to establish the NAAQS, with states retaining the option to adopt more stringent standards or to include other specific pollutants.

These standards are the levels of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those “sensitive receptors” most susceptible to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed.

STATE
California Clean Air Act
The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) allows the state to adopt ambient air quality standards and other regulations provided that they are at least as stringent as federal standards. CARB, a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency, is responsible for the coordination and administration of both CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐19 federal and state air pollution control programs within California, including setting the CAAQS. CARB also conducts research, compiles emission inventories, develops suggested control measures, and provides oversight of local programs. CARB establishes emissions standards for motor vehicles sold in California, consumer products (such as hairspray, aerosol paints, and barbecue lighter fluid), and various types of commercial equipment. It also sets fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions.

CARB also has primary responsibility for the development of California’s State Implementation Plan (SIP), for which it works closely with the federal government and the local air districts.

Bay Area Air Quality District (BAAQMD)
2017 BAAQMD Clean Air Plan
In April 2017, BAAQMD adopted the 2017 Clean Air Plan, whose primary goals are to protect public health and to protect the climate. The 2017 Clean Air Plan updates the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan and complies with state air quality planning requirements, as codified in the California Health and Safety Code (although the 2017 plan was delayed beyond the three-year update requirement of the code). State law requires the Clean Air Plan to include all feasible measures to reduce emissions of O3 precursors and to reduce the transport of O3 precursors to neighboring air basins. The 2017 Clean Air Plan contains 85 measures to address reduction of several pollutants: O3 precursors, PM, air toxics, and GHGs. Other measures focus on a single type of pollutant: super GHGs such as methane and black carbon that consists of harmful fine particles that affect public health. These control strategies are grouped into the following categories:
 Stationary Source Measures
 Transportation Control Measures
 Energy Control Measures
 Building Control Measures
 Agricultural Control Measures
 Natural and Working Lands Control Measures
 Waste Management Control Measures
 Water Control Measures
 Super GHG Control Measures
BAAQMD Rules and Regulations
The BAAQMD is designated by law to adopt and enforce regulations to achieve and maintain ambient air quality standards. The BAAQMD’s responsibilities include preparing plans for the attainment of ambient air quality standards, adopting and enforcing air pollution rules, issuing permits for and inspecting stationary air pollution sources, responding to citizen complaints, monitoring ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, and implementing state and federal programs and regulations.

The BAAQMD has also adopted various rules and regulations that are designed to reduce and control pollutant emissions from project’s construction and operational activities. Regulation 2, Rule 1, General Permit Requirements; Regulation 2, Rule 2, New Source Review; Regulation 6, Rule 1, General Requirements; Regulation 6, Rule 6, Prohibition of Trackout; and Regulation 7, Odorous Substances would apply to the Project.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐20 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST CITY
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP)
The DSASP guides the City in its planning efforts to create a vibrant, transit-supportive, diverse Downtown, particularly the area surrounding the City’s Caltrain commuter rail station. The DSASP crafts a vision for the Downtown core and identifies an implementation process to achieve City and community goals, including design standards and regulations for future development. The Project site is in an area identified in the DSASP as being intended for transit offices/ research & development core.

The DSASP EIR identifies various mitigation measures that all projects taking place in the DSASP Area must abide by.

BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance
To assist local jurisdictions in the evaluation of air quality impacts under CEQA, the BAAQMD has published a guidance document for the preparation of the air quality portions of environmental documents that include thresholds of significance to be used in evaluating land use proposals.

Thresholds of significance are based on a source’s projected impacts and are a basis from which to apply mitigation measures. BAAQMD’s CEQA thresholds have also been used to determine air quality impacts in this analysis. If a project’s individual emissions exceed its identified significance thresholds, the Project would be cumulatively considerable. Projects that do not exceed significance thresholds would not be considered cumulatively considerable. The thresholds of significance applied to assess project-level air quality impacts are shown in Air Quality Table 1.

AIR QUALITY TABLE 1

BAAQMD SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
Construction Related
Air Pollutant Average Daily Emissions (pounds per day)
ROG 54
NOx 54
PM10 (exhaust) 82
PM2.5 (exhaust) 54
PM10/PM2.5 (fugitive dust) Best Management Practices
Local CO None
Operational Related
Air Pollutant Average Daily Emissions
(pounds per day)
Maximum Annual Emissions
(tons per year)
ROG 54 10
NOx 54 10
PM10 (exhaust) 82 15
PM2.5 (exhaust) 54 10
PM10/PM2.5 (fugitive dust) None None
Local CO 9.0 ppm (8-hour average), 20.0 ppm (1-hour average) Source: BAAQMD, CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, May 2017.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐21 In addition to the emission of criteria air pollutants, this evaluates the health risk from construction and operations of the Project. Specifically, the potential exposure of nearby existing residents to DPM emissions from heavy-duty trucks, R&D vented lab emissions, and emergency generator emissions.

The BAAQMD thresholds for what constitute an exposure of substantial air toxics are as follows.  Cancer Risk: Emit carcinogenic or toxic contaminants that exceed the maximum individual cancer risk of 10 in one million.
 Non-Cancer Risk: Emit toxic contaminants that exceed the maximum hazard quotient of 1 in one million.

The BAAQMD has also established non-carcinogenic risk parameters for use in Health Risk Assessments (HRAs). Noncarcinogenic risks are quantified by calculating a "hazard index," expressed as the ratio between the ambient pollutant concentration and its toxicity or Reference Exposure Level (REL). An REL is a concentration at, or below which health effects are not likely to occur. A hazard index less of than one (1.0) means that adverse health effects are not expected. Within this analysis, noncarcinogenic exposures of less than 1.0 are considered less than significant.

Air Quality Conditions of Approval for the Project
The BAAQMD recommends quantifying a proposed project’s construction-generated emissions by implementing the Basic Construction Mitigation Measures as mitigation for dust and exhaust construction impacts in CEQA compliance documentation. If additional construction measures are required to reduce construction-generated emissions, the BAAQMD’s Additional Construction Mitigation Measures should then be applied.

The Air Quality Conditions of Approval that are required to be implemented as part of the Project pursuant to the City of South San Francisco’s project review and building permit process are as follows:

Air Quality Dust Control: All construction projects are required to comply with BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures. These measures are levied by the Engineering Division as a condition of building permit issuance and are monitored for compliance by staff and/or special City Engineering and/or Planning inspectors. The measures include all the Basic Fugitive Dust Emissions Reduction Measures identified by the BAAQMD May, 2017. The City requires Projects to implement the following, as conditions of project approval:
a) All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
b) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. c) All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. d) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. e) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.

Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
f) Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours.

The air district’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐22 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Air Quality Combustion Exhaust Control: All construction projects are required to comply with the BAAQMD’s combustion exhaust control measures. The measures include Basic Exhaust Emissions Reduction Measures and some of the Enhanced Exhaust Emissions Reduction Measures identified by the BAAQMD in May, 2017. The City requires projects to implement the following, as conditions of project approval:
a) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. b) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator.
c) All off-road equipment greater than 25 horsepower and operating for more than 20 total hours over the entire duration of construction activities shall meet or exceed USEPA or CARB Tier 4 Final off-road emission standards.

Air Quality Toxic Air Contaminants: The potential for toxic air contaminants (asbestos and lead based paint) to be released into the environment is regulated and monitored through the Building Division in compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 during Demolition. Any applicant requesting a building or demolition permit involving a structure suspected of containing asbestos (defined as a building constructed prior to 1978) and/or lead based paint (defined as a building constructed prior to 1960) is required to obtain review and permits from the BAAQMD. Permits are required to be posted on the job site, and if it is not there the job will be fined by BAAQMD and may be shut down by the City’s Building Division. Through this process, BAAQMD and the City Building Division ensure that asbestos and lead based paints are handled, removed, encapsulated and disposed of in accordance with prevailing law requisite to protect the environment, the people conducting the work and nearby sensitive receptors. The process typically requires surveys and removal of lead-based paints and asbestos by licensed contractors certified in the handling methods requisite to protect the environment and public health and safety. The process also provides for BAAQMD and City supervision to ensure compliance.

Air Quality Vehicle Emissions: The potential for air quality degradation from vehicle emissions is regulated to some extent by Section 20.400.003 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. Table

20.400.003 in the Zoning Ordinance establishes specific program requirements for a project generating one hundred or more vehicle trips per day or a project seeking a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus. The required alternative mode (mode shift) use for projects is below standard trip rates modeled for the project without TDM measures in place. Projects with an increased FAR are required to increase their alternative mode use accordingly. The Planning Division implements and monitors this requirement.

IMPACTS
a) Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of Applicable Air Quality Plan Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would conflict with or obstruct implementation of BAAQMD’s 2017 Clean Air Plan. Determination of whether a project supports the goals in the 2017 Clean Air Plan is achieved by a comparison of Project-estimated emissions with BAAQMD thresholds of significance. If Project emissions would not exceed the thresholds of significance, the Project would be consistent with the goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐23 The most recently adopted and applicable air quality plan is the BAAQMD’s 2017 Clean Air Plan, the primary goals of which are to protect public health and the climate. The 2017 Clean Air Plan includes a wide range of control measures and actions to reduce combustion-related activities, decrease combustion of fossil fuels, improve energy efficiency, and reduce emissions of potent greenhouse gases.

Several measures address the reduction of multiple pollutants such as ozone precursors, particulate matter, air toxics, and GHG emissions.

As shown in Air Quality Table 2 and 3, emissions generated during Project construction and operations would not exceed the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct reduction measures presented in the 2017 Clean Air Plan.

Additionally, the Project site can be identified for its “location efficiency”. Location efficiency describes the location of the Project site relative to the type of urban landscape its proposed to fit within, such as an ‘urban area’, ‘compact infill’, or ‘suburban center’. In general, compared to the statewide average, a project could realize vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reductions up to 65 percent in an urban area, up to 30 percent in a compact infill area, or up to 10 percent in a suburban center, and thus reductions in air pollutant emissions, a primary goal of the 2017 Clean Air Plan. The Project site represents an urban/compact infill location within the central portion of South San Francisco. The Project Site is served by existing public transportation. Additionally, the Project is in proximity to surrounding nonresidential land uses. The increases in land use diversity and mix of uses in the Project area would reduce vehicle trips and VMT by encouraging walking and non-automotive forms of transportation, which would result in corresponding reductions in transportation-related emissions, a primary goal of the 2017 Clean Air Plan. Therefore, air quality impacts related to a conflict with applicable air quality plans would be less than significant.
b) Result in a Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of Non-Attainment Criteria Pollutants Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. The Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant if it exceeds the applicable BAAQMD threshold of significance for that pollutant.

Air quality impacts were assessed in accordance with methodologies recommended by the BAAQMD.

Where criteria air pollutant quantification was required, emissions were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2020.4.0. Project construction-generated air pollutant emissions were calculated using CalEEMod model defaults for San Mateo County and information provided by the Project proponent such as the construction equipment and duration. Operational air pollutant emissions were calculated based on specific Project site plans.

For the purposes of this analysis, projected emissions associated with proposed operations are compared to the existing baseline, which includes an existing 169-room, 57,623 sq ft, Comfort Inn and Suites.

Construction
Emissions associated with Project construction would be temporary and short-term but have the potential to represent a significant air quality impact. Three basic sources of short-term emissions would be generated through construction of the Project: operation of the construction vehicles (i.e., tractors, forklifts, pavers), the creation of fugitive dust during clearing and grading, and the use of asphalt or other oil-based substances during paving and coating activities. Construction activities such as excavation and grading operations, construction vehicle traffic, and wind blowing over exposed soils would generate exhaust emissions and fugitive particulate emissions that could affect local air quality at various times CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐24 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST during construction. Effects would be variable depending on the weather, soil conditions, the amount of activity taking place, and the nature of dust control efforts. Predicted maximum daily constructiongenerated emissions for the Project are summarized in Air Quality Table 2 and are below the BAAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, construction air quality impacts related to a cumulatively considerable net increase of non-attainment criteria pollutants would be less than significant.

AIR QUALITY TABLE 2

CONSTRUCTION-RELATED CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
Construction
Year
Pollutant (maximum pounds per day)

ROG NOX
PM10
(exhaust)
PM2.5
(exhaust)
PM10
(fugitive
dust)
PM2.5
(fugitive
dust)
Construction
First Year 1.19 21.26 0.21 0.20 2.17 0.56
Construction
Second Year 0.67 15.87 0.15 0.14 1.79 0.48
Construction
Third Year 21.05 14.18 0.17 0.16 5.54 1.50
Construction
Fourth Year 20.91 13.45 0.16 0.16 5.54 1.50
Construction
Fifth Year 1.40 11.97 0.10 0.10 4.74 1.28
BAAQMD
Potentially
Significant
Impact Threshold
54 pounds/
day
54 pounds/
day
82 pounds/day
54 pounds/
day
Basic
Construction
Mitigation
Measures
Basic
Construction
Mitigation
Measures
Exceed
BAAQMD
Threshold?
No No No No No No
Source: ECORP Consulting 2022. Refer to AQ/GHG Assessment for Model Data Outputs.

Notes: BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures would be a condition of Project approval. Emissions estimates account for the quantifiable components of the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, specifically watering unpaved portions of the construction site twice daily, limiting off-road equipment to speeds of 15 mph, and removing dirt track-out on adjacent public roads with a wet power vacuum once daily. Additionally, Tier 4 Final construction equipment is required as a condition of Project approval to account for Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 in the DSASP EIR.

Operations
Implementation of the Project would result in long-term operational emissions of criteria air pollutants such as PM10, PM2.5, CO, and SO2 as well as ozone precursors such as ROG and NOX. As previously described, projected emissions associated with proposed operations are compared to the existing baseline, which includes the current operation of an existing 169-room, 57,623 sq ft, Comfort Inn and Suites. Predicted maximum daily operational-generated emissions of criteria air pollutants for the Project are summarized in Air Quality Table 3 and are below the operational significance thresholds promulgated by the BAAQMD. Therefore, operational air quality impacts related to a cumulatively considerable net increase of non-attainment criteria pollutants would be less than significant.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐25 AIR QUALITY TABLE 3

OPERATIONAL CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
Emission Source
Pollutant
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Proposed Project
Summer Emissions (Pounds per Day)
Proposed Project 40.17 17.66 135.41 0.32 33.06 9.27
Winter Emissions (Pounds per Day)
Proposed Project 38.92 19.45 151.76 0.31 33.06 9.27
Annual Emissions (Tons per Year)
Proposed Project 6.39 2.91 19.79 0.04 4.39 1.25
Existing Conditions
Summer Emissions (Pounds per Day)
Existing Baseline 4.57 3.08 23.53 0.04 4.65 1.29
Winter Emissions (Pounds per Day)
Existing Baseline 4.37 3.48 26.32 0.04 4.65 1.29
Annual Emissions (Tons per Year)
Existing Baseline 0.76 0.58 4.27 0.00 0.77 0.21
Difference
Summer Emissions (Pounds per Day)
Difference +35.6 +14.58 +111.88 +0.28 +28.41 +7.98
BAAQMD Daily Significance
Threshold
54 pounds/
day
54 pounds/
day None None 82 pounds/
day
54 pounds/
day
Exceed BAAQMD Daily
Threshold? No No No No No No
Winter Emissions (Pounds per Day)
Difference +34.55 +15.97 +125.44 +0.27 +28.41 +7.98
BAAQMD Daily Significance
Threshold
54 pounds/
day
54 pounds/
day None None 82 pounds/
day
54 pounds/
day
Exceed BAAQMD Daily
Threshold? No No No No No No
Annual Emissions (Tons per Year)
Difference +5.63 +2.33 +15.52 +0.04 +3.62 +1.04
BAAQMD Annual
Significance Threshold
10 tons/
year
10 tons/
year
None None 15 tons/
year
10 tons/
year
Exceed BAAQMD Daily
Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: ECORP Consulting, 2022. Refer to AQ/GHG Assessment for Model Data Outputs.

Notes: Operational emissions for the Project account for the testing for four 2,000 horsepower Tier 4 generators five days per year.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐26 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST c) Expose Sensitive Receptor to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The BAAQMD thresholds for what constitute an exposure of substantial air toxics are as follows.
 Cancer Risk: Emit carcinogenic or toxic contaminants that exceed the maximum individual cancer risk of 10 in one million.
 Non-Cancer Risk: Emit toxic contaminants that exceed the maximum hazard quotient of 1 in one million.
 Maximum PM2.5 annual concentration that exceeds 0.3 µg/m3.

A HRA was performed to determine the health risk associated with construction and operations of the Project. The HRA analyzed cancer and chronic non-cancer risk calculated for 70‐year, 30-year, 25-year and 9-year exposure scenarios for operational emissions and 5-years for construction emissions. Per OEHHA guidance, the 25-year scenario was used to model the health risk for workers at business locations and the 70-, 30-, and 9-year scenarios were used for residents in residential areas. In addition, the maximum annual PM2.5 concentration was modeled for comparison with BAAQMD thresholds.

DPM concentrations and associated dispersion generated from both construction off-road equipment and construction haul trucks during construction, as well as heavy-duty trucks for Project operations and operational emissions from Project deliveries and R&D lab vents (assumed to be located on the roof) and emergency generators were modeled using the HARP2 modeling program provided by CARB, with regulatory default settings, to perform the dispersion and health risk modeling for this analysis.

HARP2 implements the latest regulatory guidance to develop inputs to the U.S. EPA AERMOD dispersion model for dispersion and as the inputs for calculations for the various health risk levels.

AERMOD is a steady-state plume model that incorporates air dispersion based on planetary boundary layer turbulence structure and scaling concepts, including treatment of both surface and elevated sources, and both simple and complex terrain. The resultant concentration values at vicinity sensitive receptors were then used to calculate chronic and carcinogenic health risk using the standardized equations contained in the Office of Environment Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. See the AQ/GHG Assessment for more details.

Air Quality Table 4 presents the maximum cancer risk summary. Impacts related to cancer risk for all modeled scenarios would be below the 10 in one million threshold for both operations and construction.

These calculations do not account for any pollutant-reducing remedial components inherent to the Project or the Project site. For construction and operational emissions, the Maximumly Exposed Individual Resident (MEIR) is an apartment building located off Airport Boulevard (Cadence Apartments) approximately 690 ft west of the Project site while the Maximumly Exposed Individual Worker (MEIW) is located directly to the north of the Project site, within the existing roadway of Grand Avenue.

In addition to cancer risk, the significance thresholds for TAC exposure requires an evaluation of noncancer risk stated in terms of a hazard index. An acute or chronic hazard index of 1.0 is considered individually significant. The highest maximum chronic hazard indexes for residents and workers at the Project site as a result of DPM from mobile sources and emergency generators and the R&D lab emission exposure is shown in Air Quality Table 5. No acute risk was analyzed for construction or operations as DPM from the truck trips and generators as well as the TACs associated with R&D lab emissions have no identified acute risk.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐27 AIR QUALITY TABLE 4

MAXIMUM CANCER RISK SUMMARY
Maximum Exposure Scenario Total Maximum Risk
Project Operations
70-Year Exposure Resident 2.027
30-Year Exposure Resident 1.078
9-Year Exposure Resident 1.187
25-Year Exposure Worker 1.702
Project Construction
5-Year Exposure Resident 4.68
5-Year Exposure Worker 0.70
Significance Threshold 10
Exceed Threshold? No
Source: ECORP Consulting 2022. See AQ/GHG Assessment.

AIR QUALITY TABLE 5

MAXIMUM NON-CARCINOGENIC HEALTH RISK SUMMARY
Exposure Scenario
Chronic Hazard Values Maximum PM2.5
Annual
Concentration
(µg/m3)
Maximum
Residential
Hazard
Maximum
Worker
Hazard
Maximum
Sensitive
Receptor Hazard
Operation 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.008
Construction 0.01 0.01 1.0e-02 0.068
Significance Threshold 1 1 1 0.3
Exceed Threshold? No No No No
Source: ECORP Consulting 2022. See AQ/GHG Assessment.

As shown in Tables AQ-4 and AQ-5, construction and operational emissions associated with the Project would be below the BAAQMD thresholds for air toxics. Therefore, air quality impacts related the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be less than significant. d) Odors Adversely Affecting a Substantial Number of People Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would result in odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people. The BAAQMD’s significance criteria for odors are subjective and are based on the number of odor complaints generated by a project. Generally, the BAAQMD considers any project with the potential to frequently expose members of the public to objectionable odors to cause a significant impact.

Odors from diesel exhaust during construction are short-term in nature and would rapidly dissipate and be diluted by the atmosphere downwind of the emission sources. Additionally, odors would be localized and generally confined to the construction area. For operations, the Project does not include any uses associated with odors, as described in the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines. The Project would also be CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐28 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST subject to the BAAQMD Regulation 7, Odorous Substances, which places general limitations on odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain odorous compounds. Therefore, odors from the Project would not adversely affect a substantial number of people and odor impacts would be less than significant.

Air Quality Finding:
(1) Emissions generated during Project construction and operations would not exceed the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct reduction measures presented in the 2017 Clean Air Plan. (2) Estimated daily construction and operational-generated emissions of criteria air pollutants for the Project are below the operational significance thresholds promulgated by the BAAQMD. Therefore, construction and operational air quality impacts related to a cumulatively considerable net increase of non-attainment criteria pollutants would be less than significant.
(3) Construction and operational emissions associated with the Project would be below the BAAQMD thresholds for air toxics. Therefore, air quality impacts related the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be less than significant. (4) Odors from the Project would not adversely affect a substantial number of people and odor impacts would be less than significant.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐29 IV. Biological Resources
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, or NOAA Fisheries?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

SETTING
The site is currently developed with a three-story wood framed hotel and asphalted surface parking. The hotel includes 169 rooms housed in three structures. The site also includes a spa and one shed.

The Project site is 126,849 sq ft in area, i.e., 2.91 acres. The site ranges from 15 ft to 20 ft msl (Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Mixed-Use Development 121 East Grand Ave. SSF, CA. March 2021 Geocon Consultants, Inc.) (“GeoReport, March 2021”). Groundwater appears approximately 4.5 to 8.0 ft below ground level (“bgl”) during wet years and 8.5 to 16 ft during dry years (GeoReport, March 2021). The Project site is in Flood Zone X, outside the 100- and 500-year flood zones (Flood Insurance Map Rate Community Panel Number 13-09-1038P, September 9, 2013. Federal Emergency Management Agency).

Some bushes and shrubs are on the Project site. A tree removal plan was prepared for the Project. 69 trees representing ten species are located on the site. 49 (or 71%) of the trees were in poor condition, 17 (or 25%) were in fair condition, a coast redwood and white alder were in good condition and one white alder was dead (Tree Inventory Report, HortScience/Bartlett Construction, May 5, 2021) (“Tree Inventory, 2021”).

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐30 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The site is in an area formerly developed with industrial uses and is transitioning to life science.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Local, State, and federal regulations have been enacted to provide for the protection and management of sensitive biological and wetland resources. The following section outlines the key local, State, and federal regulations that apply to these resources.

FEDERAL
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is responsible for protection of terrestrial and freshwater organisms through implementation of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has primary responsibility for protecting wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Corps also regulates navigable waters under Section 10 (33 U.S.C. 403) of the Rivers and Harbors Act.

STATE
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is the responsible agency for administration of the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and for protection of streams and water bodies through the Streambed Alteration Agreement process under Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code.

Certification from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is also required when a proposed activity may result in discharge into navigable waters, pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. The RWQCB also has jurisdiction over waters of the State not regulated by the Corps under the Porter-Cologne Act. The following discusses in more detail how State and federal regulations address special-status species, wetlands and other sensitive natural communities.

Special-Status Species
Special-status species are plants and animals that are legally protected under the State and/or federal ESAs, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the California Fish and Game Code (sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511, 3513, 3515, and 4700), or other regulations.3 In addition, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15380, special-status species also include other species that are considered rare enough by the scientific community and trustee agencies to warrant special consideration, particularly with regard to protection of isolated populations, nesting or denning locations, communal roosts and other essential habitat.

Species with legal protection under the federal and State ESAs often represent major constraints to development; particularly when they are wide ranging or highly sensitive to habitat disturbance and where proposed development would result in a take of these species. 3 Special-status species include: designated (rare, threatened, or endangered) and candidate species for listing by the CDFW; designated (threatened or endangered) and candidate species for listing by the USFWS and NOAA Fisheries; species considered to be rare or endangered under the conditions of Section 15380 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, such as those identified on lists 1A, 1B, and 2 in the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (2001); and possibly other species which are considered sensitive due to limited distribution or lack of adequate information to permit listing or rejection for state or federal status, such as those included on list 3 in the CNPS Inventory or identified as “California Species of Special Concern (SSC)” by the CDFW. Species designated as a SSC have no legal protective status under the California Endangered Species Act but are of concern to the CDFW because of severe decline in breeding populations and other factors.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐31 Wetlands and Other Waters of the United States
Although definitions vary to some degree, wetlands are generally considered to be areas that are periodically or permanently inundated by surface or ground water, and support vegetation adapted to life in saturated soil. Wetlands are recognized as important features on a regional and national level due to their high inherent value to fish and wildlife, use as storage areas for storm and flood waters, and water recharge, filtration, and purification functions. The CDFW, Corps, and RWQCB have jurisdiction over modifications to riverbanks, lakes, stream channels and other wetland features. Technical standards for delineating wetlands have been developed by the Corps and the USFWS, which generally define wetlands through consideration of three criteria: hydrology, soils, and vegetation.

The Clean Water Act (CWA) was enacted to address water pollution, establishing regulations and permit requirements regarding construction activities that affect storm water, dredge and fill material operations, and water quality standards. The regulatory program requires that discharges to surface waters be controlled under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program which applies to sources of water runoff, private developments, and public facilities.

Under Section 404 of the CWA, the Corps is responsible for regulating the discharge of fill material into waters of the United States. The term “waters” includes wetlands and non-wetland bodies of water that meet specific criteria as defined in the Code of Federal Regulations. All three of the identified technical criteria must be met for an area to be identified as a wetland under Corps jurisdiction, unless the area has been modified by human activity. In general, a permit must be obtained before fill can be placed in wetlands or other waters of the United States. The type of permit is determined by the Corps depending on the amount of acreage and the purpose of the proposed fill.

Certain activities in wetlands or “other waters” are automatically authorized or granted a nationwide permit which allows filling where impacts are considered minor. Eligibility for a nationwide permit simplifies the permit review process. Nationwide permits cover construction and fill of waters of the U.S. for a variety of routine activities such as minor road crossings, utility line crossings, streambank protection, recreational facilities, and outfall structures. A project must demonstrate that it has no more than a minimal adverse effect on the aquatic ecosystem, including species listed under the ESA to qualify for a nationwide permit. Typically, this means that there will be no net loss of either habitat acreage or habitat value, resulting in appropriate mitigation where fill activities are proposed.

The Corps assumes discretionary approval over proposed projects where impacts are considered significant, requiring adequate mitigation and permit approval. To provide compliance with EPA Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, an applicant must demonstrate that the proposed discharge is unavoidable and is the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative that will achieve the overall project purpose.

The 1990 Memorandum of Agreement between the EPA and Corps concerning the Determination of Mitigation under the Guidelines prioritizes mitigation, with the first priority to avoid impacts, the second to minimize impacts, and the third to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts.

Jurisdictional authority of the CDFW over wetland areas is established under Section 1600 et seq. of the Fish and Wildlife Code, which pertains to activities that would disrupt the natural flow or alter the channel, bed, or bank of any lake, river, or stream. The Fish and Wildlife Code stipulates that it is unlawful to substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream or lake without notifying the CDFW, incorporating necessary mitigation, and obtaining a Streambed Alteration Agreement. The Wetlands Resources Policy of the CDFW states that the Fish and Wildlife Commission will strongly discourage development in or conversion of wetlands, unless, at a minimum, project mitigation assures there will be no net loss of either wetland habitat values CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐32 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST or acreage. The CDFW is also responsible for commenting on projects requiring Corps permits under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958.

In addition, the RWQCB is responsible for upholding state water quality standards. Pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA, projects that apply for a Corps permit for discharge of dredge or fill material, and projects that qualify for a Nationwide Permit must obtain water quality certification from the RWQCB.

The RWQCB is also responsible for regulating wetlands under the Porter-Cologne Act, which may include hydrologically isolated wetlands no longer regulated by the Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Recent federal Supreme Court rulings have limited the limits of Corps jurisdiction, but the RWQCB in some cases continues to exercise jurisdiction over these features.

Sensitive Natural Communities
Protecting habitat on an ecosystem-level is increasingly recognized as vital to the protection of natural diversity in the State, in addition to species-oriented management. Protecting habitat on an ecosystemlevel is considered the most effective means of providing long-term protection of ecologically viable habitat, and can include whole watersheds, ecosystems, and sensitive natural communities. Providing functional habitat connectivity between natural areas is essential to sustaining healthy wildlife populations and allowing for the continued dispersal of native plant and animal species.

Although sensitive natural communities have no protected legal status under the State or federal Endangered Species Acts, they are provided some level of protection under CEQA. The CEQA Guidelines identify potential impacts on a sensitive natural community as one of six significance criteria.

As an example, a discretionary project that is constructed on any riparian habitat, native grassland, valley oak woodland, or other sensitive natural community would normally be considered to have a significant effect on the environment. Further loss of a sensitive natural community could be interpreted as substantially diminishing habitat, depending on its relative abundance, quality, and degree of past disturbance, and the anticipated impacts to the specific community type. Where determined to be significant under CEQA, the potential impact would require mitigation through avoidance, minimization of disturbance or loss, or some type of compensatory mitigation when unavoidable.

CITY
1999 General Plan (1999 GP)
The Open Space and Conservation Element of the 1999 GP contains two figures identifying special biological areas requiring a more detailed study. Figure 7.1 General Plan Policies for sensitive Biological Species (p 7-5) and Figure 7.2 Special Environmental Studies Required for Development Proposals (p 7-7). The Project site is not identified on either of these figures as requiring additional biological study.

Draft 2040 General Plan (Draft 2040GP)
The Draft 2040GP identifies biologically sensitive areas and policies to improve the City’s biological health and diversity. Chapter 15 Environmental and Cultural Stewardship (p 334, Draft 2040GP) identifies policies and action items to protect habitat, promote tree cover connectivity and protect ecologically sensitive areas. Figure 48: Existing Habitat and Protected Areas (p 340, Draft 2040GP) identifies habitat and protection areas throughout South San Francisco. The Project site is not identified as a habitat or protected area. Figure 49: Connectivity (p 340, Draft 2040GP) identifies areas that contain tree cover. The Project site is shown with sparse tree cover. Figure 50: Ecologically Sensitive Areas (p 341, Draft 2040GP) identifies environmentally sensitive areas. The Project site is not identified as an ecologically sensitive site.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐33 The draft general plan identifies goals to improve habitat and quality of life. These goals, not specific to endangered or threatened species, are applicable to urban open spaces and tree removal. “GOAL ES-1: The City supports nature in South San Francisco to encourage healthy ecosystems, improve air and water quality, improve public health, and adapt to a changing climate. INTENT: To foster urban ecology in South San Francisco including open space and connectivity, habitat diversity, urban forestry, planting and vegetation, and land and vegetation management (p 353, Draft 2040GP).

GOAL ES-4: An abundant, robust urban forest that contributes to South San Francisco’s quality of life as it combats the effects of climate change. INTENT: To enhance South San Francisco’s environmental quality and the mental and physical health of its residents, while bringing significant economic benefits through increased property values. To make the city more resilient to the impacts of climate change and provide habitat for wildlife (p 354, Draft 2040GP).

Policy ES-4.2: Avoid tree removal. Avoid removing trees whenever possible. When removals are warranted, replace each removed tree with three new trees (p 354, Draft 2040GP).” Municipal Code
SSFMC Section 13.30.020 defines a “Protected Tree” as one with a circumference of 48 inches or more when measured 54 inches above natural grade; a tree or stand of trees designated by the Director of Parks and Recreation as one of uniqueness, importance to the public due to its location or unusual appearance, historical significance or other factor; or a stand of trees that the Director of Parks and Recreation has determined each tree is dependent on the others for survival.

IMPACTS
a) Special-Status Species
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant impact if were to result in a substantial adverse effect on special-status species.

The Project site is not within a special-status species habitat as shown on Figure 48: Existing Habitat and Protected Areas (p 340, Draft 2040GP). The Project site is not within an ecologically sensitive area as shown on Figure 50: Ecologically Sensitive Areas (p 341, Draft 2040GP). The Project site is not identified as a biologically sensitive site, as it is located within an urbanized area. Potential suitable and suitable habitat may be along Colma Creek 0.4 mi south of the Project, and Bay fringe areas as noted in the DSASP Environmental Impact Report (Atkins, City of South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR, October 2014 SCH# 201302001, p 5-1). The Project would have a less than significant impact on special-status species because it is not located on a sensitive or protected site. b) and c) Jurisdictional Habitat
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant impact if it were to substantially impact sensitive natural communities or jurisdictional wetlands and Waters of the U.S.

Generally speaking, wetlands are legally defined as areas that are suitable for retention or flow of water, have soils that indicate the presence of water, and have plants that mostly require the presence of water.

A formal protocol for wetland analysis was not conducted. General observations revealed that the ground surface of the Project site is predominately impervious. Suitable basins or other depressions were not noted where water would likely pool during the winter rainy season. Further wetland analysis regarding jurisdictional evaluation is not required.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐34 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The Project site is not within an ecologically sensitive area as shown on Figure 50: Ecologically Sensitive Areas (p 341, Draft 2040GP). The Project site does not contain ponded or pooling water (site inspections December 14, 2021, January 22, 2022, and April 11, 2022, Allison Knapp, USGS National Wetlands Inventory,https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/, accessed on April 14, 2022). The site is not identified in the 1999 SSF General Plan or the Draft 2040GP as biologically sensitive or containing wetland or riparian habitat. The Project would have a less than significant impact on jurisdictional habitat because it is not located within a jurisdictional habitat.

The Project would have no impact on any sensitive natural communities or jurisdictional wetlands because wetlands are not present on the site.
d) Native Fish and Wildlife Movement Opportunities, Nesting Habitat, and Native Wildlife Nursery Sites.

Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.

Wildlife movements include migration (i.e., usually one way per season), inter-population movement (i.e., long-term genetic flow) and small travel pathways (i.e., daily movement within an animal’s territory).

While small travel pathways usually facilitate movement for daily home range activities, such as foraging or escape from predators, they also provide connection between outlying populations, permitting an increase in gene flow among populations.

These linkages among habitat types can extend for miles from primary habitat areas and occur on a large scale throughout California. Habitat linkages facilitate movement between populations located in small, discrete areas and populations located within larger habitat areas. The mosaic of habitats found within a large-scale landscape result in wildlife populations that consist of discrete sub-populations comprising a large single population, which is often referred to as a meta-population. The movement between wildlife populations is facilitated through habitat linkages, migration corridors and movement corridors even where patches of pristine habitat are fragmented. Potentially low frequency genetic flow may lead to complete isolation and, if pressures promoting mortality are strong, potential extinction.

The Project would result in demolition of a hotel and parking and construction of a life science development building. The Project site does not presently provide linkages to other suitable habitat given its location in an industrial area that is transitioning to life science uses. The Project is not located in any special studies zones and would have a less than significant impact on biological resources with regard to movement corridors.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA): The MBTA protects all common wild birds found in the United States except certain introduced species and certain game birds. Disturbances that cause nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort or the loss of habitats upon which these birds depend would be in violation of the MBTA. California Fish and Game (CFG) Code section 3503 also makes it illegal to destroy any birds’ nest or any birds’ eggs that are protected under the MBTA. CFG Code section 3503.5 further protects all birds of prey, such as hawks and owls, and their eggs and nests from any form of taking.

Although no nesting birds were observed during the site visits identified above, the large trees and brushy areas at the Project site may provide suitable cover for nesting of birds, including birds of prey, during the spring and summer seasons. Nest disturbance as a result of proposed tree and brush removal would be considered a breach of MBTA regulations and would be a significant environmental impact.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐35 The Project would remove all the trees on the site and replace them with a minimum of 41 trees which are identified in Biology Table 1 Proposed Tree Planting, below. There is the potential for raptors (birds of prey) and other protected birds to nest on the site, and adjacent to the site. These birds are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code section 3503.5. Disturbance of birds during the nesting season that results in loss of nestlings would be a significant environmental impact.

As noted in Chapter 2, Project Description, the Project Sponsor is proposing mitigation measures as part of the Project. The Project Sponsor understands nests could be disturbed should trees be removed during nesting season. The impact without mitigation is shown below along with the mitigation proposed as part of the Project.

Biology Impact 1: Tree removal during nesting season could result in a significant impact if active nests are disturbed or destroyed.

Biology Mitigation 1
Bio 1.A.1: Tree Removal Within Nesting Season (approximately March 1 to August 31). No construction activities of any kind, including but not limited to tree and landscape removal, demolition, site grubbing, grading, etc shall occur until the following protocol is met.

The Project Sponsor, or designated representative shall retain a licensed biologist to conduct a preconstruction survey for protected birds on the site and in the immediate vicinity if any Project construction activities occur during nesting season. The survey shall be done no more than 15 days prior to the initiation of tree removal and grading and other construction activities. In the event that nesting birds are found on the Project site or in the immediate vicinity, Project Sponsor, or designated representative shall notify the City, locate and map the nest site(s) within three (3) days, submit a report to the City and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife ("CDFW"), establish a nodisturbance buffer of 250-ft, and conduct on-going weekly surveys to ensure the no-disturbance buffer is maintained. In the event of destruction of a nest with eggs, or if a juvenile or adult raptor should become stranded from the nest, injured or killed, the qualified biologist shall immediately notify the CDFW. The licensed biologist shall coordinate with the CDFW to have the injured bird either transferred to a raptor recovery center or, in the case of mortality, transfer it to the CDFW within 48 hours of notification.

A tree permit per South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 13.30.030 (Tree Preservation Ordinance), shall be required prior to removal of a Protected Tree, defined in section 13.30.020 as: (1) Any tree with a circumference of forty-eight inches or more when measured fifty-four inches above natural grade; or (2) A tree or stand of trees so designated by the director based upon findings that it is unique and of importance to the public due to its unusual appearance, location, historical significance or other factor; or (3) A stand of trees in which the director has determined each tree is dependent upon the others for survival. Prior to removing trees, the Project Sponsor, or designated representative shall contact the Parks Division to determine if a removal permit is needed. The Project Sponsor, or designated representative shall obtain City issued tree removal permits prior to commencing any tree removal activities; or,
Bio 1.B.1: Tree Removal Outside Nesting Season (approximately September 1 to February 28).

No construction activities of any kind, including but not limited to tree and landscape removal, demolition, site grubbing, grading, etc shall occur until the following protocol is met.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐36 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Tree removal outside of nesting season would preclude the need for the measures identified in 1.A.1, above. A tree permit shall be required per South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 13.30.030 (Tree Preservation Ordinance)prior to removal of a Protected Tree, defined in section 13.30.020 as: (1) Any tree with a circumference of forty-eight inches or more when measured fifty-four inches above natural grade; or (2) A tree or stand of trees so designated by the director based upon findings that it is unique and of importance to the public due to its unusual appearance, location, historical significance or other factor; or (3) A stand of trees in which the director has determined each tree is dependent upon the others for survival. Prior to removing trees, the Project Sponsor, or designated representative shall contact the Parks Division to determine if a removal permit is needed. The Project Sponsor, or designated representative shall obtain City issued tree removal permits prior to commencing any tree removal activities.

The Project would have a less than significant impact on biological resources with regard to native wildlife movement opportunities or nursery sites because the Project Sponsor would either remove trees outside of nesting season or follow the established protocol and mitigation measure during nesting season.
e) Local Policies and Ordinances
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.

The tree removal and landscape plan indicate 69 trees to be removed and 41 to be planted.

BIOLOGY TABLE 1

PROPOSED TREE PLANTING
Species Quantity/Size
at Planting
Size at Maturity
Tall/Wide Site Location
Arbutus marina (MS)
Olea Europaea 'Swan Hill' or
'Wilsonii' (MS)
11/36" box 10-15 ft t/w Poletti Way Plaza
Ginkgo biloba 'Autumn Gold' Nyssa
sylvatica 10/36" box 35-40 ft t/15-20 ft w Confluence Terraces Ginkgo biloba 'Autumn Gold' Nyssa
sylvatica 4/36" box 35-40 ft t/15-20 ft w Confluence Plaza Quercus franietto
Nyssa sylvatica Lophostemon
confertus Koelreuteria paniculata
13/36" box 30-50 ft t/20-25 ft w
East Grand Ave Streetscape
from Confluence to East
Access Plaza
Quercus franietto
Nyssa sylvatica Lophostemon
confertus Koelreuteria paniculata (S)
Cedrus deodara
Olea Europaea 'Swan Hill' or
'Wilsonii' (S)
3/36" box 30-50 ft t/20-25 ft w East Access Plaza
Source: Mantle Landscaping April 2022
(MS) Multistem; (S) Standard
Note: Preferred species noted in bold. Alternate species provided to represent list of possible trees suitable for the environment and design, as there are potential variables that may require an alternate tree being selected. Variables include compliance with the Model Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance (MWELO), optimal hydrozoning based on compatibility CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐37 of water needs of adjacent perennials, availability of trees at nursery at time of planting, unforeseen utility conflicts or other conditions, and not currently identified circulation clearance requirements for emergency and maintenance vehicles.

Figure 49: Connectivity (p 340, Draft 2040GP) identifies areas that contain tree cover. The Project site is shown with sparce tree cover. The Project would remove 69 trees on the site and replant 41 trees as well as grasses and ornamentals and incorporate bioswales in the planting plan.

The landscape plan shows street trees being planted on three elevations, and planting relates to the programmed use of the area. For example, Poletti Way Plaza is proposed to be landscaped with raised planters creating a strong planted edge on the active west side of the building. The planters would include a seating bench and lighting. Smaller multi-stemmed species trees; Arbutus marina or Olea europaea ‘Swan Hill’ or ‘Wilsonii’ are proposed. Both species would reach a maximum height and width of 10-15 ft. Biotreatment gardens are proposed in the eastern portion of the planters and would be planted with Chondropetalum tectorum and Deschampsia cespitosa; both are drought and flood tolerant species suited for stormwater treatment. Together the raised planters would create a densely planted landscape along this active edge of the Project and would be under the maximum height required by the Fire Department to provide emergency access to the upper floors of the building.

Raised planters in Confluence Plaza would be planted with drought tolerant ornamental grasses such as Bouteloua gracilis ‘Blonde Ambition,’ Lomandra longifolia ‘Arctic Frost,’ and Muhlenbergia capillaris ‘White Cloud’. Shrub, perennial, and succulent species would provide flowers and seasonal interest, and include Anigazanthos sp., Hesperaloe parviflora, Agastache barberi ‘Kudo’s Gold’, and Euphorbia characias ‘Tasmanian Tiger’ or other similar Mediterranean spurge cultivars. Ginkgo biloba ‘Autumn Gold,’ a columnar tree species or similar such as Nyssa sylvatica, is proposed to edge the terraces and plaza. The planting selection would provide shade in the summer, vibrant yellow fall foliage and habitat for aerial species. The design includes fourteen 36-inch box Gingko trees, which reach a height of 35- 40 ft and a width of 15-20 ft at maturity.

Along East Grand Avenue Quercus franietto are proposed to line the street and shade the pedestrian walkway and raised bike path. Alternative species considered are Nyssa sylvatica, Lophostemon confertus, Koelreuteria paniculate, Cedrus deodara, or Olea Europaea ‘Swan Hill’ or ‘Wilsonii’. The design includes thirteen 36-inch box Quercus which reach a height of 40-50 ft and a width of 20-25 ft at maturity. Lomandra longifolia ‘Breeze’ or similar cultivar will be planted between the street trees in a continuous planter that separates the pedestrian walk from the bike lane.

East Access Plaza is programmed to be an 8,350 sq ft landscaped bioswale and seating area and is directly across from Jack Drago Park. The landscaping in this area proposes larger specimen street trees outside the area programmed for emergency access. Larger specimen trees also serve to visually connect with Jack Drago Park. An art mural is proposed along the façade of the building adjacent to the glazing that encompasses the proposed fitness center.

Cedrus deodara are proposed to mark the East Plaza entrance. The three Deodor Cedars will reach a height of 40 ft in windy urban conditions. Street trees along the Project and street interface are proposed to be larger specimen as they are not restricted in height for emergency access. A biotreatment planting area would be located on the western façade of the building, in part screening above ground utilities.

The biotreatment garden would include flood tolerant species that can grow 3 ft tall, such as Chondopetalum tectorum and Cornus serecia.

The proposed landscaping plan would contribute to the creation of an urban forest within the TO/RD area. The proposed Project assists in implementing Goal ES-1 and ES-4, identified below.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐38 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST GOAL ES-1: The City supports nature in South San Francisco to encourage healthy ecosystems, improve air and water quality, improve public health, and adapt to a changing climate. INTENT:

To foster urban ecology in South San Francisco including open space and connectivity, habitat diversity, urban forestry, planting and vegetation, and land and vegetation management (p 353, Draft 2040GP).

GOAL ES-4: An abundant, robust urban forest that contributes to South San Francisco’s quality of life as it combats the effects of climate change. INTENT: To enhance South San Francisco’s environmental quality and the mental and physical health of its residents, while bringing significant economic benefits through increased property values. To make the city more resilient to the impacts of climate change and provide habitat for wildlife (p 354, Draft 2040GP).

Policy ES-4.2: “Avoid tree removal. Avoid removing trees whenever possible. When removals are warranted, replace each removed tree with three new trees” (p 354, Draft 2040GP). The Project would be required to pay in-lieu fees at a 3:1 ratio removal of the trees on the site and is required by ordinance to obtain a tree removal permit.

The proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on tree removal in light of the proposed landscaping plan that proposes species suitable to the climate in which they would be planted aiding in long term viability and the City policies in place to capture additional plantings.

Biology Finding:
(1) The Project site is not within a special-status species habitat as shown on Figure 48:

Existing Habitat and Protected Areas (p 340, Draft SSFGP). The Project site is not within an ecologically sensitive area as shown on Figure 50: Ecologically Sensitive Areas (p 341, Draft SSFGP). The Project would have a less than significant impact on special-status species because it is not located on a sensitive or protected site. (2) The Project would have no impact on any sensitive natural communities or jurisdictional wetlands because wetlands are not present on the site.
(3) In absence of Biology Mitigation 1, proposed by the Project, there could be a significant impact on biological resources with regard to native wildlife movement opportunities or nursery sites because the Project Sponsor would either remove trees outside of nesting season or follow the established protocol and the mitigation measure during nesting season. (4) The Project would have a less than significant impact on tree removal in light of the proposed landscaping plan that proposes species suitable to the climate in which they would be planted aiding in long term viability and the City policies in place to capture additional plantings.
(5) The choice of plant species and the spatial distribution of the landscaping along the edges and interior of the site would be the onset of a tree canopy. The placement would lead people onto the sidewalk and bicycle and pedestrian pathway from Caltrain and Grand Avenue.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐39 V. Cultural Resources
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in §15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?

SETTING
The Project site is 126,847 sq ft in area, i.e., 2.91 acres. The site is relatively flat ranging from 15 ft to 20 ft above mean sea level and is shaped like a soft-edged triangle (Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Mixed-Use Development 121 East Grand Ave. SSF, CA. March 2021 Geocon Consultants, Inc.) (“GeoReport, March 2021”). Groundwater appears approximately 4.5 to 8.0 ft below ground level (“bgl”) during wet years and 8.5 to 16 ft during dry years (GeoReport, March 2021). The Project site is in Flood Zone X, outside the 100- and 500-year flood zones (Flood Insurance Map Rate Community Panel Number 13-09-1038P, September 9, 2013. Federal Emergency Management Agency).

The site is currently developed with a three-story wood framed hotel and asphalted surface parking. The hotel includes 169 rooms housed in three structures. The site also includes a spa and one shed. Building permits indicate the construction occurred in 1986 (City Building Department Records 2021). Two curb cuts provide access to the site: one off Poletti Way and the other along East Grand at Sylvester Road.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
STATE
Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52)
AB52 became effective July 1, 2015 and requires notification to Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic location of a project that is being proposed. The Lead Agency, in this case the City of South San Francisco, is required by law to within 14 days of an application being deemed complete, provide a formal notification to the designated contact or tribal representative of traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribe(s) that have requested notice.

No designated contact or tribal representative of traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes have requested to be noticed pursuant to AB 52 (Billy Gross, Principal Planner conversation April 21, 2021, and updated April 14, 2022). Therefore, the City has no obligation to consult as no one has requested notification to be consulted.

CITY
Archeological Studies Required by City
The City required preparation of an archaeological research study. The study was deemed prudent given there have been no archaeological studies performed on the Project site that involved borings and soil CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐40 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST classifications. The following identifies the history of the site, that includes some ambiguity with respect to the potential presence of ‘culturally significant soils’ within the Project vicinity. Culturally significant soils are those that may contain artifacts and/or human remains, including those potentially interred outside of formal cemeteries.

Leann Taagepera, a cultural and historic resource planner, was contracted to conduct an archaeological records search of the Project site. The study was requested to ascertain the presence or lack thereof of archaeological and/or tribal resources on the site. The study’s findings identified the very remote possibility of an archaeological site 1,250 ft (or more) from the Project site. The public record is muddled.

A previously prepared environmental document for the Caltrain Electrification Project mentions an archaeological site that was presumed to be present and later found not to be present. The assumption is that the site was either previously destroyed or misidentified (P-41-00004/CA-SMA-41).

Basin Research, an archaeological firm that conducts records search; cultural and archaeological monitoring; and retrieval and preservation of culturally significant soils or artifacts if discovered, was retained to conduct peer review of Taaepera’s findings. Colin Busby of Basin Research confirmed the findings of Taagepera. The findings of these two reports are summarized below and included in Appendix A in complete form.

Archaeological Reports
Archaeological Resources Study of 121 E. Grand Ave., South San Francisco, Leann Taagepera Cultural and Historic Resource Planning, Principal June 24, 2021 (Taagepera, 2021) Taagepera’s scope of work included a records search for archaeological resources on the Project site and included a study area of 0.25 miles around the site. Data was requested from Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University.

Taagepera, at the direction of the City, assumed that the entire site would be graded to a depth of 38 ft (p 1), a reasonably conservative assumption. Relying on the Geocon GeoReport, March 2022 for the Project (which was peer reviewed and accepted by the City’s Engineering Division, See Chapter 3.VII Geology and Soils). Artificial fills are present below the site to a depth of 7.5 to 12 ft below existing grade (bgl). Bay Mud appears approximately 12 ft to 15.5 ft below bgl. Mixed alluvial soils appear below Bay Mud 33 ft to 95 ft bgl. Pleistocene-age sedimentary deposits (the Colma Formation) appear below the mixed alluvial layer to 112 ft bgl.

The records search did not locate any known archaeological resources on the Project site. The search did identify one archaeological resource that potentially exists at least 1,250 ft from the Project site (P41-00004/CA-SMA-41). The site was first identified in 1909. Taagepera notes the site was identified in a ‘technical report’ prepared for the Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (“EIR/EIS”) for the San Francisco to San Jose Station, California High-Speed Train Project. The consulting firm AECOM, working on the EIR/EIS found that “the site may no longer be present or may never have existed in this location” (p 3).

Taagepera concluded there is a low possibility for culturally significant soils to be present on the site.

Resource Services-In Support of 121 E. Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, San Mateo County, Basin Research, Colin Busby, Ph.D, RPA, Principal February 21, 2022 (BASIN 2022) According to BASIN, after peer reviewing the archival and literature record, historic maps, and geoarchaeological data the data strongly suggest a very low to low potential for subsurface archaeological resources. The conclusions of BASIN’s peer review are excerpted from the report (pps 3, 4).  No prehistoric resources have been recorded within the project area or immediate area.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐41  Archaeological studies in the early 20th century recorded no shell mounds along this portion of San Francisco Bay.
 Geoarchaeological sensitivity reviews for potential subsurface cultural resources suggest a low to very low sensitivity for the Pleistocene or Older Deposits adjacent to the project site. While Waechter et al. assign a Low-Moderate sensitivity for Bay Mud deposits, it is unlikely that the project site had surfaces stable enough to support and preserve a prehistoric or contact-era shell mound as it historically bordered a tidal marsh or may have been located within one.  No surface indications of significant prehistoric or historic archaeological resources have been noted during the past 50 years during archaeological inventories and/or development construction suggesting a very low potential for surface and shallow subsurface cultural resources within or adjacent to the project site.

BASIN notes review of the archaeological data suggests that the potential for the exposure of significant cultural resources within the Project site is very low to low during ground disturbing construction. The BASIN report notes archaeological testing does not appear necessary and archaeological monitoring does not appear to be warranted during Project excavation.

However, a ‘Worker Awareness Environmental Training’ (WAET) is recommended for personnel involved with ground disturbing construction as well as the retention of an “on-call” archaeologist to respond in the event of an unexpected discovery. These measures, according to BASIN, would provide resource protection in the event of any unexpected cultural discoveries. Additional measures are identified in the report outlining the protocol should culturally significant soils be discovered. (BASIN, 2022, pps 3,4)
The Project Sponsor retained both Taagepera and BASIN as consultants to research and prepare the cultural reports in consultation with the City. The mitigation measures identified in the BASIN report are proposed as part of the Project and identified in Chapter 2 Project Description and again below.

IMPACTS
The analysis regarding cultural, archeological and historic resources are based, in part, on examining the criteria identified in California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15064.5 (a)(3).

In summary, these criteria include consideration of whether any object, building, structure, site, area or other resource would be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military or cultural annals of California, based on criteria such as that the resource:
1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California history and cultural heritage;
2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; 3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or, 4) Has yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

A lead agency does not have to rely solely on the above criterion and may determine the appropriateness of a potential resource based upon age. Commonly 50 years of age is used as a basis by which to consider a structure’s potential historic significance under which a more detailed and rigorous analysis is required to determine actual or imagined significance (section 15064.5, California Code of Regulations).

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐42 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Archaeological resources are evaluated pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.2, 21084.1 and Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. If it is determined that a project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource the lead agency may require reasonable efforts to permit the resource to remain in situ. Measures that are listed as appropriate in subsection(b) of Section 21083.2 include planning construction to avoid the resource; deed the resource into a conservation easement; cap the resource with a layer of soil prior to building; and planning a park or open space to incorporate the resource. A mitigation plan is required if disturbance of the resource is not feasible per subsection (c). Subsection (e) identifies not-to-exceed mitigation cost maximums for archaeological resources. a) Historic Resources
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in section 15064.5.

Comfort Inn and Suites was constructed in 1986 (City Building Permit Records, address file). The 36- year-old building is not considered an historic resource. Moreover, the building is not identified in the City’s 1999 General Plan or the Draft 2040GP as an historic resource. Consequently, there are no historical resources or structures on the Project site. The Project would have no impact on historic resources.
b -c) Archaeological Resources
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in section 15064.5, directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature, or disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries.

Native Americans, over 5,000 years ago, typically settled along creek banks and the margins of San Francisco Bay. According to BASIN there is a low to very low possibility that culturally significant soils could be located in subsurface areas of the site.

Archaeology Impact 1: There is a remote possibility that culturally significant soils could be located in subsurface areas of the site. Disturbance of these soils could result in a significant impact.

Archaeology Mitigation 1
Arch 1.A.1a: Employee Training and Awareness. Prior to the start of ground disturbing grading, demolition or construction, the Project Sponsor/designated representative shall ensure that a Worker Awareness Environmental Training (WAET) is conducted by a licensed archaeologist (Archaeologist) in the state of California. Training shall be scheduled in consultation with the Project Sponsor/designated representative, construction manager and other key site personnel, and the City of South San Francisco.

WAET training shall be required for all personnel participating in ground disturbing construction to alert them to the archaeological sensitivity of the Project area and provide protocols to follow in the event of a discovery of archaeological materials. The Project Sponsor/designated representative shall also ensure the occurrence of the following:

1.A.1.b: Archaeologist shall be on an “on-call” basis to review and identify any potential archaeological discoveries during ground disturbing grading, demolition and excavation operations and work shall stop within 50 feet of the find. Archaeologist shall be contacted for identification, evaluation and further recommendations consistent with California Environmental Quality Act and City of South San Francisco requirements.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐43

1.A.1c: Grading, demolition and any other plans that require soil disturbance shall note that there is a potential for exposing buried cultural resources including prehistoric Native American burials on the site.

1.A.1.d: Archaeologist shall develop and distribute for job site posting an "ALERT SHEET" summarizing potential finds that could be exposed and the protocols to be followed as well as points of contact to alert in the event of a discovery.

Arch 1.B.1: Protocol in the Event of Discovery of Potentially Culturally Significant Soils or Objects

1.B.1.a: Stop work and contact the on-call archaeologist.

1.B.1.b: Should Archaeologist determine that any cultural resources exposed during construction constitute a historical resource and/or unique archaeological resource under CEQA, Archaeologist shall notify the appropriate parties of the evaluation and recommend mitigation measures to mitigate to a less-than significant impact in accordance with California Public Resources Code Section 15064.5.

Mitigation measures may include avoidance, preservation in-place, recordation, additional archaeological testing and data recovery among other options. The completion of a formal Archaeological Monitoring Plan (AMP) and/or Archaeological Treatment Plan (ATP) that may include data recovery may be recommended by the Professional Archaeologist if significant archaeological deposits are exposed during ground disturbing construction. Development and implementation of the AMP and ATP and treatment of significant cultural resources will be determined by the project proponent in consultation with any regulatory agencies.

The treatment of human remains, and any associated or unassociated funerary objects discovered during any soil-disturbing activity within the Project site shall follow the requirements of section 5097.99 of the Public Resources Code). This shall include immediate notification of the appropriate county Coroner/Medical Examiner, Project Sponsor and the City of South San Francisco.

1.B.1c: A Monitoring Closure Report shall be filed with the Applicant/Project Sponsor/designated representative and the City at the conclusion of ground disturbing construction if archaeological and Native American monitoring of excavation was undertaken.

Cultural Resources Finding:
(1) The Basin Report concludes that no prehistoric resources have been recorded within the Project area or immediate area. The Basin Report further notes archaeological studies in the early 20th century recorded no shell mounds along this portion of San Francisco Bay.

Additionally, geoarchaeological sensitivity reviews for potential subsurface cultural resources suggest a low to very low sensitivity for the Pleistocene or Older Deposits adjacent to the Project site. While Waechter et al. assign a Low-Moderate sensitivity for Bay Mud deposits, it is unlikely that the Project site had surfaces stable enough to support and preserve a prehistoric or contact-era shell mound as it historically bordered a tidal marsh or may have been located within one.

There are no known culturally significant soils on the Project site In summary, no surface indications of significant prehistoric or historic archaeological resources have been noted during the past 50 years during archaeological inventories and/or development construction suggesting a very low potential for surface and shallow subsurface cultural resources within or adjacent to the Project site. In light of the low to very low cultural sensitivity of the Project site Archaeology Mitigation 1, proposed by the Project, is CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐44 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST required. there could potentially be a significant impact given that there is a low to very low potential there are culturally significant soils on the site. Implementation of Archaeology Mitigation 1 would reduce this impact to less than significant. (2) There are no historical resources on the site. Therefore, there would be no impacts to a historic resource.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐45 VI. Energy
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation?
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?

INTRODUCTION
This section evaluates potential energy impacts related to construction and operation of the Project.

Energy resources required for the Project would include electricity, natural gas, and petroleum fuels (gasoline and diesel). These energy resources would be required for the Project building and equipment, as well as vehicles associated with the Project. Energy resources would also be consumed by onsite equipment and vehicles required for construction of the Project. Energy consumption estimates were derived from the Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment (AQ/GHG Assessment) prepared for the Project by ECORP Consulting, Inc. (2022), found in Appendix A of this Initial Study.

The Project includes Conservation Measures and Sustainable Design – See Chapter 2, Project Description. The Project building would also be designed to achieve Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold standard. LEED certified buildings save money, improve efficiency, lower carbon emissions and create healthier places for people. To achieve LEED certification or standard, a project earns points by adhering to prerequisites and credits that address carbon, energy, water, waste, transportation, materials, health and indoor environmental quality. Projects go through a verification and review process by GBCI and are awarded points that correspond to a level of LEED certification: Certified (40-49 points), Silver (50-59 points), Gold (60-79 points) and Platinum (80+ points).4

SETTING
The following includes pertinent environmental and regulatory setting information.

ENVIRONMENTAL FRAMEWORK
Electricity and Natural Gas
Electricity and natural gas service is provided to the City and the Project site by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). Electricity and natural gas is currently consumed by the existing Comfort Inn and Suites at the Project site. Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) is San Mateo County’s official Community Choice Aggregation electricity provider. PCE delivers electricity through existing PG&E utility infrastructure.

In 2020, San Mateo County consumed approximately 4,167,506,557 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity 4 United States Green Building Council (USGBC), LEED Rating System, https://www.usgbc.org/leed, Accessed May 5, 2022.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐46 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST and 200,000,000 Therms (1 Therm equals 100,000 British Thermal Units [BTU] or 100 kilo-BTU [kBTU]).5
Petroleum Fuels
Petroleum fuels (diesel and gasoline) are currently consumed by the existing Comfort Inn and Suites at the Project site. Petroleum fuel consumption for San Mateo County is not available. In 2019, California consumed approximately 662 million barrels of petroleum, with transportation sources consuming approximately 85 percent. In 2019, California consumed approximately 1,668 trillion BTU of gasoline (roughly 14.4 billion gallons) and 567 trillion BTU of diesel (roughly 4.1 billion gallons).6

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
STATE
Integrated Energy Policy Report
Senate Bill (SB) 1389 (Chapter 568, Statutes of 2002) required the California Energy Commission (CEC) to: “conduct assessments and forecasts of all aspects of energy industry supply, production, transportation, delivery and distribution, demand, and prices. The Energy Commission shall use these assessments and forecasts to develop energy policies that conserve resources, protect the environment, ensure energy reliability, enhance the state’s economy, and protect public health and safety” (Public Resources Code Section 25301(a)). This work culminated in the Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR). CEC adopts an IEPR every two years and an update every other year. The 2019 IEPR is the most recent IEPR, which was adopted February 20, 2020. The 2019 IEPR provides a summary of priority energy issues currently facing the State, outlining strategies and recommendations to further the State’s goal of ensuring reliable, affordable, and environmentally responsible energy sources.

Senate Bill 1078, 350 and 100: California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program SB 1078 (Chapter 516, Statutes of 2002) establishes a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) for electricity supply. The RPS required that retail sellers of electricity, including investor-owned utilities and community choice aggregators, provide 20 percent of their supply from renewable sources by 2017. The program was accelerated in 2015 with SB 350, which mandated a 50 percent RPS by 2030. SB 350 includes interim annual RPS targets with three-year compliance periods and requires 65% of RPS procurement to be derived from long-term contracts of 10 or more years. In 2018, SB 100 was signed into law, which again increases the RPS to 60% by 2030 and requires all the state's electricity to come from carbon-free resources by 2045.

Assembly Bill 32, Senate Bill 32, and Climate Change Scoping Plan and Update Reducing GHG emissions in California has been the focus of the state government for approximately two decades. GHG emission targets established by the state legislature include reducing statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (AB 32 of 2006) and reducing them to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (SB 32 of 2016). Executive Order S-3-05 calls for statewide GHG emissions to be reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
5 California Energy Commission, Energy Reports, California Energy Consumption Database, http://www.ecdms.energy. ca.gov/Default.aspx, Accessed May 5, 2022.
6 United States Energy Information Administration (USEIA), California State Energy Profile, https://www.eia.gov/state/ print.php?sid=CA, Accessed May 5, 2022.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐47 California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (2017 Scoping Plan), prepared by CARB, outlines the main strategies California will implement to achieve the legislated GHG emission target for 2030 and substantially advance toward our 2050 climate goals. It identifies the reductions needed by each GHG emission sector (e.g., transportation, industry, electricity generation, agriculture, commercial and residential, pollutants with high global warming potential, and recycling and waste). California plans to significantly reduce GHG emissions from the energy sector through the development of renewable electricity generation in the form of solar, wind, geothermal, hydraulic, and biomass generation. The State will further its climate goals through improving the energy efficiency of residential and nonresidential buildings by continual updates (i.e., every three years) to the Energy Code, which contains mandatory and prescriptive energy efficiency standards for all new construction.

Low Carbon Fuel Standard
Under the Climate Change Scoping Plan, the CARB identified the low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) as one of the nine discrete early action measures to reduce California’s GHG emissions. The LCFS is designed to decrease the carbon intensity of California's transportation fuel pool and provide an increasing range of low-carbon and renewable alternatives, which reduce petroleum dependency and achieve air quality benefits.

California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) The energy consumption of new residential and nonresidential buildings in California is regulated by the state’s Title 24, Part 6, Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Code). The California Energy Code was established by CEC in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to create uniform building codes to reduce California’s energy consumption and provide energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings. CEC updates the California Energy Code every 3 years with more stringent design requirements for reduced energy consumption, which results in the generation of fewer GHG emissions.

The 2022 California Energy Code was adopted by the CEC on August 11, 2021 and will apply to projects constructed after January 1, 2023. The 2022 Energy Code focuses on four key areas in new construction and businesses: (1) encouraging electric heat pump technology and use, (2) establishing electric ready requirements when natural gas is installed, (3) expanding solar system and battery storage standards, and (4) strengthening ventilation standards to improve indoor air quality. The building efficiency standards are enforced through the local plan check and building permit process. Local government agencies may adopt and enforce additional energy standards for new buildings as reasonably necessary in response to local climatologic, geologic, or topographic conditions, provided that these standards exceed those in the California Energy Code.

California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11) The California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) is part 11 of Title 24, California Code of Regulations. CALGreen is the first-in-the-nation mandatory green building standards code, developed in an effort to meet the goals of California’s landmark initiative AB 32, which established a comprehensive program of cost-effective reductions of GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

CALGreen includes a waste diversion mandate, which requires that at least 65 percent of construction materials generated during new construction or demolition projects are diverted from landfills.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐48 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

DISTRICT/PROVIDER
PG&E Integrated Resource Plan
PG&E adopted the 2020 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) on September 1, 2020, to provide guidance for serving the electricity and natural gas needs of residents and businesses within its service area while fulfilling regulatory requirements.

PCE 2018 Integrated Resource Plan
PCE is a Community Choice Aggregation energy program that serves the entirety of San Mateo County, including the City of South San Francisco. PCE adopted the 2018 IRP on December 14, 2017, to provide guidance for serving the electricity needs of the residents and businesses in the county, all while fulfilling regulatory requirements over a 10-year period from 2018 to 2027.

CITY
2014 Climate Action Plan
The City Climate Action Plan (CAP), adopted in 2014, includes goals, policies, and strategies to reduce the City’s GHG emissions, in compliance with AB 32. GHG reduction strategies identified in the CAP include a development checklist to identify applicable plan measures for discretionary projects. The City’s CAP was adopted, with the purpose of reducing GHGs community-wide to achieve a reduction target of 15 percent below 2005 emission levels by 2020. The CAP identifies GHG reduction measures to reduce GHG emissions within the City. Strategies include implementation of transportation demand management plans, expanding active transportation alternatives, maximizing energy efficiency in the built environment, developing a waste reduction strategy to increase recycling and reuse of materials, and reducing water demand. The City’s CAP is currently being updated, as part of the General Plan Update. The City’s CAP was adopted with the intention of supporting AB 32 while also protecting the unique resource of the community through goals, policies, and strategies that can be built on for future GHG reduction.
2022 Climate Action Plan
The City of South San Francisco is currently updating the original 2014 CAP to align with new State regulations and targets related to climate change. The 2014 CAP set an emissions target for 2020 and this updated CAP extends the horizon year to 2040 while also setting a long-term goal of carbon neutrality by 2045, consistent with State targets. The 2022 CAP update outlines how the City of South San Francisco will create new policies, programs, and services that will support the community in taking strong action to reduce GHG emissions. Although the City implemented many policies and programs identified in the 2014 CAP, the City experienced steady economic and population growth over that time period. By updating its existing CAP, the City of South San Francisco reaffirms its commitment to leading the way to a more sustainable future. The City has set bold targets and developed strategies for reducing GHG emissions while increasing the City’s resilience to climate change impacts. The 2022 CAP identifies 62 actions to achieve the GHG reduction targets and has reduction targets of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (SB 32), 80 percent reduction by 2040 and carbon net neutrality by 2045.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐49

IMPACTS
a) Result in Potentially Significant Environmental Impact Due to Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Consumption of Energy Resources
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.

Construction
Construction of the Project would require consumption of petroleum fuels (gasoline and diesel fuel) by construction workers travelling to and from the site, transportation of site and building materials, and equipment for on-site construction activities. Petroleum fuels would be the primary sources of energy for these activities except where electricity is available and feasible, thus electricity use during construction would be minor. Construction of the Project would utilize fuel efficient equipment and trucks consistent with state regulations and would be consistent with state regulations intended to reduce the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy, such as anti-idling and emissions regulations.

Construction energy estimates were derived using standard fuel consumption conversions from the GHG emissions estimated in the AQ/GHG Assessment.7
Project construction would consume
approximately 378,000 gallons of diesel fuel and approximately 85,500 gallons of gasoline over the approximately five-year construction period. This increase in petroleum fuel consumption would be temporary and would cease once project construction is completed. This minor increase in fuel consumption would not require the development of new petroleum supplies or construction of new production or distribution facilities. Therefore, energy usage during construction of the Project would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary and construction energy impacts would be less than significant.

Operations
Energy consumption during Project operation would consist of electricity and natural gas consumption for operation of the Project building and equipment, and petroleum fuel consumption for Project vehicles (assumed to be gasoline for the purpose of estimating the volume) and emergency generator testing (diesel). Operational energy estimates (for existing baseline and Project) were derived using standard fuel consumption conversions from the GHG emissions estimated in the AQ/GHG Assessment. 8
Energy resources are currently consumed under the existing baseline, which includes an existing 169- room, 57,623 sq ft, Comfort Inn and Suites. Annual operation under the existing baseline was estimated to consume approximately 98,000 gallons of gasoline, 468,000 kWh of electricity, and 2 million kBTU of natural gas. Annual operation under the Project would consume approximately 389,000 gallons of gasoline, 800 gallons of diesel, 6.8 million kWh of electricity, and 25 million kBTU of natural gas. 7 Fuel usage is estimated using the CalEEMod output for CO2, and a kgCO2/gallon conversion factor, as cited in the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Carbon Dioxide Emissions Coeffiecients, https://www.eia.gov/environment/ emissions/co2_vol_mass.php
8 Fuel usage is estimated using the CalEEMod output for CO2, and a kgCO2/gallon conversion factor, as cited in the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Carbon Dioxide Emissions Coeffiecients, https://www.eia.gov/environment/ emissions/co2_vol_mass.php
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐50 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Therefore, annual operation of the Project would result in the net consumption of 291,000 gallons of gasoline, 800 gallons of diesel, 6.3 million kWh of electricity, and 23 million kBTU of natural gas.

The Project building would be highly energy efficient due to California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) and California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11) and would replace less efficient buildings since the existing hotel was constructed in 1986. Furthermore, the Project includes Conservation Measures and Sustainable Design – See Chapter 2, Project Description. The Project building would also be designed to meet requirements equivalent to achieving LEED Gold Certification. Therefore, energy usage during operation of the Project would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary and operational energy impacts would be less than significant. b) Conflict With or Obstruct a State or Local Energy Plans Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would conflict with or obstruct implementation State or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

The State and local plans applicable to the Project are discussed in the Regulatory Setting section above.

State plans include Senate Bill 1078, 350 and 100, the LCFS, Low Carbon Fuel Standard, California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6), and California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11). Each State plan contains required standards related to renewable energy development and energy efficiency. Local plans that address energy efficiency, which are designed to achieve the state’s RPS mandates, include PG&E’s 2020 IRP, PCE’s 2018 IRP, and the City’s Climate Action Plans (2014 and 2022). The Project would be required to comply with all applicable standards related to State and local plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency. Furthermore, the Project exceeds these standards by implementing Conservation Measures and Sustainable Design – See Chapter 2, Project Description, and by designing the Project building to achieve LEED Gold Certification. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with State or local energy plans and the Project would have no impact.

Energy Finding:
(1) Energy usage during construction and operation of the Project would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary and operational energy impacts would be less than significant. (2) The Project would not conflict with State or local energy plans and the Project would have no impact.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐51 VII. Geology and Soils
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life or property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

SETTING
The Project site is 126,847 sq ft in area, i.e., 2.91 acres and is relatively flat ranging from 15 ft to 20 ft above mean sea level (Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Mixed-Use Development 121 East Grand Ave. SSF, CA. April 2021 Geocon Consultants, Inc.) (‘Geocon, April 2021’). Groundwater appears approximately 4.5 to 8.0 feet bgl during wet years and 8.5 to 16 ft during dry years (Geocon, April 2021).

Artificial fills are present below the site to a depth of 7.5 to 12 ft bgl. Bay Mud appears approximately 12 ft to 15.5 ft below bgl. Mixed alluvial soils appear below Bay Mud 33 ft to 95 ft bgl. Pleistocene-age sedimentary deposits (the Colma Formation) appear below the mixed alluvial layer to 112 ft bgl (Geocon, April 2021 pps 5,6). The Project site is in Flood Zone X, outside the 100- and 500-year flood zones (Flood Insurance Map Rate Community Panel Number 13-09-1038P, September 9, 2013. Federal Emergency Management Agency).

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐52 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The site is currently developed with a three-story wood framed hotel and asphalted surface parking. The hotel includes 169 rooms housed in three structures. The site also includes a spa and one shed. Building permits indicate the construction occurred in 1986 (City Building Department Records 2021). Two curb cuts provide access to the site: one off Poletti Way and the other along East Grand at Sylvester Road.

An earthen embankment coincident with the northern property line supports the Grand Avenue Overpass.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
CITY
Conditions of Project Approval
Chapter 1, Legislative Framework, Sections 4 and 5 outline the City’s standard review process and conditions of project approval. Additional conditions of approval will become more specific through the forthcoming entitlement review.

General Plan
1999 General Plan (1999 GP)
The Health and Safety Element of the City of South San Francisco General Plan acknowledges and mitigates the risks posed by hazards (e.g. geologic and seismic). The 1999 GP includes the following policy applicable to seismic activity and geologic hazards:
“Policy 8.1-G-1: Minimize the risk to life and property from seismic activity and geologic hazards in South San Francisco.”
Draft 2040 General Plan (Draft 2040GP)
The draft general plan identifies areas and policies to minimize risk from seismic activity and geologic hazards. Chapter 13 Community Resilience (p 278, Draft 2040GP) identifies policies and action items to protect habitat, promote tree cover connectivity and protect ecologically sensitive areas. Figure 40:

Projected Groundshaking (p 290, Draft 2040GP) identifies ground shaking zones for South San Francisco. The Project site is identified as being within Zone VIII (Very Strong). Figure 41: Liquefaction Risk (p 291, Draft 2040GP) identifies areas that have the potential for liquefaction risk. The Project site is shown within the liquefaction zone. Figure 42: Landslide Zones (p 292, Draft 2040GP) identifies areas with general susceptibility to landslides. The Project site is not identified within a landslide zone.

The draft general plan identifies goals and policies to minimize risk related to seismic activity and geologic hazards.
“GOAL CR-4: The City minimizes the risk to life and property from seismic activity and geologic hazards in South San Francisco (p 305, Draft 2040GP).

Policy CR-4.1: Protect buildings, infrastructure, and other assets from seismic hazards (p 305, Draft 2040GP).

Policy CR-4.4: Protect buildings, infrastructure, and other assets from other geologic hazards.

Protect existing and new buildings, infrastructure and other assets from other geologic hazards, including landslides, slope instability, liquefaction, settlement, subsidence, unstable geologic units, unstable soils, and expansive soils (p 305, Draft 2040GP).

Action CR-4.4.1: Require site-specific soils and geologic reports for projects located in highhazard areas. On a parcel by parcel basis, require that permit applications for projects located CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐53 within areas susceptible to geologic hazards, as shown in Figure 43, prepare site-specific soils and geologic reports for review and approval by the City Engineer, and incorporation of the recommended actions during construction (p 310, Draft 2040GP).” Municipal Code
SSFMC Section 13.04.000 regulates excavation and construction on public property, The municipal code requires that excavation and construction must adhere to certain conditions, including adhering to applicable restrictions and requirements for excavation and grading as imposed by the Uniform Building Code (enforced through adoption of the California Building Standards Code), disposing of constructed or excavated materials, adhering to maximum or minimum slopes to be used, adhering to requirements for degree of compaction of fill immaterial, and adhering to requirements for safe and adequate drainage of the site.

Geotechnical Reports Required by City
The City Engineering Division requires geotechnical reports as a part of the building permit process for projects to be constructed on vacant land, demolition and rebuilding, and additions to buildings that require grading and additional loading (see Chapter 1, Section 5). Geotechnical reports are required to be prepared by a licensed geologist, geotechnical engineer, or engineering geologist. The reports shall include a detailed site characterization study, an analysis of potential hazards and design specifications to mitigate the potential hazards. The reports identify design and construction specifications for (among other items) grading, site stabilization, drainage, utility and infrastructure design and placement, foundation design, retaining wall specifications and placement, and soil compaction requirements. The reports are peer reviewed by the City’s geotechnical consultant and are often modified through this process. The final geotechnical report is required to incorporate the modifications recommended by the City’s consultant and the project is required to be built as identified through this process. The types of grading and construction methods that are required reduce geotechnical impacts (i.e., expansive soils, liquefaction, differential settlement, severe ground shaking, etc.) to the maximum extent technically feasible.

The Project Sponsor’s geotechnical consultant is Geocon Consulting, their seismic consultant is Partner and structural engineers are Magnussan and Klemenic Associates. The City’s peer reviewer for this Project is Ninyo & Moore. The following reports were provided by the Project Sponsor. The following reports and peer reviews are identified below.
 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 121 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California, Project No. 8961-04-02, March 2021 and April 2021 Response to Peer Review Comments.

The Geocon March 2021 report provides a geotechnical assessment and recommendations on an 11-story mixed use life science building. The Geocon April 2021 report responds to the peer review comments presented by Ninyo & Moore on April 28, 2021.  Geotechnical Peer Review 121 East Grand Avenue South San Francisco, California Project # 40396 7001, March 24 and April 28, 2021, Ninyo & Moore.

Ninyo & Moore identified five points requiring clarification and found after review of Geocon’s April 2021 memorandum that the questions were satisfactorily addressed.  Seismic Risk Assessment SF Bay Development 121 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA, Partners Project # 20-281457.2, June 8, 2020
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐54 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST  Basis of Design 121 East Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA, Magnusson Klemenic Associates, Structural Engineers, March 3, 2022
These reports are included in Appendix A
March 2021 Geocon Report
Geocon performed field exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analysis and presented the findings in their March 2021 report. Geocon conducted Cone Penetrometer Testing (CPT) December 16. 2016, April 26, 2017, and May 5, 2017. CPT testing reached a maximum depth of 55 ft below existing grade (i.e., ground surface) (bgl). Additional research was conducted on December 3 and 10 2020 and included two exploratory borings to depths of approximately 60 and 112.6 ft bgl. CPTs were conducted to maximum depths of approximately 85 ft bgl. Seismic shear wave velocity measurements were collected at five-foot intervals at each CPT location (Geocon March 2021, p 1).

As noted above, the project description was modified from 2021 to 2022. The Geocon recommendations assume the following Project design (Geocon March 2021, pps 1, 2):
 Underground utilities located along the eastern and southern margins of the Project site would be relocated. The above ground retaining wall supporting the Grand Avenue Overpass would be replaced and rebuilt.
 Reinforced concrete mat foundation would be proposed for the Project, anticipated to be on the order of three to eight feet in width.
 Depth of cut to 40 ft below existing ground surface.
 Subterranean levels will extend laterally to the site limits.  Development would consist of eleven levels above grade, three levels of subterranean parking and a two-deck reinforced concrete podium at ground level.

Geocon identifies seismic design criteria, characterizes soil and excavation activities and materials for any on site fill, and all matters of grading, design of mat foundations, exterior slabs, temporary excavations and shoring, retaining wall design, undergrounding of utilities, pavement recommendations and surface drainage.

Geotechnical consultants typically identify standard recommendations addressing future plan and specification review, and testing and observation services for projects. These recommendations along with the others identified in the Geocon reports are a requirement of City issuance of grading permits, as standard permitting procedure by the Engineering and Building Divisions of the City.

Ninyo & Moore March 24, 2021 Peer Review and Geocon Response Ninyo & Moore (NM) noted four items to be clarified by Geocon. The comments and responses are below.

1. NM: Provide an evaluation and estimates of the span at which the estimated differential settlement occurs. Geocon: Design mat foundation loadings are not yet available as the Project design is in its early stages. Assuming relatively uniform mat foundation pressures, Geocon estimates differential settlement under dead plus live load conditions will be ¼ inch or less across a horizontal distance of 50 ft.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐55

2. NM: Provide an estimate of the uplift pressure under the proposed mat slab foundation.

Geocon: Recommendations for design uplift pressure have been included in the updated geotechnical report.

3. NM: Provide the potential for ongoing secondary consolidation of the ground surface from the initial land reclamation fill, including differential of underground utilities. Geocon: Bay Mud deposits were encountered in Geocon Borings B1, B3, B4, and B5 with the maximum observed thickness of those deposits being approximately 8 ft in Boring B1. Given the age of the fills placed atop the Bay Mud during original development in the area, as well as the surcharge effects of the nearby East Grand Avenue overcrossing embankment that was constructed in the 1980s, the potential for ongoing secondary compression in the Bay Mud is considered low.

Peer Review April 28, 2021, Ninyo & Moore
Ninyo and Moore provided a peer review letter, April 28, 2021, stating Geocon had adequately addressed all of the geotechnical issues at the subject property.

April 2021 Geocon Report
Geocon prepared a revised geotechnical report incorporating their responses to the Ninyo and Moore peer review. The April 2021 Geocon report is the document that shall be updated (see Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure 1, below) to incorporate the requirements of this Initial Study.

MKA International Consulting Engineers
The Grand Avenue Overpass is an approximately 2:1 sloped landscape berm that aligns with the top of the East Grand Overpass sidewalk and slopes down to the ground floor grade of the site. The existing landscape berm varies in its height, starting at the elevation of the street intersection of Grand Avenue and East Grand Avenue, and rising in elevation towards the west up to a height of approximately 30 ft.

The Project proposes to build a retaining wall against the site’s northeast property line abutting the Grand Avenue Overpass, with a variable height of two to 30 ft that corresponds with the elevation slope change of the sidewalk adjacent to the overpass. The new reinforced concrete retaining wall would be constructed and tied back into the earth beneath the Grand Avenue Overpass with regularly spaced tiebacks for stability. A tieback easement underneath the overpass measuring approximately 50 ft deep would be needed along the entire length to allow for the construction of the retaining wall and tiebacks. The required depth of the tiebacks roughly correlates with the height of the wall and would be finalized following a detailed structural and geotechnical assessment (Michael Leung, SOM in concert with MKA International Construction Consultants and Engineers, email to Knapp Consulting April 29, 2022).

Seismicity
The following description of the geomorphology of the Bay Area is excerpted from Geocon, April 2021, p 2.

South San Francisco is located within the Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province of California, which is characterized by a series of northwest trending mountains and valleys along the north and central coast of California. Topography is controlled by the predominant geological structural trends within the Coast Range that generally consist of northwest trending synclines, anticlines and faulted blocks. The dominant structure is a result of both active northwest trending strike-slip faulting, associated with the San Andreas Fault system, and east-west compression within the province. The San Andreas Fault (SAF) is a major right-lateral strike- CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐56 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST slip fault that extends from the Gulf of California in Mexico to Cape Mendocino in northern California. The SAF forms a portion of the boundary between two tectonic plates on the surface of the earth. The Pacific Plate is west of the SAF which moves north relative to the North American Plate, located east of the fault. In the San Francisco Bay Area, movement across this plate boundary is concentrated on the SAF but also distributed, to a lesser extent, across several other faults including the Hayward, Calaveras and Rodgers Creek faults, among others.

Together, these faults are referred to as the SAF system. Basement rock west of the SAF is generally granitic, while to the east it consists of a chaotic mixture of highly deformed marine sedimentary, submarine volcanic and metamorphic rocks of the Franciscan Complex. Both are typically Jurassic to Cretaceous in age (205 to 65 million years old). Overlying the basement rocks are Cretaceous (about 140 to 65 million years old) marine, as well as Tertiary (about 65 to 1.6 million years old) marine and nonmarine sedimentary rocks with some continental volcanic rock.

These Cretaceous and Tertiary rocks have typically been extensively folded and faulted largely because of movement along the SAF system, which has been ongoing for about the last 25 million years, and regional compression during the last about 4 million years. The inland valleys, as well as the structural depression within which San Francisco Bay is located, are filled with unconsolidated to semi-consolidated deposits of Quaternary age (about the last 1.6 million years). Continental deposits (alluvium) consist of unconsolidated to semi-consolidated sand, silt, clay and gravel, while the bay deposits typically consist of soft organic-rich silt and clay (bay mud) or sand. Available geologic mapping by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and other sources indicates the site is underlain by artificial fills over Bay Mud deposits. Geologic mapping by the USGS indicates bedrock depths of approximately 50 to 100 feet below mean sea level (msl) across the site.

Geology and Soils Table 1 identifies faults and fault systems in the Project area. All faults trend in a north south direction with the San Andreas and San Gregorio faults west of the Project site. The remaining faults are east of the Project site.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐57 GEOLOGY AND SOILS TABLE 1

REGIONAL FAULT SUMMARY
Fault Distance (miles) Maximum Earthquake
Magnitude Mw
San Andreas 3.0 8.0
San Gregorio 8.75 7.4
Hayward 15.0 7.43
Monte Vista-Shannon 21.50 6.4
Silver Creek 23.25 6.9
Calaveras 23.75 6.9
Contra Costa Shear Zone 23.75 6.5
Pleasanton 25.25 6.4
Source: California Geological Society, appearing on p 3, Geocon, April 2021

IMPACTS

SEISMIC HAZARDS
Seismic hazards are generally classified as two types, primary and secondary. Primary geologic hazards include surface fault rupture. Secondary geologic hazards include ground shaking, liquefaction, dynamic densification and seismically induced ground failure.
ai) Surface Fault Rupture
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with the surface rupture of a known earthquake fault.

The California Geological Association (CSG) defines an active fault is one with surface displacement within the last 11,000 years. A potentially active fault has demonstrated evidence of surface displacement within the past 1.6 million years. Faults that have not moved in the last 1.6 million years are typically considered inactive. The closest fault line to the Project site is the San Andreas fault, located three miles to the west. The Project site is not located on an earthquake fault line or shear zone. The site is not within a currently established State of California Earthquake Fault Zone for surface fault rupture hazards. No active or potentially active faults are known to pass directly beneath the site. The Project would result in no impact from exposing people or structures to danger from surface rupture of a known earthquake fault.
aii) Strong Seismic Ground Shaking
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with strong seismic ground shaking.

Given that there are no active faults within the Project site, damage from a seismic event is most likely to occur from the secondary impact of strong seismic ground shaking originating on a nearby fault.

Estimates of actual ground shaking intensity at a particular location are made according to the Geology and Soils Table 1 Regional Fault Summary. Intensity would vary depending upon where the seismic event originates. For the Maximum Credible Earthquakes (MCE) along the nearby San Andreas and San Gregorio faults (Richter Magnitude 8.0 and 7.4, respectively) the shaking intensities would be IX, CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐58 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST “violent” and VIII, “very strong”, respectively, at the Project site (Association of Bay Area Governments, Seismic Hazard Maps).

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) publishes information based upon research data correlating the impacts associated with a design seismic event and the response of various soil types thereto. Soil classifications are identified in seven categories: those being A through F. These classifications are referred to as ‘site class’. Class A is hard rock and Class F is liquefiable soils, peat, and high plasticity clay.

Geology and Soils Table 2 identifies the site class, soil profile, velocity, resistance, and strength of a design level seismic event. Geotechnical mitigation measures are identified based upon the magnitude of the seismic event, soil type, and loading. Modeling of these and other factors identify the structural design elements to incorporate into site improvements and building design to reduce impacts associated with severe ground shaking to less than significant. This information is included in the City’s Building Code.

Essentially, soil site classification and magnitude of the seismic event is modeled, and the resulting information informs the structural engineer’s design of a building. This information is contained in the Uniform Building Code and informs the design criteria for site improvements.

Geocon April 2021 identifies the site located within two grounding shaking classifications, Classes C and D. Class C consists of very dense soil and soft rock, While Class D consists of stiff soil. The following table identifies the various soil classifications. As mentioned above, since the review and acceptance of the Geocon April 2022 report the Project has been designed to have one less level of underground parking and six additional floors. Although the City will require an updated geotechnical report and peer review thereto, the requirement is identified as a mitigation measure.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐59 GEOLOGY AND SOILS TABLE 2
SITE CLASSIFICATIONS FROM ASCE 7-02 AND 7-05
Site
Class
Site Profile
Name
Soil Shear Wave
Velocity, vs (ft/sec)
Standard Penetration
Resistance,
N or Nch
Undrained Shear
Strength, Su (psf)
A Hard Rock vs > 5,000 NA NA
B Rock 2,500 < vs ≤ 5,000 NA NA
C Very Dense Soil
and Soft Rock 1,200 < vs ≤ 2,500 >50 > 2,000 psf
D Stiff Soil 600 < vs ≤ 1,200 15 to 20 1,000 to 2,000 psf E Soft Clay Soil vs ≤ 600 <15 <1,000 psf
Any profile with more than 10 ft of soil having the following characteristics:
 Plasticity index PI > 20
 Moisture Content w ≥ 40&, and
 Undrained Shear Strength, Su < 500 psf
F Soil Requires
Site Response
Analysis
Liquefiable soils, peat, high plasticity clay
Source: California Geological Society.

Geology and Soils Impact 1: In absence of an updated geotechnical report and peer review by the City, there could be an impact with respect to severe groundshaking, expansive soils, liquefaction and ground failure.

Geology and Soils Mitigation 1: An updated geotechnical report(s) shall be provided to the City for peer review prior to any issuance of building, grading, grubbing or tree removal permits. The updated report(s) shall address the revised Project description and include all design measures requisite to be compliant with the California Building Code. The updated report(s) shall include at a minimum, structural design and construction specifications, including but not limited to, undergrounding of utilities addressing any construction requirements for potentially and/or corrosive soils, grading, site stabilization, drainage, utility and infrastructure design and placement, foundation design, retaining wall specifications, and soil compaction requirements and design. The report(s) shall be peer reviewed by the City’s consultant and revised accordingly until determined complete.

The maximum seismic protections identified to date are implemented through the provisions of the Title 15 of the City’s Municipal Code (Building Code) which was updated in 2021 (City Ordinance 1628- 2021). These measures are implemented through the building permit process and coupled with an updated geotechnical review would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. aiii) Seismic-related ground failure/liquefaction
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction.

The site is not located within a State of California Seismic Hazard Zone related to liquefaction as CGS has not published liquefaction mapping for the Project area. According to Geocon (March 2022) webbased mapping by United States Geological Society (USGS) and CGS indicates portions of the site CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐60 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST possess a “very high” susceptibility to liquefaction. Due to the increasing overburden pressure with depth, liquefaction of granular soils is generally limited to the upper 50 feet of a soil profile. Geocon assessed the potential for liquefaction using the computer software program CLiq (Version 2.0, Geologismiki) and the in-situ soil parameters measured in the CPT soundings.9 Geocon’s liquefaction analysis identified potentially liquefiable layers at each CPT location that did not meet refusal on obstructions within the artificial fills that comprise the site. In general, the liquefiable layers are located more than 5 ft bgl at the site as several sandy layers within the upper 30-35 ft are potentially liquefiable. Geocon notes total ground surface settlements of up to approximately 3.5 inches may occur. However, site grading would occur to depths of 40 ft removing the sandy soil layers and replacing them with reinforced concrete walls for the parking structure. Assuming relatively uniform mat foundation pressures, Geocon estimates differential settlement under dead plus live load conditions would be ¼ inch or less across a horizontal distance of 50 ft. In light of Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure 1, the Project would result in a less than significant impact associated with liquifiable soils as design measures identified in the geotechnical studies would reduce impacts to less than significant. aiv) Landslides
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to substantial hazards from landslides.

A landslide is a mass of rock, soil and debris displaced down slope by sliding, flowing or falling. There are no known landslides near the site, nor is the site in the path of any known or potential landslides.

Geocon does not consider the potential for a landslide to be a hazard to the Project. The Project would have no impact with respect to landslides.
b) Erosion or Loss of Topsoil
Significance Criteria: The Project would result in a significant environmental impact if it were to result in substantial soil erosion or in the loss of topsoil.

Erosion of topsoil can result from grading and site preparation activities as well as a result of improper landscaping design. The Project assumes grading the entire site and cutting up to 40 ft below grade for parking and back-of-house uses. Off hauled soil, if not properly packed and covered, can migrate off site. A prescribed amount of soil watering during construction activities keeps a site moist enough to reduce the potential for dust to be created and soil to be tracked off site, in addition to many other measures required to reduce erosion impacts.

In absence of the NPDES C-3 requirements enforced by the City as a condition of building and grading permit issuance the Project would have a potential to increase erosion during construction. The NPDES requirements are enforced by the City’s Engineering Division to reduce impacts associated with soil erosion and water pollution during both construction and operation of projects to less than significant.

These requirements are described in detail in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality and in Chapter 1, Section 5.
9 Geocon’s evaluation incorporated an earthquake moment magnitude (Mw) of 7.9 and a groundwater depth of 5 feet. The software applied the methodology of Boulanger and Idriss (2014) to the CPT data to evaluate liquefaction potential and estimate resultant settlements. Geocon implemented a depth weighting factor proposed by Cetin (2009) to estimate postliquefaction settlement at the site. The Geocon analysis also considered the potential for cyclic softening in clayey soil.

Geocon used a ground motion/Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) of 1.0g for their analysis based on 2019 CBC seismic design criteria.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐61 Soil erosion can occur after construction as a result of an improperly designed landscape and irrigation plan. As noted in Chapter 2, Project Description the Project proposes:

1. Limiting irrigation between 3:00 AM and two hours after sunrise.

2. Drip irrigation with rain sensors.

3. Drought tolerant landscaping.

4. Bioswale design embedded in planting areas.

The final landscape plan is required to be reviewed by Planning and Parks and Recreation staff as part of the building permit issuance. The City’s review and approval process ensures sustainable measures are incorporated into the as-built environment.

Erosion control measures are required as a matter of law during site preparation, grading, construction and a period of time until landscaping takes hold, and as a result off site erosion impacts are considered to be less than significant. The landscape plan proposes measures to reduce off site erosion to less than significant. The City’s review and approval process ensures sustainable measures are incorporated into construction and as-built environments. Off-site erosion is considered less than significant. c and d) Geologic Instability, Expansive Soils, Lateral Spreading, Subsidence, or Collapse.

A significant environmental impact would occur if a project was not engineered to reduce impacts associated with substantial risks to life or property to a less than significant level.

Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.

Soils containing clay are considered expansive. Clay containing coarse-grained particles, such as cobbles, pebbles, and sands, may also be expansive depending upon the percentage and type of clay minerals present in its fine content. Artificial fill can be considered expansive for the same reasons. Expansive soils can become unstable in a seismic event.

The site contains loose undocumented fill to 12 ft bgl, Bay Mud, a highly plastic soil, to 15 ft bgl and medium to stiff and sandy clays to 93 ft bgl. The depth of cut and removal of soils would occur up to 40 ft bgl. Some but not all expansive soils would be removed. If not engineered properly the Project could result in a significant impact with respect to expansive soils. Implementation of Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure 1 would reduce this impact to less than significant.

Geologic Instability: Geocon conducted soil testing for minimum resistivity of utilities buried in normal portland cement, to resist corrosion from phenyl groups (benzene, tripenylmethane) (pH), chloride, and water-soluble sulfur monoxide (SO), an inorganic compound only found in a dilute gas phase. Failure of cement encased structures or utilities resulting from corrosion could result in site instability.

Geology and Soils Table 3 below summarizes the results of Geocon’s corrosivity testing. The California Geologic Society, Caltrans and the construction industry considers a site corrosive to foundation elements if one or more of the following conditions exists for the representative soil samples at the site (https://corrosion-doctors.org/Corrosion-Kinetics/Ohmic-drop-soil.htm:, accessed June 23, 2022).10
10 Table modified by Knapp to incorporate ‘Constituent Threshold’.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐62 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST  The pH is equal to or less than 5.5
 Chloride concentration is equal to or greater than 500 parts per million (ppm) or 0.05%  Sulfate concentration is equal to or greater than 1,500 ppm (0.15%)  Resistivity (ohm-cm) less than 20,000 oh-cm
GEOLOGY AND SOILS TABLE 3

SUMMARY OF SOIL TESTING AND CORROSION PARAMETERS
Boring No.
(sample depth
in ft)
Soil Type
(USCS
Classification)
Resistivity
(ohm-cm)
pH Chloride Sulfate
(ppm)
Constituent Threshold Less than 20,000
Equal or
greater than

5.5 Equal to or
greater than
500 ppm
Equal to or
greater than
1,500 ppm
B1 (0-5) SAND with clays
and gravels (SP) 3,900 8.5 50 <10
B2 (0-5) Sandy SILT with
gravels (ML) 2,000 8.2 96 190
B3 (1-5) Gravelly Sand with
clay (SC) 3,600 9.4 56 110
B4 (9.5) Gravelly SAND
with clay (SC) 3,200 6.5 56 140
Source: California Geological Society and Geocon, appearing in Appendix B ‘Laboratory Testing’, (Geocon April 2022) According to Geocon (email from Shane Rodaker, Vice President, Geocon to Adam Cashner, Senior Vice President PH3 RE, June 24, 2022)
Soil resistivity is the measure of the soil’s ability to transmit electric current. Corrosion of buried ferrous metal is proportional to the resistivity of the soil. A lower resistivity indicates a higher propensity for transmitting electric currents that can cause corrosion of buried ferrous metal items.

In general, the higher the resistivity, the lower the rate for corrosion. Per Caltrans Corrosion Guidelines (Caltrans 2018), resistivity serves as an indicator parameter for the possible presence of soluble salts and it is not included as a parameter to define a corrosive area for structures. A minimum resistivity value for soil less than 1,100 ohm-cm may indicate the presence of high quantities of soluble salts and a higher propensity for corrosion. Based on the laboratory minimum resistivity test results and Caltrans criteria, soil at the locations tested does not have a higher propensity for corrosion.