HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-05-14 e-packet
PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting Council
business, we proceed as follows:
The regular meetings of the City Council are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at
7:00 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Council Chambers, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco,
California.
The City Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes
reading an item, it will be ready for Council action.
KARYL MATSUMOTO
Mayor
RICHARD GARBARINO
Vice Mayor
MARK ADDIEGO
Councilman
PRADEEP GUPTA
Councilman
LIZA NORMANDY
Councilwoman
FRANK RISSO
City Treasurer
KRISTA MARTINELLI
City Clerk
MIKE FUTRELL
City Manager
STEVEN T. MATTAS
City Attorney
PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES AND PAGERS
HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING IMPAIRED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
In accordance with California Government Code Section 54957.5, any writing or document that is a public record, relates to an open
session agenda item, and is distributed less than 72 hours prior to a regular meeting will be made available for public inspection in the
City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall. If, however, the document or writing is not distributed until the regular meeting to which it
relates, then the document or writing will be made available to the public at the location of the meeting, as listed on this agenda. The
address of City Hall is 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080.
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
REGULAR MEETING
MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
33 ARROYO DRIVE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2014
7:00 P.M.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 14, 2014
AGENDA PAGE 2
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
AGENDA REVIEW
PRESENTATIONS
Proclamation recognizing May 18- 24 as National Public Works Week accepted by Brian
McMinn, Director of Public Works.
Proclamation recognizing May 18- 24 as Emergency Medical Services Week accepted by
Travis Nuckolls, Deputy Fire Chief.
Presentation on upcoming gas line work in South San Francisco presented by Scott Hart
of PG&E.
Presentation on Centennial Way enforcement action given by Deputy Chief Mike
Brosnan.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
For those wishing to address the City Council on any Agenda or non-agendized item, please complete a Speaker
Card located at the entrance to the Council Chamber’s and submit it to the City Clerk. Please be sure to indicate
the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public comment. California law prevents the City
Council from taking action on any item not on the Agenda (except in emergency circumstances). Your question or
problem may be referred to staff for investigation and/or action where appropriate or the matter may be placed on a
future Agenda for more comprehensive action or a report. When your name is called, please come to the podium,
state your name and address (optional) for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES
PER SPEAKER. Thank you for your cooperation.
COUNCIL COMMENTS/REQUESTS
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Motion to approve City Council minutes for the meeting of April 23, 2014.
2. Motion confirming payment registers for May 14, 2014.
3. Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an addendum to the agreement with
High Line Corporation in order to update the Oracle license and related software support
and maintenance, and amending the Information Technology Fund Budget by $29,950.
(Doug Hollis, Director of Information Technology)
4. Motion to confirm Mayor's appointment of Billy Gross to the South San Francisco
Oversight Board. (Susy Kalkin, City Planner)
5. Resolution amending the salary schedule effective May 14, 2014 by assigning a salary
range for Payroll Administrator and Senior Information Systems Administrator job
classifications in the Mid-management bargaining unit and Supervising Police Records
Specialist job classification in the Police Association bargaining unit. (Mich Mercado,
Interim Human Resources Manager)
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 14, 2014
AGENDA PAGE 3
6. Resolution amending Personnel Rules and Regulations Section 4.01 to provide the City
Manager with the authority to amend job descriptions for existing positions and to reflect
the changes made pursuant to City Ordinance No. 1447-2011 which provides the City
Manager with the authority to maintain the listing of the city's job classifications. (Mich
Mercado, Interim Human Resources Manager)
7. Resolution authorizing the filing of two Active Transportation (ATP) grant applications
for bicycling improvements within the City of South San Francisco for a total project cost
of $2,475,000 and committing up to $284,000 in matching funds to complete the
improvements. (Brian McMinn, Director of Public Works)
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
8. Resolution confirming South San Francisco Scavenger Company rate increase for Fiscal
Year 2014-2015. (Joe Martin, Senior Financial Analyst)
9. Motion to accept Housing Element Annual Progress Report. (Catherine Barber, Senior
Planner)
10. Discussion regarding regulation of check cashing businesses and payday lenders; and
consideration of Youth Leadership Institute Resolution regarding payday lending and
check cashing businesses. (Tony Rozzi, Associate Planner)
11. Motion to appoint Paul Formosa, Buenaflor Nicholas, and Ray Yoschak to the respective
Business/Resident Representative seats on the Conference Center Authority Board
effective May 14, 2014 with term expiration dates of March 27, 2018; to appoint Linda
Parenti to the Housing Authority effective May 14, 2014 with a term expiration date of
March 31, 2018; and to appoint Melinda Murillo to the Housing Authority Tenant
Commission effective May 14, 2014 with a term expiration date of March 31, 2015.
(Anna Brown, Deputy City Clerk)
PUBLIC HEARING
12. Appeal of Planning Commission's Condition of Approval C.III, related to the imposition
of East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee, included as part of the approval of the Park SFO
Expansion project at 195 North Access Road in the Mixed Industrial (MI) Zone District,
in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.570.” (Catherine Barber, Senior Planner)
LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS
13. Adoption of an Interim Urgency Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco making
findings and establishing a moratorium on the issuance of use permits, building permits ,
or any other applicable entitlement for (1) Automobile/Vehicle Rental uses, including Car
Sharing uses, city-wide and (2) Private Parking uses in designated zones, west of US
Highway 101. (Billy Gross, Senior Planner)
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL – COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
195 N. ACCESS ROAD -PARKS Fa APPEAL
MAY 14,2014
PAGE20F5
The parking structure expansion has been designed to match the existing structure in tenns of materials,
architecture and height. The proposed structure and the existing structure would be connected on all
levels so that the proposed expansion and the existing structure would function as one facility upon
completion of construction. Consistent with the existing garage, the maxhnum height of the new
structure, including the light poles on the roof level would be 100 feet. The construction of the parking
structure expansion is expected to take approximately 16 months.
The Planning Commission approved the application for the proposed expansion on March 6, 2014. The
Project approval included a condition of approval that requires the payment of the applicable East of 101
Traffic Impact Fee totaling $286,874.90. The East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee was imposed in accordance
with the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee, established by Council Resolution 84-2007.
Traffic Impact Fee Background-Overview
The City first adopted the Traffic Impact Fee Study for the East of 101 Area in 2001 in order to
implement General Plan policies directing that new development within the East of 101 Area be
required to pay its fair share toward upgrades to existing transportation facilities and construction of new
transportation facilities needed to accommodate new growth in the East of 101 Area. The Study includes
an extensive list of improvements to be funded through the fee (Transportation Improvement Plan
"TIP"). The underlying analysis and fee structure were subsequently updated by the City Council in
2005 and 2007.
The resolution adopting the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee states that the fee shall be charged and paid
for each non-residential development, including commercial, hotel and office/research and development
projects upon issuance of the building permit. The Park SFO expansion is considered a "commercial"
land use within the terms of the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee. The 2007 Traffic Impact Fee Study
defines "commercial" as follows:
Appeal
Any development constructed or to be constructed on land having a General Plan land use
designation or zoning designation for facilities for the purchase or sale of commodities or
services andlor the sales, servicing, installation, or repair of such commodities or services and
other space uses incidental to these activities. Commercial land uses include, but are not limited
to: apparel and clothing stores; auto dealers and mans, auto accessories stores; banks and savings
and loans; beauty salon; bookstores, discount stores and centers; dry cleaners; drug stores; eating
and drinking establishments; furniture stores and outlets; general merchandise stores; hardware
stores; home furnishings and improvement centers; hotels and motels; laundromats; liquor stores;
restaurants; service stations; shopping centers; supermarkets; and theaters. "Commercial"
includes the Commercial land use designation in the General Plan.
Applicant Robert Simms ("Appellant") appealed the Planning Commission decision regarding the
imposition of the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee, condition C.UI as applied to the Project. Outlined
below is a summary of the Appellant's arguments as well as staffs responses (in italics):
1. The East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee should not apply to Park SFO business since this operation
does not have a traffic impact on the designated East of 101 Area (see attached map);
195 N. ACCESS ROAD -PARKSFO APPEAL
MAY 14,2014
PAGE 3 OF 5
2. The Project site is located at the end of North Access Road. The 1-380 exit leads directly to
Project site; almost all of the Park SFO customers come from this direction;
Response to 1 & 2: As established by the implementing City Council Resolution, the East of 101
Traffic Impact Fee applies to all non-residential development, including commercial, hotel and
office/R&D projects located in the East of 101 Planning Sub-Area, as identified in the City's
General Plan; the project site is clearly located within this area.
The Resolution establishes that "the method of al/ocating of the fee set forth in this Resolution to
a particular development bears a fair relationship and is roughly proportional to each
development's burden on and benefits fi-om the improvements to be funded by such fee, because
such fee is calculated based on the number of trips each particular development will generate. "
The traffic surveys show that all shuttle busses and 85 to 90% of autos going to Park SFO come
from 1-380. For outbound traffic, all shuttle busses go down to S. Airport Boulevard and 25 to
45% of the autos go down to S. Airport Boulevard, with 25% during the PMpeak hour and 45%
during the AM peak hour. While overall, inbound and outbound combined, the majority of new
Park SFO traffic will use 1-380 rather than S. Airport Boulevard for access, the fee is not
otherwise based on any other geographic criteria -there is no differentiation in fee based on
how far a property is from a freeway ramp. So, while many of the customers may use the 1-380
access, many trips are still likely to use other City streets when entering and exiting the project
site. However, overall the Project will contribute new vehicle trips to the circulation system,
thereby contributing to the need for the transportation improvements identified in the East of 1 01
TIP, the nearest improvements are to the 101 northbound hook ramps and South Airport
1 Boulevard (#24) .
3. Resolution 84-2007, Section 6, provides exemptions for certain businesses. Park SFO is not
named, but is similar to the exempted businesses.
Resolution 84-2007, which implements the current East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee, includes
exemptions and reductions of the fees for certain developments that serve existing and new
commercial and office/R&D uses in the East of 101 Area. These developments include small
restaurants, dry cleaners and child care facilities due to the fact that they do not generate new
vehicles trips or would only generate a very few new vehicle trips because th e developments
would be exclusively or nearly entirely frequented by employees working in the East of 101 Area.
These trips are generally referred to as "pass-by trips" or "linked-in trips", meaning they are
not a true "destination" trip or trips directly to Park SFo. Section 6 of Resolution 84-2007
allows the Chief Planner, in consultation with the City Engineer, to exempt land uses from this
fee that would not generate any new vehicle trips, but rather only contribute to "/inked-in" trips.
In addition, Resolution 84-2007 does give the Chief Planner, in consultation with the City
Engineer, the ability to reduce the fee to be paid by a particular development, proportional to the
new vehicle trips generated by the development, for any new land use that would only generate
minimal new vehicle trips. The Resolution provides specific details on the type of projects for
1 MUlliFillancial-July 19, 2007, Appendix A, No. 21,
195 N. ACCESS ROAD -PARKSFO APPEAL
MAY 14,2014
PAGE40F5
which the exemptions would apply: "The types of development to which such an exception or
reduction may be applied are limited to the following:
a. Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing non-residential structure that has
been destroyed or demolished; provided that, the building permit for reconstruction is
obtained within one year after the building was destroyed or demolished, unless the
replacement or reconstruction increase the square footage of the structure by 50
percent or more.
b. Any "Child Care Facility" as that term is defined in this Resolution.
c. Any "Commercial, Employee-Serving Amenities" as that term is defined in this
Resolution. "
The Park SFO project does not fall under any of the exempted categories listed above, as these
trips are destination trips -the customer's destination is the parking facility. The exemptions are
intended for uses that involve quickly dropping off or picking something up along the way to
another destination in the East of 101 Area. Based on the authority established in Resolution 84-
2007, the Project does not meet the requirements to be exempt from payment of the East of 101
Traffic Impact fee. Further, the Resolution does not give City staff with the discretion to exempt
the Park SFO projectfrom the East of 101 Traffic Impactfee.
4. Resolution 84-2007, Section 11, states that the City may conduct subsequent analysis and
revisions of the Fee to determine that the Fee amounts are reasonably related to the impacts of
the development within the City.
As indicated above, the City has periodically reviewed and updated the underlying analysis and
fee structure for the East of 101 Area (updates in 2005 and 2007), and includes an annuaf
adjustment tied to the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index. The traffic fee is
based on peak hour trip generation, so each new peak hour trip is assessed a set fee. The traffic
study prepared specifically for this project included trip generation projections and that is what
was used as the basis for the subject fee calculation.
5. The proposed project provides a significant amount of parking tax revenue to the City, currently
approximately $700,000 annually, anticipated to rise to $1,200,000 with the expansion, and will
provide additional jobs as well .
According to City records, staff has confirmed that the current Park SFO operation paid
$692,000 in parking tax to the City for fiscal year 2012-2013, and is estimated to pay
approximately $716,000 for fiscal year 2013-2014; consistent with the appellant's estimated
parking tax of $700,000 annually. Payment of parking tax does not impact the City's ability to
waive the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee.
6. Resolution 84-2007, Section 7, allows credit for replacement of existing uses so that the impact
fee is based on the net increase.
The East of 101 Traffic Impact Fees that were usedfor the Park SFO expansion are based on the
July 2007 adopted fees, and have been acijusted to reflect the October 2013 ENR Construction
Cost Index, as required by Resolution 84-2007. Staff used the number of new peak PM trips that
would be generated by the Park SFO expansion based on the traffic study data provided in the
Attachments:
A. Draft Resolution
o Draft City Council Findings of Approval
o Adopted Conditions of Approval (as approved by the Planning Commission March 6, 2014)
B. Appeal Letter and supporting statement-Robert Simms, March 17,2014
C. Planning Commission, meeting of March 6, 2014
o Fee Objection Letter, November 7, 2013
o Staff Report with attachments
o Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, 195 N. Access Road, prepared by Allison
Knapp Consulting, September 9,2013 (hard copy to Council only)-link to document at:
http://www.ssf.netIDocumentCenterNiew/5157
o Appendix Excerpt-CTG, Traffic Study for Park SFO 9/12/l3
o PC Minutes, March 6, 2014
D. City Council Staff Report for East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee-July 25,2007
E. Traffic Study Fee Impact Update for East of 101 Area, Munifinancial-July 19,2007
F. Resolution 84-2007-adopting East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Update
G. East of 101 Map
H. Project plans, dated May 14, 2014
MF /PO/SM/SK/cb
ATTACHMENT A
DRAFT RESOLUTION
(Draft City Council Findings of Approval & Adopted Conditions of Approval (as approved by
Planning Commission March 6, 2014)
-1-
RESOLUTION NO. __ _
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION; DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF PROJECT P12-0048,
INCLUDING UPM12-0003, DR12-0022 AND ND12-0003, BASED ON THE
ATTACHED FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE · ATTACHED
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO
CONDITION OF APPROV ~L C.III
WHEREAS, Robert E. Simms ("Applicant") submitted an application requesting approval of a Use
Permit Modification (UPMI2-0003), Design Review (DRI2-00022) and Negative Declaration (ND 12-0003) to
allow expansion of the existing parking facility with the construction of a seven-level parking structure, 501,424
square feet, adding 1,531 additional parking spaces, at 195 N. Access Road, in South San Francisco, in the
Mixed Industrial (M!) Zoning District ("Project"); and
WHEREAS, on March 6, 2014 the South San Francisco Planning Commission ("Planning
Commission") held a public hearing and approved Project P12-0048, including Use Permit ,Modification
UPMI2-0003, Design Review DR12-0022 and a Mitigated Negative DecIaration NDI2-0003, based on
findings and subject to conditions of approval; and
WHEREAS, on March 17, 2014, Robert E. Simms ( "Appellant"), submitted a timely letter of appeal
challenging Condition of Approval c.m, related to the imposition of the East of 1 01 Traffic Impact Fee on the
Proj ect; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, consistent with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (Public Resources Code, §§ 21000, et seq., ("CEQA"» and CEQ A Guidelines, analyzed the potential
environmental impacts of the Project, and by this resolution, exercises their independent judgment regarding the
Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it, which
includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq.
("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations § 15000, et seq.; the South San
Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the Project
application; all site plans, all reports, minutes, public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's
duly noticed March 6, 2014 meeting, and Planning Commission deliberations; and all reports, minutes, public
testimony submitted as part of the City Council's duly noticed May 14, 2014 meeting, and City Council
deliberations; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080( e) and §21 082.2),
the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby adopts the Initial StudylMitigated Negative
Declaration (ISIMND) for the Project, based on the findings set forth in the ISIMND and as set forth in the
March 6, 2014 Planning Commission staff report.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based on the Findings of Approval, attached as Exhibit A to this
Resolution, and subject to the Conditions of Approval, attached as Exhibit B to this Resolution, the City
Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby denies the appeal, upholds the Planning Commission's
-2-
decision, and approves application P12-0048, including UPM12-0003, DR12-0022, and ND12-0003.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its
passage and adoption.
* * * * * *
AYES: __________________________________________ ~--~--------
NOES: ____________________________________________________ __
ABSTArn: __________________________________________________ __
ABSENT: __________________________________________________ ___
ATTEST:
City Clerk
As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing Resolution this
14th day of May, 2014 .
Karyl Matsumoto, Mayor
-3-
EXIDBITA
CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS OF APPROVAL
-4-
DRAFT CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS OF APPROVAL
AP14-0001 (P12-0048: UPM12-0003: DR12-0022: ND12-0003)
195 N. ACCESS ROAD
(May 4,2014)
As required by the Use Pennit Procedures (SSFMC Section 20.490), the following findings are made in support
of a Use Pennit Modification to allow an expansion of an existing seven-level parking structure, adding
approximately 501,000 square feet (1 ,531 spaces), to the Park SFO parking facility at 195 North Access Road in
the Mixed Industrial (MI) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.11 0,20.460,20.480,20.490
& 20.510, based on public testimony and materials submitted to the South San Francisco Planning Commission
which include, but are not limited to: Application materials ("Project Narrative" and "Project Plans") prepared
by the applicant, dated submitted June 14,2012 and supplemented on October 30, 2013; Minutes of the Design
Review Board dated July 17,2012; Planning Commission staff report and minutes dated March 6, 2014; and
Planning Commission meeting of March 6, 2014, and City Council staff report and meeting of May 14, 2014.
Use Permit Findings
A. The proposed airport parking facility expansion is consistent with the South San Francisco General
Plan, which designates this site for Mixed Industrial uses, because the proposed use is a general service!
service commercial use, and service commercial uses are specifically listed as allowed land uses under
the Mixed Industrial designation.
B. The proposed Project is consistent with the East of 101 Area Plan and design principles and policies
identified in Policy DE-57, because the Project has been designed to meet the standards set forth for
streets cape, landscape buffers, building orientation and massing, lighting, building height, design and
materials. The site currently has perimeter landscaping that will be retained and additional landscaping
will be added as part of the expansion.
C. The proposed Project will not be adverse to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the
community, nor detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements. The proposed Project is for an
expansion to an existing facility that is currently in operation without issue. The use is consistent with
the zoning and General Plan in providing a service use. Any anticipated environmental impacts can be
mitigated to a level that is less than significant with the implementation of the proposed mitigation
measures. In addition, Staffhas incorporateq. specific conditions under which the proposed use will be
maintained and operated, to reduce any likelihood that the use will produce adverse safety or land use
impacts on the surrounding area.
D. The proposed airport parking facility expansion use complies with East of 101 Plan Area design
standards. The expansion has been designed to match the existing structure and is consistent with the
standards for this area. The Project meets all of the applicable zoning district standards with the
exception of SSFMC 20.330.004(L)(8), which requires a minimum of a 24-inch perimeter of
landscaping around rooftop parking lots. The applicant is seeking a Waiver and Modification to this
standard, and based on the findings contained herein, the Waiver is warranted.
-5-
E. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed activity would be compatible
with the existing and reasonably foreseeable future land uses in the vicinity because the
proposed use is an expansion of an existing use that has operated successfully at this site for twelve (12)
years. The expansion will not alter the operating characteristics and will be compatible with the existing
use serving the Airport. The parking facility is a use that is compatible with the surrounding land uses
and is consistent with the zoning and General Plan designation for the area.
F. The site is physically suitable for the type, density, and intensity of use being proposed, including
access, utilities, and the absence of physical constraints, in that the existing access to the site will remain
the same with the proposed Project. The intensity of the use will be increasing with the additional
parking spaces being added that will provide approximately 65% more spaces than the current facility.
The site is physically suitable for the type and intensity. of the proposed usein that it is located in close
proximity to San Francisco International Airport, which is only 20.0. feet south of the Project site. In
addition, given the location of the subject property adjacent to tank farms and the City's Wastewater
Treatment Plant, the proposed airport parking facility is an appropriate land use to be located next to
such uses.
G. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS/MND), SCH# 20.130920.20., was prepared and distributed to the State Clearinghouse and
circulated for a 30-day public review on September 12, 20. 13. While the docwnent identified potentially
significant environmental impacts from the Project for biological resources, geology & sOlIs, hazards &
hazardous materials and noise, all of the identified potential impacts would be reduced to a less than
significant level with the recommended mitigation measures.
Waiver and Modification Findings
As required by South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20..510. (Waivers and Modifications) the
following findings are made in support of a waiver and modification to the requirements of SSFMC Section
20.33D.DlO(L)(8) pertaining to parking garage rooftop planting:
A. The waiver or modification is necessary due to the physical characteristics of the property and the
proposed use or structure or other circumstances, including, but not limited to, topography, noise
exposure, irregular property boundaries, or other unusual circumstance, in that the requirement for
planters around the perimeter of the rooftop parking level is in conflict with the proposed installation of
solar panels due to the space requirements needed for the panels and parking efficiency, in addition to
the shading that would result from the panels.
B. There are no alternatives to the requested waiver or modification that could provide an equivalent level
of benefit to the applicant with less potential detriment to surrounding owners and occupants or to the
general public because when the previous planters were installed on the existing Park SFO facility there
were significant problems to the users of the facility. The planters and their associated irrigation systems
were very difficult to maintain properly and the continual leaking caused damage to the facility itself
and to cars parked at the facility which resulted in claims against the facility. Therefore, given that the
applicant will be installing solar panels on the facility in the future, which would conflict with this
requirement, the granting of the requested waiver and modification would provide an overall
environmental benefit.
C. The granting of the requested waiver or modification for relief of the rooftop landscape requirement
would not be detrimental to the health or safety of the public or the occupants of the property or result in
-6-
a change in land use or density that would be inconsistent with the requirements of this title. The
applicant has implemented, and is committed to implement, several sustainability measures that
demonstrate their commitment to building and operating an environmentally friendly facility. These
measures include the use ofCNG powered shuttle buses, use of greywater for irrigation and installation
of a solar power generating system on the top level of the existing facility, as well as the installation of
solar panels on the expanded parking facility in the future.
-7-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
UPM12-0003, DR12-0022 & ND12-0003
195 N. ACCESS ROAD
(As approved by the Planning Commission on March 6, 2014)
A) Planning Division requirements shall be as follows:
1. The applicant shall comply with the Planning Divisions standard Conditions and Limitations for
Commercial, Industrial, Mixed-Use and Multi-Family.Residential Projects dated February 2013 ..
2. No signs are included in this pennit application. Prior to installation of any signage, the
applicant shall secure an appropriate sign permit from the City.
3. The project shall be constructed in a manner in substantial conformity with the plans submitted
to the City and dated October 30,2013.
4. If any new fencing is proposed, the applicant shall submit plans to the Chief Planner for review
and approval showing the location and proposed design prior to submittal for building pennit.
5. The applicant shall create a planting trench in the landscape connecting each row of Poplar trees,
with a sub drain line at the bottom of the trench, that shall connect to a nearby stonn drain line; the
sub drain line will allow the irrigation and winter rains to flush the salt water from planting soil.. The
applcant shall plant the rootball of the Poplar trees above the mean high tide elevation, and the
planting trench shall be backfilled using fast draining loamy sand soil.
(Planning Division contact: Catherine Barber 650-877-8535)
B) Fire Department requirements shall be as follows:
1. Install fire sprinkler system per NFP A 13/SSFFD requirements under separate fire plan check and
pennit for overhead and underground.
2. Fire sprinkler system shall be central station monitored per California Fire Code section 1003.3.
3. Install a standpipe system per NFPA 14/SSFFD requirements under separate fire plan check and
permit.
4. Install exterior listed hom/strobe alarm device, not a bell.
5. Elevators shall not contain shunt-trips.
6. At least one elevator shall be sized for a gurney the minimum size shall be in accordance with the
CFC .
7. Fire alarm plans shall be provided per NFPA 72 and the City of South San Francisco Municipal
Code.
-8-
8. Provide fire extinguishers throughout the building.
9. All Non parking space curbs to be painted red to local Fire Code Specifications
10. Access road shall have all weather driving capabilities and support the imposed load of 75,000
pounds.
11. Road gradient and vehicle turning widths shall not exceed maximum allowed by engineering
department.
12. Provide fire hydrants; location and number to be determined.
13. Provide fire hydrants with an average spacing of 400 feet between hydrants.
14. The fire hydrants shall have a minimum fire flow of 3000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure for
duration of 4 hours.
15. All buildings shall proyide premise identification in accordance with SSF municipal code section
15.24.100.
16. Provide Knox key box for each building with access keys to entry doors, electrical/mechanical
rooms, elevators, and others to be determined.
17. The minimum road width is 20 feet per the California Fire Code.
18. Local Fire Code and vehicle specifications and templates available at
http://www.ssf.netldepts/fire/prevention/fire permits.asp
19. All buildings shall have Emergency Responder Radio Coverage throughout in compliance with
Section 510 of the California Fire Code.
(Fire Department contact: Luis Da Silva, Fire Marshal 650-829-6645)
C) Engineering Division requirements shall be as follows:
I. STANDARD CONDITIONS
The owner/applicant shall comply with the applicable conditions of approval for commercial projects,
as detailed in the Engineering Division's "Standard Conditions for Commercial and Industrial
Developments", contained in our "Standard Development Conditions" booklet, dated January 1998.
This booklet is available at no cost to the applicant from the Engineering Division.
-9-
II. SPECIAL CONDITIONS
a. A grading pennit shall be obtained from the Engineering Division. The owner/applicant will be
responsible for paying for all fees, bonds, plan checking and all associated fees for the grading
permit. The owner/applicant will also place a cash deposit of$30,000 to pay for all onsite, SWPPP
compliance, grading compliance and dust control inspections.
b. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a geotechnical report shall be submitted, reviewed and
approved by the Engineering Division: The owner/applicant .shall place a $5,000 cash deposit with
the City for the peer review of the Geotechnical Report.
c. The owner/applicant shall remove and replace any broken sidewalk fronting the project. The new
sidewalk shall comply with the City standard detail and shall provide Caltrans standard handicap
ramps. All work shall be done at no cost to the City.
d. The drive aisles onsite shall be a minimum of25' wide. There are areas on the plan where the drive
aisles are less than 25' wide. There is an area which the drive aisle is 20' and should be considered
to be one-way, with proper striping and signage to be installed.
e. The owner/applicant shall incorporate bio-grassy swales and other Best Management Practices as
storm water measures within the project and shall be approved by the Engineering Division and the
Environmental Compliance Manager. The owner/applicant shall submit the stormwater calculations
for review and approval by the Engineering Division.
f. The owner/applicant shall coordinate work with California Water Service for all water utility work.
g. Any light standards installed in the City's right-of-way shall be the standard East of 101 light
fixture. The owner/applicant shall provide the light fixture at no cost to the City.
h. The owner/applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit for any work performed in the City's
right-of-way and pay all associated fees, deposit and/or bonds. The owner/applicant shall submit an
Engineer's estimate for all work perfonned in the City's right-of-way and place a bond or cash
deposit for said work.
1. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the various fees as
detailed below.
m. EAST OF 101 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES
Pursuant to Resolution No. 84-2007, all development projects located in the East of 101 Area shall
pay the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee. The fee adopted is $4,950 per Peak PM trip and is adjusted
by the latest Construction Cost Index. The adjusted fee is $5,954.85 per trip plus an administrative
fee of2.5%. (The $5,954.85 fee is based on the July 2007 adopted fee of$4,950/trip, escalated to
the Oct. 2013 ENR Construction Cost Index).
Based on the traffic study provided in the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared by Allison
Knapp Consulting dated September 9,2013, the East of 101 Traffic hnpact Fee for the identified 47
-10-
new Peak PM trips generate would be:
Fee Calculation (effective July 2013)
47 new Peak PM trips x $5,954 .85 = $279,877.95 + $6,996.95 (administrative fee) =
$286,874.90
V. SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY STUDY AND IMPACT FEE
The City of South San Francisco has identified the need to investigate the condition and capacity of the
sewer system within the East of 101 Area, downstream oftheparkiilg stnIcture. The.exi.sting .sewer
collection system was originally designed many years ago to accommodate warehouse and industrial use
and is now proposed to accommodate uses, such as offices and biotech facilities, with a much greater
sewage flow. These additional flows, plus groundwater infiltration into the existing sewers, due to
ground settlement and the age of the system, have resulted in pumping and collection capacity
constraints. A study and flow model is proposed to analyze the problem and recommend solutions and
improvements.
The applicant shall pay the East of 101 Sewer Facility Development Impact Fee, as adopted by the
City Council at their meeting of October 23,2002. The adopted fee is $4.25 per gallon of discharge
per day. Based on Metcalf & Eddy, the sewer generation rate of this land use is 2 gals per parking
space.
Fee Calculation (effective July 2013)
2 gals/parking space x 1,529 spaces x $4.25 per gallon = $12,996.50
The sewer contribution shall be due and payable prior to receiving a building permit for each
phase of the development.
Total estimated fees:
East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee
East of 101 Sewer Impact Fee
Total
(Engineering contact: Sam Bautista, 650-829-6652)
D) Police Department requirements shall be as follows:
$ 286,874.90
$ 12,996.50
$ 299,871.40
1. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.48 of the Municipal Code,
"Minimum Building Security Standards" Ordinance revised May 1995. The Police Department
reserves the right to make additional security and safety Gonditions, if necessary, upon receipt of
detailed / revised building plans.
(Police Department contact: Sergeant Scott Campbell (65~) 877-8927
-11-
E) Water Quality Control requirements shall be as follows:
1. Site stormwater treatment must be in conformance with Low Itnpact Development
requirements of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit.
2. A plan showing the location of all storm drains and sanitary sewers must be
submitted.
3. Fire sprinkler test discharge line must be connected to the sanitary sewer.
4. Trash area(s) shall be covered and have a drain(s) that is connected to the sanitary
sewer.
5. The onsite catch basins are to be stenciled with the approved San Mateo Countywide
Stormwater Logo (No Dumping! Flows to Bay).
6. Install a separate water meter for landscaping.
7. Garage floors 1 through 6 drainage must be discharged to an oil/water separator,
properly sized (calculations must be submitted) with minimum liquid capacity of
2000 gallons and it must be plumbed to the sanitary sewer.
8 . The top floor drainage shall be discharged to the storm water system.
9 . Storm water from the entire site must be included in the treatment system design.
(Stormwater treatment systems must be designed to treat stormwater runoff from the
entire site.) Use attached worksheets to determine rainwater harvesting and
infiltration feasibility.
10. Storm water pollution preventions devices are to be installed. Prefer clustering of
structures and pavement; directing roof runoff to vegetated areas; use of micro-
detention, including distributed landscape-based detention; and preservation of open
space. Treatment devices must be sized according Provision C.3.d Numeric Sizing
Criteria for Stormwater Treatment Systems ofNPDES No. CAS612008.
11 . The applicant must submit a signed Operation and Maintenance Information for
Stormwater Treatment Measures form for the stormwater pollution prevention
devices installed.
12. The applicant must submit a signed maintenance agreement for the stormwater
pollution prevention devices installed. Each maintenance agreement will require the
inclusion ofthe following exhibits:
-12-
a. A letter-sized reduced-scale site plan that shows the locations of the treatment
measures that will be subject to the agreement.
b. A legal description of the property.
c. A maintenance plan, including specific long-tenn maintenance tasks and a
schedule. It is recommended that each property owner be required to develop its
own maintenance plan, subject to the municipality's approval. Resources that
may assist property owners in developing their maintenance plans include:
i. The operation manual for any proprietary system purchased by the
property owner.
13. Applicant must complete the C.3 and C.6 Development Review Checklist prior to
issuance of a permit and return to the Technical Services Supervisor at the WQCP.
14. Landscaping shall meet the following conditions related to reduction of pesticide use
on the project site:
a. Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat stonnwater
runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain, and infiltrate runoff. In areas
that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions
and prolonged exposure to water shall be specified.
b. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as
soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds,
rainfall, air movement, patterns ofland use, ecological consistency and plant
interactions to ensure successful establishment.
c. Existing native trees, shnibs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated
into the landscape plan to the maximum extent practicable.
d. Proper maintenance of landscaping, with minimal pesticide use, shall be the
responsibility of the property owner.
e. Integrated pest management (IPM) principles and techniques shall be encouraged
as part of the landscaping design to the maximum extent practicable. Examples of
IPM principles and techniques include:
i. Select plants that are well adapted to soil conditions at the site.
ii. Select plants that are well adapted to sun and shade conditions at the site.
In making these selections, consider future conditions when plants reach
maturity, as well as seasonal changes.
iii. Provide irrigation appropriate to the water requirements of the selected
plants.
IV. Select pest-resistant and disease-resistant plants.
-13-
v. Plant a diversity of species to prevent a potential pest infestation from
affecting the entire landscaping plan.
vi. Use "insectary" plantS in the landscaping to attract and keep beneficial
insects.
15. Source control measures must include:
• Landscaping that minimizes irrigation and runoff, promotes surface infiltration
where possible, minimizes the use of pesticides and fertilizers, and incorporate
appropriate sustainable landscaping practices and programs such as Bay-
Friendly Landscaping.
• Appropriate covers, drains, and storage precautions for outdoor material
storage areas, loading docks, repair/maintenance bays, and fueling areas.
• Covered trash, food waste, and compactor enclosures.
• Plumbing of the following discharges to the sanitary sewer, subject to the local
sanitary sewer agency's authority and standards:
• Dumpster drips from covered trash and food compactor enclosures.
• Discharges from outdoor covered wash areas for vehicles, equipment, and
accessones.
16. A construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan must be submitted and
approved prior to the issuance of a pennit.
17. A copy of the NOI filed with the state must be submitted to the WQCP.
18. Plans must include location of concrete wash out area and location of
entrance/outlet of tire wash.
19. A grading and drainage plan must be submitted.
20. Must file a Notice of Tennination with the WQCP when the project is completed.
21. Applicant must pay sewer connection fee at a later time based on anticipated flow,
BOD and TSS calculations.
(Water Quality Control contact: Rob Lecel at (650) 877-8555)
F) San Mateo County Department of Public Works, Flood Control District requirements
shall be as follows:
1. Design plans and drainage calculations showing existing and future discharge rates
shall be submitted to the Flood Control District for review prior to permit issuance.
-14-
2. Trash management measures shall be incorporated into the design elements of the
stonn drainage system and appurtenances; trash collection devices shall be installed at
stonn drain inlets and shall be maintained by the applicant.
(San Mateo County Department of Public Works, Flood Control District contact: Mark Chow at
(650) 599-1489)
2271922.1
-15-
ATTACHMENT B
APPEAL LETTER AND SUPPORTING STATEMENT-Robert Simms, March 17,2014
-16-
The new ParkSFO development at 195 North Access Road will not have
any traffic impact on the East of 101 streets and intersections incorporated
in the Traffic Impact Fee Study Update East of 101 Area.
ParkSFO is located at 195 North Access at the far eastern entry and exit
of 1380 at North Access Road. This road leads directly to the North
Access Road of the San Francisco International Airport.
Nearly 100% of all autos enter and exit the ParkSFO facility from 1380,
which is connected to 1101 north, and south, and 1280 north and south. I
have attached a copy of our database analysis of 100,000 customers, as
well as, an analysiS of the most recent coupon request for approximately
one month. These analyses show the areas our customers come from.
Again, nearly 100% of our customers come from areas that must be
accessed via 1101 or 1280. I have also attached a photo which shows that
1380 is nearly in our drive way. Any deviation from this route would not be
caused by ParkSFO, but by some other possible destination or business
that the customer might be interested in.
Resolution No. 84-2007, Section 6 provides for some businesses to be
exempt from the impact fee, or for a reduction of the fee. However,
section 6 restricts the exemption or reduction to several specifically named
businesses/identified by Chief Planner and City Engineer as generating
minimal new vehicle trips. A parking garage is not identified as a business
that maybe exempt. Though not specifically named, ParkSFO should be
exempt, much like the named businesses, as ParkSFO will not have a
traffic impact on the intersections and streets in East of 101 areas.
Resolution No~ 84-2007, Section 11 Subsequent Analysis and Revision of
the Fee. The section states "The City may continue to conduct further
study and analysis to determine whether the Fee should be revised.
When additional information is available, the City Council may review the
Fee to determine that the Fee amounts are reasonably related to the
impact of the Development within the City. In the case of the new
ParkSFO structure there is no traffic impact on east of 101 streets and
Intersections, and the fee is, therefore, unreasonable.
We currently generate approximately $700,000 in parking tax revenue to
the City and when the addition is complete we will generate more than
$1,200,000 yearly in parking tax revenue to the City of South San
Francisco. This project will have tax benefits and provide additional jobs
for the City.
-18-
Resolution 84-2007, Section 7 provides for credit for replacement and
existing use so that the impact fee would be based on the net increase in
trip generation. It is true that we are adding 1,500 spaces . but we are also
loosing 500-787 parking spaces on the surface lot that will be replaced by
the structure. Therefore, we should be entitled to some credit.
-19-
Total Coupon Requested March 1 -April 25 16907
East Bay 4415 26.1%
South Bay 3545 21.0%
San Francisco 3525 20.8%
Other 3278 19.4%
Marin 2101 12.4%
ssF 22 0.1%
San Bruno 21 0.1%
Total 16907 100.0%
Mailer Database 99420
East Bay 23358 23.5% .
San Francisco 24359 24.5%
South Bay 21057 21.2%
Other 18571 18.7%
Marin 11057 11.1%
SSF 551 0.6%
San Bruno 467 0.5%
Total 99420 100.0%
-20-
ATTACHMENT C
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 6, 2014
• Fee Objection Letter, November 7, 2013
• Staff Report with attachments
• Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration, including Appendix Excerpt, CTG, Traffic
Study
• PC Minutes, March 6, 2014
-22-
Mr. Steven Mattas, Esq.
Acting City Manager, South San Francisco
November 7, 20l.3
Overpass. Mr. Simms has received some new information that this fee was
erroneously applied and may have already been deleted.
Page 2
However, our main objection is to the traffic impact fees that have been assessed
citing the project will have an Impact on the traffic East of 101.
The traffic impact fees were based on a 2004 Costco application and traffic study.
However, we strongly disagree with this comparison to Costco because unlike
Costco, the parking facility does not generate travel; it simply provides a parking
place for those who have already elected to travel. Furthennore, the location of the
facility (adjacent to the 380 on/off ramp) provides immediate ingress and egress to
280N/S and 101N/S, eliminating any need to drive on the streets East of 101.
Therefore, it" is not possible for the parking facility to have an impact on traffic east of
101.
Additionally, we would also like you to consider that the parkingfadlity pays an 8%
parking tax on the revenues generated by each parking customer; which is not a
negative traffic impact, but a positive impact. The expansion of the facility will
generate over $1M in annual parking taxes to the City of South San Francisco for
many years to come. Consequently, we believe that the additional request for traffic
impact fees is not warranted by the facts or case law in this matter, as the cases are
dear in requiring substantial justification in assessing fees as required by law.
Accordingly, we respectfully request that the City of South San Francisco delete the
overpass contribution fee and the traffic impact fees.
EWS:mlm
cc: Client
cc: Mr. Mark N. Addiego, Council Member
City Council
City of South San Francisco
aty Hall
400 Grand Avenue
South San FranciSCO, CA 94080
-24-
Mr. Steven Mattas, Esq.
Acting City Manager, South San Francisco
November 7, 2013
cc: Mr. Richard Garbarino, Council Member
City Council
City of South San Francisco
City Hall
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
cc: Ms. Susy Kalkin, Chief Planner
Secretary to the Planning Commission
Planning Division
City of South San Francisco
City Hall
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
-25-
Page 2
Staff Report
Subject: 195 N. Access Road
Date: March 6, 2014
Page 2
The site also includes four drydocks extending into the San Francisco Bay. Three of the drydocks
are used for surfacing parking by Park SFO, and one is zoned for Parks and Recreation and used
as a park. The Project site is located within the MI, Mixed Industrial zoning district with the
southernmost drydock located within the PR, Park and Recreation zoning district. However, that
portion of the site would not be changed and is not included as part of this application. The
Project site has a General Plan designation of Mixed Industrial, and is also part of the East of 101
Area Plan.
Prior Entitlements/Approvals
On April 22, 1998 the City Council approved the construction of the airport parking facility at
195 North Access Road. That application included a General Plan Amendment, a Rezoning, and
a Use Permit. The project included a seven-level parking structure totaling 447,048 square feet,
with a total of 1,275 parking spaces as well as 454 surface parking spaces (1,729 spaces in total.)
This facility was constructed and has been in operation since 2001. As part ofthis project the San
Francisco Bay Trail was rerouted around the Project site and the South San Francisco Water
Quality Control Plant which is adjacent to the subject property. At that time, the Applicant also
constructed a 32,000 square foot public park on the southern-most dry dock (zoned Parks and
Recreation), just north of the Bay Trail.
On November 15, 2007 the Planning Commission approved a Use Permit Modification to allow
the expansion of the airport parking facility to add 166 surface parking spaces on the adjacent
City owned property. The approval included a new asphalt parking surface to accommodate the
166 parking spaces along with site improvements including 36 new trees, perimeter landscape
planting and bioswales.
DISCUSSION
Project Description
The applicant is requesting approval of a Use Permit Modification, Design Review, and
Mitigated Negative Declaration to allow expansion of the existing parking facility. The Project
includes the construction of a seven-level parking structure that would be 501,424 square feet
and would add 1,531 additional parking spaces. The new garage would be constructed
immediately north (behind) the existing parking structure and would remove the 166 surface
parking spaces that were approved under the 2007 Use Permit Modification as well as 164
surface spaces from the original 1998 approval, for a total of 330 surface spaces to be removed.
Combined with the existing parking, approval of the use permit modification would permit a
total of 2,806 garage spaces and 290 surface spaces, for a combined total of 3,096 parking spaces
on the site.
The parking structure expansion would be a cast-in-place, post tensioned concrete system and is
a similar to the system used to construct the existing garage. It provides large, open parking areas
unobstructed by columns, which enhances end user convenience and parking layout efficiency.
The expansion has been designed to match the existing structure in terms of materials,
architecture and height. The proposed structure and the existing structure would be connected on
-27-
Staff Report
Subject: 195 N. Access Road
Date: March 6, 2014
Page 3
all levels so that the proposed expansion and the existing structure would function as one facility
upon completion of construction. Consistent with the existing garage, the maximum height of the
new structure, including the light poles on the roof level would be 100 feet. The building itself
would be 80 to 90 feet in height, including the stairwells and elevator. The construction of the
parking structure expansion is expected to take approximately 16 months.
TraffiC/Circulation
The approved use at the Project site is an off-site airport parking facility serving San Francisco
International Airport. The site is accessed along North Access Road from three driveways with
mUltiple points of ingress and egress. The proposed expansion would not change the existing
access and egress from North Access Road.
Sustain ability & LalJdscaping
Currently the airport parking facility offers either self-park or valet parking options. Park SFO
has a fleet of shuttle buses that provide transportation between Park SPO and the Airport. The
shuttle buses run on compressed natural gas (CNG). The facility would continue to operate under
this same protocol.
The applicant has selected landscaping for the Project that includes hardy, salty-soil tolerant
columnar trees to form banks of green along the publicly visible sides of the facility. As part of
the proposed site improvements fifteen (15) new 24-inch box Poplar trees would be planted. The
Poplar trees are proposed due to their scale, shape, hardiness, year-round color change, and their
lack of invasive qualities. It is anticipated that the Poplar trees would reach 25' in height in two
years and eventually grow to 45'.
This past summer a solar power generating system was installed on the roof of the existing Park
SFO facility. This system consists of photovoltaic panels, support structures and associated
electrical components. The system has been sized to provide the maximum generating capacity
allowed under PG&E's net metering program. It is anticipated that the energy generated will be
sufficient to cover 97% of the power usage for the facility.
The Project has been designed to use the latest LED light fixtures both within the garage and on
the upper deck. One of the important features of LED fixtures is the ability to very tightly shape
the 'throw' or 'pattern' of light emitted from them. This results in little to no light trespass and a
large reduction in light pollution. As required by Biology Mitigation #3 in the CEQA document,
all of the new light at the proposed facility is required to use shielded 'night sky rated' fixtures
that will shield and orient light onto the site and prevent off-site illumination and glare into the
adjacent wetland habitat along San Bruno Canal and the former drydocks.
It is anticipated that there will be a growth in the demand and usage of electric vehicles in the
future, therefore the Project has been designed to have the capacity to charge several dozen
vehicles. However, the actual number of stalls would be rolled out incrementally as demand
increases.
-28-
Staff Report
Subject: 195 N. Access Road
Date: March 6, 2014
Page 4
GENERAL PLAN & ZONING CONSISTENCY
The General Plan and zoning analysis only includes the Mixed Industrial designation because the
Project involves only the portion ofthe site that zoned Mixed Industrial, and does not include the
portion that is zoned Parks and Recreation.
General Plan
The General Plan land use designation for the subject property is Mixed Industrial, which allows
for a wide range of manufacturing, industrial processing, general service, warehousing, storage
and distribution, and service commercial uses.
The South San Francisco General Plan designation for Mixed Industrial allows a maximum floor
area of 0.4, with an increase to 0.6 for developments seeking FAR bonuses. However, Figure 2-1
in Section 2.2 includes footnote 1 (which applies to the subject property) which states that
parking structures for non-residential development are excluded from the FAR restrictions.
The subject Property is part of the East of 101 Plan Area. Each of the design principles and
policies from the East of 101 Area Plan that apply to this Project are listed below, along with a
summary of how the Project complies with each policy is provided below:
• Streetscape
Street trees are required to be planted every 50-feet, the Project includes a fifteen new
Poplar trees; staffwill verify that the final building permit plans include these details;
• Footpaths and sidewalks
The Project includes clearly delineated pedestrian walkways and sidewalks;
• Landscape buffers
The existing site has perimeter landscaping that meets this requirement and will be retained
as part of this Project;
• Building orientation
The existing parking structure is oriented toward North Access Road and will not be
altered;
• Massing of walls
The proposed garage expansion does not include blank walls; all elevations are properly
articulated;
• Ughting
All new lighting will be energy efficient and will be shielded to prevent casting light
towards the Bay or off-site;
• Building design and height
The proposed garage expansion was reviewed by the Design Review Board and found to be
consistent with the City's design guidelines. The proposed overall height would be
approximately 100-feet at its highest point, but is not located within the 150-175 foot
airport contour height restriction.
• Building and roof materials;
The proposed garage expansion will include building materials that match the existing
structure, the roof will provide parking as does the existing parking structure; and
• Parking lot landscaping
The proposed Project includes the addition of 24-inch box sized Poplar trees.
-29-
Staff Report
Subject: 195 N. Access Road
Date: March 6, 2014
Page 5
The proposed expansion of the airport parking facility is consistent with the Mixed Industrial use
designation because it is considered a general service and service commercial use, which are
specifically listed as allowed uses. The Project is also consistent with the principles and polices
of the East of 101 Area Plan.
Zoning
As shown below, the proposed Project meets all standards of the City's Zoning Ordinance for the
Mixed Industrial Zone District, with the exception of requirements regarding roof top planters.
Mixed-Industrial Reguired Prol!osed Project
. Setbacks
-Front 20 feet Existing
N/A
-Rear 10 feet, 0 if along MI
district boundary 35 feet
-Interior Side 10 feet, 0 if along MI
district boundary 35 feet
Height 65 feet* 100 feet to top of light fixtures
80-90 feet building -with
stairwells and elevators
Lot Coverage 60% maximum 45%
Floor Area Ratio .40** N/A
Landscaping 10% minimum 12%
• SSFMC 20.110.003(A) IUDlts bUlldmg heIghts east of 101 to the maxImum heIght lImIts pennlsslble under
Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 (150 feet for subject property) .
• :,: South San Francisco General Plan designation for Mixed Industrial excludes FAR restrictions for parking
structures for non-residential development (Figure 2-1 in Section 2.2)
• Waiver and Modification Request
SSFMC 20.330.004(L)(8) requires that uncovered parking on the top level of a parking structure
have rooftop planters with a minimum dimension of 24-inches around the entire perimeter of the
top floor. Planters were installed on the existing Park SFO facility and there were significant
problems. The continual leaking caused damage to the facility itself and to cars parked at the
facility which resulted in claims against the facility. The existing parking structure includes solar
panels. The requirement for planters around the perimeter of the rooftop parking level conflicts
with the installation of solar panels due to the space requirements needed for the panels and
parking efficiency, in addition to the shading that would result from the panels.
Therefore the applicant has requested a waiver from this requirement. SSFMC 20.510.002(C)(8)
allows for waivers and modifications to development standards provided that the Project can
accommodate an environmental technology or design that will substantially enhance the
sustainability of a project over and above standard municipal code requirements. The applicant
-30-
Staff Report
Subject: 195 N. Access Road
Date: March 6,2014
Page 6
plans on adding solar panels to the proposed expanded facility at some point in the future, as
stated in the application materials. Additionally, as described above, substantial landscape
screening shall be installed along the publicly visible elevations of the Project.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
The Design Reyiew Board reviewed the Project at its July 17, 2012 meeting and was pleased
with the overall project, making general comments regarding the landscape. The Board agreed
with the selection of the Poplar trees for the site; however they provided specific direction for the
planting method given the location so close to the mean high tide level. Staff has included the
Design Review Board's comment as a condition of approval.
CEQA
An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ("ISIMND") was prepared in accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The IS/MND was distributed to the State
Clearinghouse and circulated for a 30-day public review on September 12, 2013. The ISIMND
incorporates by reference the 1997 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the original
construction of the Park SFO facility, prepared by Jerry Haag in February 1997. As part of the
preparation of this IS/MND ("2013 IS/MND"), an audit was performed of the 1997 mitigation
measures. The audit identifies measures that are complete and, as appropriate, incorporates
updates to previous measures to be in compliance with current environmental laws and
regulations. New mitigation measures are also identified. The mitigation monitoring and
reporting program is found in Section 3.18 of the 2013 ISIMND. Also, a Geotechnical
Investigation was prepared by Fugro West, which was peer reviewed by Cotton Shires
Associates and incorporated into the 2013 ISIMND. An air quality, hazard risk assessment and
greenhouse gas analysis was also conducted.
In addition a traffic and circulation analysis, Traffic Impact Report, Park SFO, Long Term
Parking Expansion for the City of South San Francisco and Allison Knapp Consulting was
prepared by Mark D. Crane, P.E., dated September 13, 2012. The traffic report evaluated the
circulation and traffic impacts of the proposed Project for the existing-2013 conditions, year
2015 and year 2035, both with and without the proposed Project. The traffic study was
conducted for the Project using 2,833 garage spaces and 361 surfaces spaces, for a total of3,194
parking spaces; an overall increase above the capacity of the existing facility of 1,293 parking
spaces, approximately a 65% increase. Staff notes that the parking space numbers used in the
traffic analysis and the CEQA document vary slightly from the project description detailed above
because they were based upon the original submittal and plans which were preliminary. The
parking space numbers have since been refined; however the analysis used higher counts, which
presents a more conservative, worst case, analysis.
Three intersections were studied:
• South Airport Blvd.lNorth Access Roadll-380 on-ramp (signaled)
• South Airport Blvd.II-380 EB off-ramp (signal)
• North Access Rd./I-380 end of freeway (signal).
-31-
Staff Report
Subject: 195 N. Access Road
Date: March 6,2014
Page 7
The traffic study notes that the peak traffic hours on the local street systems are 8 :00-9:00 AM
and 4:45-5:45 PM, while the Park SFO facility peak hours are from 7:00-8 :00 AM and 4:00-5:00
PM. For purposes of the traffic study, the highest overall combined hours of ambient plus Park
SFO traffic were used, 8:00-9:00 AM and 4:45-5:45PM. Additionally, i n order to evaluate a
conservative (worst case) analysis and to allow for daily and seasonal variations in activity the
expected number of new customer vehicles has been increased by 100% for the Project. The
analysis also included counts for both automobile as well as the Park SFO shuttle buses.
In summary, the proposed expansion (2013 Project) would be expected to generate 35 inbound
and 21 outbound trips during the AM peak hour and 22 inbound and 55 outbound trips during the
PM peak hour. For both years 2015 and 2035 the Project traffic would result in no significant
impact on any signalized intersections near the Project site, with only a 0.7 second or less increase
in delay. The Project will be subject to the East of 101 Traffic Impa9t fee, which is used to
improve circulation conditions and infrastructure in the East of 101 Area.
Upon completion of the Initial Study it was determined that there could be potentially significant
environmental impacts from the Project for the following:
• Biological resources;
• Geology & Soils;
• Hazards & Hazardous Materials; and
• Noise.
However, with the proposed mitigation ,measures incorporated into the Project, all of the
identified potential impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. The applicant has
reviewed and agrees to comply with all of the proposed mitigation measures.
Two comment letters have been received at the time of publication of this Staff Report; from
Caltrans and from San Mateo County Department of Public Works, on behalf of the Flood
Control District (both attached). The comment letter from Caltrans requested electronic .copies of
the traffic models that were prepared for the Project; in addition there was an inquiry as to why
the intersections at San Bruno Avenue and the US WI-ramps were not included in the traffic
study. Mark Crane, the traffic engineer who prepared the traffic study for the proposed expansion
has been working directly with Caltrans, District 4, to respond to their comments. He has
provided the electronic copies of the traffic modeling files, and has revised the signal timing
input as requested by Cal trans Operations staff. The results provided are similar to the original
presentation with no unacceptable levels of service. He notes that the San Bruno Avenue
interchange was not included in the intersection analysis because there would be little or no
Project traffic using it as virtually all of the Project traffic acCessing the US 101 or 1 380
freeways would be getting on or off at the 1-380/ South Airport! North Access Road interchange
immediately adjacent to the site.
The second letter received by the County of San Mateo's Public Works Department, on behalf of
the Flood Control District, noted that the Project must comply with the Regional Water Quality
Conrol Board's regulations for storm water runoff and asked that trash collection devices be
installed at all storm drain inlets, to be maintained by the owner. The District also asked that they
-32-
Staff Report
Subject: 195 N. Access Road
Date: March 6, 2014
Page 8
be provided copies of design plans and drainage calculations showing the existing and future
discharge rates to detennine that the post development rate of discharge does not exceed the
existing rate. Some of these requests have already been made by our Water Quality staff and
have been included as Conditions of Approval. Upon submittal of the building permit, staff will
verify that such conditions have been met. In addition, Water Quality staff is working directly
with County staff to ensure that all of their comments are addressed.
CONCLUSION
The proposed expansion will not be unreasonably adverse to the public health, safety, or general
welfare of the community, or unreasonably detrimental to the surrounding properties or
improvements. The garage expansion will fully utilize an underused parcel of land, making full
utilization of the rear area behind the parking structure. The proposed landscape improvements,
mitigation measures and the conditions of approval will ensure that the site is not detrimental to
the surrounding properties or improvements.
The proposed parking facility expansion meets the requirements of the Mixed Industrial (MI)
zoning district and complies with the goals and policies of the General Plan, as described above;
with the exception of the Waiver and Modification request for the rooftop landscaping. The
Project, as conditioned, will be compatible with the surrounding uses; therefore staff
recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution, including findings, approving
Negative Declaration ND12-0003; and approve Planning Project P12-0048, including UPM12-
0003, DR12-0022 and ND12-0003, based on the attached Draft Findings and subject to the
attached Draft Conditions of Approval.
By; ~~~' '~f;-"",,~----,--
Catherine Barber, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Draft Findings of Approval
Draft Conditions of Approval
Draft CEQA Resolution
Exhibit A -Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration, 195 N. Access Road, prepared by Allison Knap
Consulting, September 9, 2013
o Including Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Section 3.18
Design Review Board
Minutes dated July 17, 2012
CEQA Comment Letters
Caltrans-dated October 9,2013
San Mateo County, Department of Public Works ~ated October 22,2013
Project Description from Applicant
Project plans, dated October 30, 2013
2191971.1
-33-
DRAFT FINDINGS OF APPROVAL
UPMI2-0003, DR12-0022 & ND12-0003
195 N. ACCESS ROAD
(As recommended by City Staffon March 6,2014)
As required by the Use Permit Procedures (SSFMC Section 20.490), the following findings are made in
support of a Use Permit Modification to allow an expansion of an existing seven-level parking structure,
adding approximately 501,000 square feet (1,531 spaces), to the Park SFO parking facility at 195 North
Access Road in the Mixed Industrial (MI) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.110,
20.460, 20.480, 20.490 & 20.510, based on public testimony and materials submitted to the South San
Francisco Planning Commission which include, but are not limited to: Application materials ("Project
Narrative" and "Project Plans") prepared by applicant, dated submitted June 14,2012 and supplemented on
October 30,2013; Minutes of the Design Review Board dated July 17, 2012; Planning Commission staff
report dated March 6, 2014; and Planning Commission meeting of March 6,2014.
Use Permit Findings
A. The proposed airport parking facility expansion is consistent with the South San Francisco General
Plan, which designates this site for Mixed Industrial uses, because the prosed use is a general service!
service commercial use, which are specifically listed as allowed land uses under the Mixed Industrial
designation.
B. The proposed Project is consistent with the East of 101 Area Plan and design principles and policies
identified in Policy DE-57, because the Project has been designed to meet the standards set forth for
streets cape, landscape buffers, building orientation and massing, lighting, building height, design and
materials. The site currently has perimeter landscaping that will be retained and additional landscaping
will be added as part of the expansion.
C. The proposed Project will not be adverse to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the
community, nor detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements. The proposed Project is for an
expansion to an existing facility that is currently in operation without issue. The use is cOnsistent with
the zoning and General Plan in providing a service use. Any anticipated environmental impacts can be
mitigated to a level that is less than significant with the implementation of the proposed mitigation
measures. In addition, Staff has incorporated specific conditions under which the proposed use will be
maintained and operated, to reduce any likelihood that the use will produce adverse safety or land use
impacts on the surrounding area.
D. The proposed airport parking facility expansion use complies with East of 101 Plan Area design
standards. The expansion has been designed to match the existing structure and is consistent with
the standards for this area. The Project meets all of the applicable zoning district standards with the
exception of SSFMC 20.330.004(L)(8), which requires a minimum of a 24-inch perimeter of
landscaping around rooftop parking lots. The applicant is seeking a Waiver and Modification to this
standard on the findings contained herein, the Waiver is warranted.
E. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed activity would be
compatible with the existing and reasonably foreseeable future land uses in the vicinity because the
proposed use is an expansion of an existing use that has operated successfully at this site for twelve
(12) years. The expansion will not alter the operating characteristics and will he compatible with the
-34-
Draft Findings of Approval
Subject: 195 N. Access Road
Date: March 6,2014
Page 2 of 3
existing use serving the Airport. The parking facility is a use that is compatible with the surrounding
land uses and is consistent with the zoning and General Plan designation for the area.
F. The site is physically suitable for the type, density, and intensity of use being proposed, including
access, utilities, and the absence of physical constraints, in that the existing access to the site will
remain the same with the proposed Project. The intensity of the use will be increasing with the
additional parking spaces being added that will provide approximately 65% more spaces than the
current facility. The site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the proposed use in that it
is located in close proximity to San Francisco International Airport, which is only 200 feet south of
the Project site. In addition, given the location of the subject property adjacent to tank farms and the
City'S Wastewater Treatment Plant, the proposed airport parking facility is an appropriate land use
to be located next to such uses; and
G. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS/MND), SCH# 2013092020, was prepared and distributed to the State Clearinghouse
and circulated for a 30-day public review on September 12, 20l3. While the document identified
potentially significant environmental impacts from the Project for biological resources, geology &
soils, hazards & hazardous materials and noise, all of the identified potential impacts would be
reduced to a less than significant level with the recommended mitigation measures.
Waiver and Modification Findings
As required by South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.510 (Waivers and Modifications) the
following findings are made in support of a waiver and modification to the requirements of SSFMC Section
20.330.01 0(L)(8) pertaining to parking garage rooftop planting:
A. The waiver or modification is necessary due to the physical characteristics of the property and the
proposed use or structure or other circumstances, including, but not limited to, topography, noise
exposure, irregular property boundaries, or other unusual circumstance, in that the requirement for
planters around the perimeter of the rooftop parking level is in conflict with the proposed installation of
solar panels due to the space requirements needed for the panels and parking efficiency, in addition to
the shading that would result from the panels.
B. There are no alternatives to the requested waiver or modification that could provide an equivalent level
of benefit to the applicant with less potential detriment to surrounding owners and occupants or to the
general public because when the previous planters were installed on the existing Park SFO facility
there were significant problems to the users of the facility. The planters and their associated irrigation
systems were very difficult to maintain properly and the continual leaking caused damage to the
facility itself and to cars parked at the facility which resulted in claims against the facility. Therefore,
given that the applicant will be installing solar panels on the facility in the future, which would conflict
with this requirement, the granting of the requested waiver and modification would provide an overall
environmental benefit.
C. The granting of the requested waiver or modification for relief of the rooftop landscape requirement
would not be detrimental to the health or safety of the public or the occupants of the property or result
in a change in land use or density that would be inconsistent with the requirements of this title. The
applicant has implemented, and is committed to implement, several sustainability measures that
-35-
Draft Findings of Approval
Subject: 195 N. Access Road
Date: March 6,2014
Page 3 of 3
demonstrate their commitment to building and operating an environmentally friendly facility. These
measures include the use of eNG powered shuttle buses, use of greywater for irrigation and installation
of a solar power generating system on the top level of the existing facility, as well as the installation of
solar panels on the expanded parking facility in the future.
-36-
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
UPMI2-0003, DR12-0022 & ND12-0003
195 N. ACCESS ROAD
(As recommended by City Staff on March 6, 2014)
A) Planning Division requirements shall be as follows:
1. The applicant shall comply with the Planning Divisions standard Conditions and Limitations for
Commercial, Industrial, Mixed-Use and Multi-Family Residential Projects dated February 2013.
2. No signs are included in this permit application. Prior to installation of any signage, the
applicant shall secure an appropriate sign permit from the City.
3. The project shall be constructed in a manner in substantial conformity with the plans submitted
to the City and dated October 30,2013.
4 . If any new fencing is proposed, the applicant shall submit plans to the Chief Planner for review
and approval showing the location and proposed design prior to submittal for building pennit.
5. The applicant shall create a planting trench in the landscape connecting each row of Poplar
trees, with a sub drain line at the bottom of the trench, that shall connect to a nearby storm drain
line; the sub drain line will allow the irrigation and winter rains to flush the salt water from
planting soil.. The applcant shall plant the rootball of the Poplar trees above the mean high tide
elevation, and the planting trench shall be backfilled using fast draining loamy sand soiL
(Planning Division contact: Catherine Barber 650-877-8535)
B) Fire Department requirements shall be as follows:
1. Install fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13/SSFFD requirements under separate fire plan check
and permit for overhead and underground.
2. Fire sprinkler system shall b e central station monitored per California Fire Code section 1003.3.
3 . Install a standpipe system per NFP A 14/S SFFD requirements under separate fire plan check and
permit.
4. Install exterior listed horn/strobe alarm device, not a bell.
5. Elevators shall not contain shunt-trips.
6. At least one elevator shall b e sized for a gurney the minimum size shall be in accordance with
the CFC.
7. Fire alarm plans shall be provided per NFPA 72 and the City of South San Francisco Municipal
Code.
-37-
Draft Conditions of Approval
Subject: 19 5 No. Access Road
Date: March 6, 2014
Page: 20f7
8. Provide fire extinguishers throughout the building.
9. All Non parking space curbs to be painted red to local Fire Code Specifications
10. Access road shall have all weather driving capabilities and support the imposed load of 75,000
pounds.
11. Road gradient and vehicle turning widths shall not exceed maximum allowed by engineering
department.
12. Provide fire hydrants; location and number to be determined.
13. Provide fire hydrants with an average spacing of 400 feet between hydrants.
14. The fire hydrants shall have a minimum fire flow of 3000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure for
duration of 4 hours.
15. All buildings shall provide premise identification in accordance with SSF municipal code
section 15.24.100.
16. Provide Knox key box for each building with access keys to entry doors, electrical/mechanical
rooms, elevators, and others to be determined.
17. The minimum road width is 20 feet per the California Fire Code.
18. Local Fire Code and vehicle specifications and templates available at
http://www.ssf.netldepts/fue/preventi on/fire pern1its .as p
19. All buildings shall have Emergency Responder Radio Coverage throughout in compliance with
Section 510 of the California Fire Code.
(Fire Department contact: Luis Da Silva, Fire Marshal 650-829-6645)
C) Engineering Division requirements shall be as follows:
I. STANDARD CONDITIONS
The owner/applicant shall comply with the applicable conditions of approval for commercial
projects, as detailed in the Engineering Division's "Standard Conditions for Commercial and
Industrial Developments", contained in our "Standard Development Conditions" booklet, dated
January 1998. This booklet is available at no cost to the applicant from the Engineering Division.
-38-
Draft Conditions of Approval
Subject: 19 5 No. Access Road
Date: March 6, 2014
Page: 3 of7
II. SPECIAL CONDITIONS
A. A grading pennit shall be obtained from the Engineering Division. The owner/applicant will be
responsible for paying for all fees, bonds, plan checking and all associated fees for the grading
permit. The owner/applicant will also place a cash deposit of $30,000 to pay for all on site,
SWPPP compliance, grading compliance and dust control inspections.
B. Prior to the issuance of a grading pennit, a geotechnical report shall be submitted, reviewed and
approyed by the Engineering Division. The owner/applicant shall place a $5,000 cash deposit
with the City for the peer review of the Geotechnical Report.
C. The owner/applicant shall remove and replace any broken sidewalk fronting the project. The
new sidewalk shall comply with the City standard detail and shali provide Caltrans standard
handicap ramps. All work shall be done at no cost to the City.
D. The drive aisles onsite shall be a minimum of25' wide. There are areas on the plan where the
drive aisles are less than 25' wide. There is an area which the drive aisle is 20' and should be
considered to be one-way, with proper striping and signage to be installed.
E. The owner/applicant shall incorporate bio-grassy swales and other Best Management Practices
as storm water measures within the project and shall be approved by the Engineering Division
and the Environmental Compliance Manager. The owner/applicant shall submit the stonnwater
calculations for review and approval by the Engineering Division.
F. The owner/applicant shall coordinate work with California Water Service for all water utility
work.
G. Any light standards installed in the City's right-of-way shall be the standard East of 101 light
fixture. The owner/applicant shall provide the light fixture at no cost to the City.
H. The owner/applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit for any work performed in the City's
right-of-way and pay all associated fees, deposit and/or bonds. The owner/applicant shall
submit an Engineer's estimate for all work performed in the City's right-of-way and place a
bond or cash deposit for said work.
I. Prior to the issuance of a Building Pennit for the project, the applicant shall pay the various fees
as detailed below.
III. EAST OF 101 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES
Pursuant to Resolution No. 84-2007, all development projects located in the East of 101 area shall
pay the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee. The fee adopted is $4,950 per Peak PM trip and is adjusted
by the latest Construction Cost Index. The adjusted fee is $5,954.85 per trip plus an administrative
-39-
Draft Conditions of Approval
Subject: 195 No. Access Road
Date: March 6,2014
Page: 40f7
fee of2.5%. (The $5,954.85 fee is based on the July 2007 adopted fee of$4,950/trip, escalated to
the Oct. 2013 ENR Construction Cost Index).
Based on the traffic study provided in the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared by Allison
Knapp Consulting dated September 9, 2013, the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee for the identified 47
new Peak PM trips generate would be:
Fee Calculation (effective July 2013)
47 new Peak PM trips x $5,954.85 = $279,877.95 + $6,996.95 (administrative fee) = $286,874.90
V. SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY STUDY AND IMPACT FEE
The City of South San Francisco has identified the need to investigate the condition and capacity of
the sewer system within the East of 10 1 Area, downstream ofthe parking structure . The existing
sewer collection system was originally designed many years ago to accommodate warehouse and
industrial use and is now proposed to accommodate uses, such as offices and biotech facilities, with
a much greater sewage flow. These additional flows, plus groundwater infiltration into the existing
sewers, due to ground settlement and the age of the system, have resulted in pumping and collection
capacity constraints. A study and flow model is proposed to analyze the problem and recommend
solutions and improvements.
The applicant shall pay the East of 101 Sewer Facility Development Impact Fee, as adopted by the
City Council at their meeting o f October 23, 2002. The adopted fee is $4.25 per gallon of discharge
per day. Based on Metcalf & Eddy, the sewer generation rate of this land use is 2 gals per parking
space.
Fee Calculation (effective July 2013)
2 gals/parking space x 1,529 spaces x $4.25 per gallon = $12,996.50
The sewer contribution shall be due and payable prior to receiving a building permit for each phase
of the development.
Total estimated fees:
East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee
East of 101 Sewer Impact Fee
Total
(Engineering contact: Sam Bautista, 650-829-6652)
D) Police Department requirements shall be as follows:
$ 286,874.90
$ 12,996.50
$ 299,871.40
1. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.48 of the Municipal Code,
"Minimum Building Security Standards" Ordinance revised May 1995. The Police Department
reserves the right to make additional security and safety conditions, if necessary, upon receipt of
detailed / revised building plans.
(police Department contact: Sergeant Scott Campbell (650) 877-8927
-40-
Draft Conditions of Approval
Subject: 195 No. Access Road
Date: March 6, 2014
Page: 50f7
E) Water Quality Control requirements shall be as follows:
1. Site stormwater treatment must be in conformance with Low Impact Development requirements
of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit.
2. A plan showing the location of all storm drains and sanitary sewers must be submitted.
3. Fire sprinkler test discharge line must be connected to the sanitary sewer.
4. Trash area(s) shall be covered and have a drain(s) that is connected to the sanitary sewer.
5. The onsite catch basins are to be stenciled with the approved San Mateo Countywide
Stormwater Logo (No Dumping! Flows to Bay).
6. Install a separate water meter for landscaping.
7. Garage floors 1 through 6 drainage must be discharged to an oil/water separator, properly sized
(calculations must be submitted) with minimum liquid capacity of 2000 gallons and it must be
plumbed to the sanitary sewer.
8. The top floor drainage shall be discharged to the storm water system.
9. Stormwater from the entire site must be included in the treatment system design. (Stormwater
treatment systems must be designed to treat stormwater runoff from the entire site.) Use
attached worksheets to determine rainwater harvesting and infiltration feasibility.
10. Storm water pollution preventions devices are to be installed. Prefer clustering of structures and
pavement; directing roof runoff to vegetated areas; use of micro-detention, including distributed
landscape-based detention; and preservation of open space. Treatment devices must be sized
according Provision C.3.d Numeric Sizing Criteria for Stormwater Treatment Systems of
NPDES No. CAS612008.
11. The applicant must submit a signed Operation and Maintenance Information for Stormwater
Treatment Measures form for the stormwater pollution prevention devices installed.
12. The applicant must submit a signed maintenance agreement for the stormwater pollution
prevention devices installed. Each maintenance agreement will require the inclusion of the
following exhibits:
a. A letter-sized reduced-scale site plan that shows the locations of the treatment measures that
will be subject to the agreement.
b. A legal description of the property.
c. A maintenance plan, including specific long-term maintenance tasks and a schedule. It is
recommended that each property owner be required to develop its own maintenance plan,
subject to the municipality's approval. Resources that may assist property owners in
developing their maintenance plans include:
i. The operation manual for any proprietary system purchased by the property owner.
-41-
Draft Conditions of Approval
Subject: 195 No. Access Road
Date: March 6, 2014
Page: 60f7
13. Applicant must complete the C.3 and C.6 Development Review Checklist prior to issuance ofa
permit and return to the Technical Services Supervisor at the WQCP.
14. Landscaping shall meet the following conditions related to reduction of pesticide use on the
project site:
a. Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat stonnwater runoffby
incorporating elements that collect, detain, and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide
detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolonged
exposure to water shall be specified.
b. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type,
topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air
movement, patterns ofland use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure
successful establishment.
c. Existing native trees; shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the
landscape plan to the maximum extent practicable.
d. Proper maintenance of landscaping, with minimal pesticide use, shall be the responsibility of
the property owner.
e. Integrated pest management (IPM) principles and techniques shall be encouraged as part of
the landscaping design to the maximum extent practicable. Examples of IPM principles and
techniques include:
1. Select plants that are well adapted to soil conditions at the site.
ii. Select plants that are well adapted to sun and shade conditions at the site. In making
these selections, consider future conditions when plants reach maturity, as well as
seasonal changes.
111. Provide irrigation appropriate to the water requirements of the selected plants.
IV. Select pest-resistant and disease-resistant plants.
v. Plant a diversity of species to prevent a potential pest infestation from affecting the
entire landscaping plan.
vi. Use "insectary" plants in the landscaping to attract and keep beneficial insects.
15. Source control measures must include:
• Landscaping that minimizes irrigation and runoff, promotes surface infiltration where
possible, minimizes the use of pesticides and fertilizers, and incorporate appropriate
sustainable landscaping practices and programs such as Bay-Friendly Landscaping.
• Appropriate covers, drains, and storage precautions for outdoor material storage areas,
loading docks, repair/maintenance bays, and fueling areas.
• Covered trash, food waste, and compactor enclosures.
-42-
Draft Conditions of Approval
Subject: 195 No. Access Road
Date: March 6, 2014
Page: 70f7
Plumbing of the following discharges to the sanitary sewer, subject to the local sanitary
sewer agency's authority and standards:
• Dumpster drips from covered trash and food compactor enclosures.
• Discharges from outdoor covered wash areas for vehicles, equipment, and accessories.
16. A construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan must be submitted and approved prior
to the issuance of a permit.
17. A copy of the NOI filed with the state must be submitted to the WQCP.
18. Plans must include location of concrete wash out area and location of entrance/outlet of tire
wash.
19. A grading and drainage plan must be submitted.
20. Must file a Notice of Termination with the WQCP when the project is completed.
21 . Applicant must pay sewer connection fee at a later time based on anticipated flow, BOD and
TSS calculations.
(Water Quality Control contact: Rob Lecel at (650) 877-8555)
F) San Mateo County Department of Public Works, Flood Control District requirements shall be as
follows:
1. Design plans and drainage calculations showing existing and future discharge rates shall be
submitted to the Flood Control District for review prior to permit issuance.
2. Trash management measures shall be incorporated into the design elements of the storm
drainage system and appurtenances; trash collection devices shall be installed at storm drain
inlets and shall be maintained by the applicant.
(San Mateo County Department of Public Works, Flood Control District contact: Mark Chow at (650) 599-
1489)
2191982.
-43-
RESOLUTION NO. 2741-2014
PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AN RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR
AN EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING SEVEN-LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE,
ADDING APPROXIMATELY 501,000 SQUARE FEET (1,531 SPACES), TO THE SFO
PARKING FACILITY AT 195 NORTH ACCESS ROAD
WHEREAS, Robert Simms, R.E.S. T Investments ("Applicant") seeks approval of a Use
Permit Modification, Design Review and request for a Waiver and Modification related to garage
rooftop landscaping for an expansion of an existing seven-level parking structure, adding
approximately 501,000 square feet (1,531 spaces), to the SFO Parking Facility at 195 North
Access Road ("Project"); and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub.
Resources Code, §§ 21000, et seq. ["CEQA"]) and the CEQA Guidelines, the City prepared and
circulated for public review, and Initial Study and Mitigated Negative DecIaration ("IS/MND"),
Which analyzed the environmental impacts of the Project, and concluded that any potential
impacts from the proposed Project could be mitigated to have a less than significant effect on the
environment, as more fully described and set forth therein; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the Record before
it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public
Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of
Regulations § 15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco 1999 General Plan and General Plan
Environmental Impact Report, including the 2001 updates to the General Plan and 2001
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Park SFO expansion,
. including all written comments received; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as
part of the Planning Commission's duly noticed public hearing on March 6, 2014; and any other
evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the Planning
Commission of the City of South San Francisco does hereby find as follows:
I. General Findings
A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.
B. The ISIMND attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A is hereby incOlporated by
reference as part of this Resolution.
C. The Planning Commission, exercising its independent judgment and analysis,
hereby finds that the ISIMND as an objective and accurate document that reflects the
independent judgment of the City in the identification, discussion and analysis of the Projecfs
-44-
envirDnmental impacts.
,D. The documents and Dther material constituting the record for these proceedings
are located at the Plamling DivisiDn fDr the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue,
South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Susy Kalkin.
II. CEQA Findings
A. AESTHETICS: The Project would net have an impact Dn the aesthetics er scenic
quality Dn the site er in the area. There weuld be no. individual er cumulative impacts with
respect to. aesthetic, visual quality er light and glare asseciated with the Project with
implementatien ef Biolegy Mitigatiens 2 and 3. No mitigatiens frem the 1997 ISJMND carry
ever to. the 2013 Preject.
B. AGRICULTURAL AND TIMBER RESOURCES: Prior to. 2001, the 1.25 acre Project
site suppDrted industrial land uses, ship repair, wareheuse and freight fDrwarding, and frem
2001-2.003 was used as a cempDsting area fer the City's Water Quality Contrel Plant. The
Preject site has been paved and used fer surface parking as part ef the Park SFO facility since
2007. The Project weuld net adversely affect any existing agricultural eperations as nene exist
on the site. The Preject weuld net impact agricultunil reseurces individuallyer 'cumulatively and
is net in any Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland ef Statewide Impertance(Farmland), er· in
WilliamsDn Act Centract. The site is net zened for timberland preductien or in use as such, and
would nDt cause rezening ef fDrest land (as defined in the Public Resources Cede sectien
12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public ResDurces Cede sectien 4526) or timberland zened
Timberland Preductien (as defined by Gevernment Cede sectien51104(g)). No. mitigatiens frDm
the 1997 ISIMND carry ever to. the 2013 Project.
C. AIR QUALITYIHAzARD RISKS: The Preject weuld net result in a significant
impact to. air quality and would nDt result in a cumulatively considerable net increase Df criteria
nenattainment pellutants (Dzene precursers, PMI0, and PM2.5). The annual PM2.5
cencentratiDn due to. implementatiDn Df the Project weuld be 0.02 Jlg/m 3 below the BAAQMD
thresheld of 0.3 Jlg/m 3, and hence is censidered less than significant. . The City's building permit
precedure captures the BAAQMD permitting regulatiens, as well as BAAQMD's recemmended
emissien contrel measures. The Project wDuld be belew the daily and annual Dperatienal criteria
pellutant threshelds and weuld net result in significant er cumulative impacts. Oder impacts
asseciated with constructiDn and Dperatien Df the Preject wDuld be less than significant.' The
Preject wDuld be belew the threshDlds Df significance fDr health risks. The chrDnic HI weuld be
0.01 well belDw the BAAQMD thresheld Df 1 and the impact Df the Preject weuld therefDre be
less than significant. The acute HI wDuld be 0.01. The acute HI weuld be below the BAAQMD
threshDld ef 1 and the impact Df the Preject would therefere be less than significant.
The cumulative impacts are belew the BAAQMD significance threshelds. Given that the Project
weuld net result in increased health impacts exceeding the PrDject-level thresholds, the Project
weuld alSo. nDt result in a cumulatively cDnsiderable contributien to. localized health risk and
hazard impacts, resulting in a less than significant cumulative air quality impact. No. mitigatiens
from the 1997 ISIMND carry ever to. the 2013 Project.
-45-
D. GREENHOUSE GAS: The ProjeCt would not result in an impact or. contribute to a
cumulative impact with respecfto GHG emissions. No mitigations from the 1997 ISIMND carry
over to the 2013 Project.
E. BIOLOGY: The Project would expand the existing parking structure over an
existing surface parking lot that does not serve as an important movement corridor for native
wildlife. The new structure is not expected to interfere substantially with native wildlife
corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Species .common in the vicinity·
would continue to forage in the open water habitat of the former drydocks and the basin area of
San Bruno Canal. No approved Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation
Plan encompasses, governs or regulates the site. Therefore the Project would not conflict with
any approved Habitat Conservation Plans and as such would have no impact. Implementation of
the Biology Mitigation 1 would reduce potential Project impacts to nesting birds to less-than-
significant. The Project would have no impact on any sensitive natural communities ot
jurisdictional wetlands as it would pe completely located in uplands, and would not directly
affect any sensitive natural communities, jurisdictional wetlands or open waters of the former
drydocks and the basin area of San Bruno CanaL Implementation of Biology Mitigation 2
would reduce Project impacts to less-than-significant with respect to habitat quality and policy
compliance. Implementation of Biology Mitigation 3 would reduce the lighting impact to less-
than-significant. . Implementation of Biology Mitigation 4 would reduce the permitting .and
policy impact to less-than-significant.. The Project would have a less-than-significant impact
with implementation . of Biology Mitigations 1-4. 1997 Mitigation lOis not applicable to the
2013 Project and has been redefined and replaced by Biology Mitigations 1 and 3.
F . CULTURAL RESOURCES: Prior to 2001, the 1.25 acre Project site supported
industrial land uses, ship repair, warehouse and freight forwarding, and from 2001-2003 was
used as a composting area for the City's Water Quality Control Plant. There is no evidence of
archaeological or paleontological resources on the site as witnessed during previous gradIng and
construction activities in 1999 and 2007 and in the boring logs. In light of Title 14 California
Code of Regulations, Public Resources Code Section 4852.1, there are no historic resources on
the entirety of the p.roject site. The : Project would have· no impact oil · cUltural· resources:
Mitigation measure 15 from the 1997 ISIMND is not carried forward to the 2013 Project as it is
unnecessary.
G. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: There are no active faults underlying the site and the
nearest one is the San Andreas Fault, located about three miles northeast. The hazard from fault
rupturing on the site is considered to be low (Furgo West, 2003). Therefore, the Project would
have a less than significant impact on exposing people or structures to danger from surface
rupture of a known earthquake fault. Conformance with the latest CBC would ensure that the
impact of seismic ground-shaking is reduced to a level of less than significant. The Geotechnical
Report concludes that the liquefaction potential necessary for liquefaction of materials under the
Project site is low. The Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to
liquefaction of subsurface materials. There is no threat of landslides on the Project site; therefore
the Project would have no impact with respect t9 landslides. Erosion control measures are
required as a matter of law and as a result this impact is considered to be less than significant.
-46-
The Project would have no impact on soils due to septic systems as the project is connected to
the City's sanitary system. The Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to
expansive soils because it would be located on soils with a low potential of expansion (PI 16).
The Project would have less than significant impacts with respect to a geologic unit becoming
unstable with implementation of Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure 1. No mitigations
from the 1997 ISIMND carry over to the 2013 Project.
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: The ' Project would have noimpaci
from the emission or handling of hazardous materials or wastes on schools or from any
environmental contamination posed by the sites listed ' on the Cortese List. The impact of the
Project with regards to hazardous materials would be less than significant with respect to
operational activities. The Project would have a less than significant impact on the potential to
emit hazardous materials during construction with implementation of Hazards Mitigation 1.
No mitigations from the 1997 IS/MND carry over to the 2013 Project.
There are no existing or proposed sch~ols or day care centers or facilities within a quarter mile of
the Project site. The maximum height of the Project, including the light poles on the roof level
would be 100 feet. The building itself would be 80 to 90 feet in height including the stairwells
and elevator. The Project would not encroach in the 150 .,175 foot zone. There are no
emergency response or evacuation plans in effect in the Project vicinity. Therefore the Project
would have no impact on the implementation of any adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan. The South San Francisco Fire Department is in the process of
initiating a study to identify offensive capabilities in the Project area. The Project would be
required through conditions of approval to provide a fair share financial contribution to the
department's study and improvements. There is no wildland in the vicinity of the Project site or
area. The Project would have no impact with respect to wildland fires.
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: The City's standard conditions of approval
which implement state, federal and local regulations are required by law and are adequate to
address any potential water quality impacts as a result of Project construction or occupation. The
site is not within a flood zone or an area subject to seiche or tsunami inundation or ruil~Up zones.
No mitigation measures, above those required by the City as a matter of law, are identified in this
initial study. The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact to
hydrology or water quality resources. No mitigations from the 1997 ISIMND carry over to the
2013 Project.
J. LAND USE AND PLANNING: The Project would not physically divide an
established community. The site is planned for light industrial uses and the Project is consistent
with the planned uses. There are no conservation or natural community conservation plans that
govern the Project site or area. The Project would not result in any individually or cumulatively
considerable impacts. No mitigations from the 1997 ISIMND carry over to the 2013 Project.
K. MINERAL RESOURCES: The Project site does not contain any local or regionally
significant mineral resources. The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a
-47-
cumulative impact to mineral resources. No mitigations from the 1997 IS/MND carry over to the
2013 Project.
L. NOISE: Demolition and construction related noise impacts would be considered a
less than significant with implementation of the Noise Mitigation Measures 1-3. No mitigations
from the 1997 ISIMND carry over to the 2013 Project. The Project would not individually
increase noise. levels in the area related to traffic nor would the Project contribute to a cumulative
impact with respect to noise and as such noise impacts associated with the Project would result in
no impact. The site is located the 65 dB contour interval and is an airport related use which is
long-term parking. The Project would have no impact with respect to excessive aircraft noise
exposure .as it is an airport-related use consisting of long tenn parking and contains no sensitive
receptors or land uses.
M. POPULATION AND HOUSING: The Project is consistent with the development and
growth assumptions contained in the South San Francisco General Plan in that it would be an
expansion of the existing airport-related facility, and not a significant contributor to the job
market. The Project site does not include housing and . would not displace housing units. or
residents. No mitigations from the 1997 ISIMND ca.rry over to the 2013 Proj ect.
N. PUBLIC SERVICES: The Project would not exceed the deVelopment and groWth
assumptions contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. Redevelopment of the Project
site would not increase the demand for· public services individually or cumulatively. No
mitigations from the 1997 ISIMND carryover to the 2013 Project .
. O. RECREATION: Parks and recreational needs within the City are derived from the
development assumptions contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. The Project is
consistent with planning projections and needs assessments based upon the projections contained
in the South San Francisco General Plan and is not a population or employment generator. The
Project would not result in an individual or cumulatively considerable impact on parks and
recreation. No mitigations from the 1997 ISIMND carryover to the 2013 Project.
P. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION: The 2013 Project would not result in a
significant impact to the three intersections closest to the Project. The Project would not degrade
an intersection identified in a Congestion Management Plan. The Project would not result in a
project-or cumulative-level impact to the closest intersections to the site and as such would not
impact intersections further from the site. The analysis accounted for a doubling of traffic
volumes measured at the existing Park SFO facility (2001 and 2007 Projects) and represents a
conservative worst case analysis accounting for daily and seasonal variations. The Project would
not alter any air traffic patterns that are already in place and the Project would have no impact
with respect to air traffic hazards. The Project would have no impact on alternative
transportation use and provides shuttle bps service an alternative to privately owned vehicle
single-occupancy travel. The Project would keep the existing site access patterns, has been
reviewed by South San Francisco Police and Fire Departments and with the required conditions
of approval would have a less than significant impact on emergency access. The 2013 Project
would result in a less than significant impact at the access driveway intersection and roadways.
No mitigations from the 1997 ISIMND carry over to the 2013 Project.
-48-
Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: The City's wastewater treatment plant was
upgraded in 2000-01. The Project as a matter of law would be required to pay wastewater
improvement fees. The wastewater treatment plant has capacity to treat Project and cumulative
projected wastewater. The UWMP, adopted in 2006, shows adequate water is available for the
Project and projected cumulative development. There is adequate capacity at Ox Mountain
landfill for Project and cumulative solid waste and the City is meeting its 50 percent solid waste
diversion mandate. Demolition, construction and operation of the Project would be requIred to ·
incorporated LIDs and BMPs for stonnwater treatment; ail improvement · over existmg
conditions. Stonnwater is required to be treated on-site. The Project would not contribute
individually or cumulatively to water, wastewater, solid waste, stormwater, or utility impacts.
No mitigations from the 1997 IS/MND carry over to the 2013 Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby adopts
the ISIMND based on the findings set forth in the ISIMND.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Resolution shall become effective immediately
upon its passage and adoption.
* * * * * * *
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of South San Francisco at the -regular meeting held on the 6th day of
March, 2014 by the following vote:
AYES: Chairperson Martin, Vice Chairperson Wong, Commissioner Giusti,
Commissioner Khalfin and Commissioner Ochsenhirt
NOES: ______________________________________________ __
ABSTENTIONS: __________________ _
ABSENT: Commissioner Sim and Commissioner Zemke
Attest: s~t:.
Secretary to the Planning Commission
-49-
Park SFO Facility Expansion
Sustafnability Measures
MEASURES CURRENTLY IN PLACE
CNG fueled Shuttie Buses
The shuttle bus fleet that provides transportation between Park SFO and the Airport runs on compressed
natural gas (CNG). CNG is the cleanest burning alternative transportation fuel, having fewer emissions
than any other vehicle fuel being used today, Unlike gasoline and diesel vehicles that emit large amounts
of particulate matter, natural gas is virtually particulate free, producing up to 95% less particulate matter.
Exhaust emissions from a CNG powered vehicle are much lower than those from gasoline-powered
vehicles. Compared to gasoline powered vehicles, CNG powered vehicles can reduce carbon monoxide
by 70 percent, non-methane gas by 87 percent, NOx (nitrous oxides) by 87 percent, and carbon dioxide
by almost 20 percent.
PROPOSED MEASURES -EXISTING PARK SFO FACILIlY
Implementation of Solar Power Generation Capability
Park SFO is currently installing a solar power generating system on the roof of the existing facility. This
system, consisting of photovoltaic panels, support structure and associated electrical components, has
been sized to provide the maximum generating capacity allowed under PG&E's net metering program.
The energy generated will be sufficient to cover 97% of the power usage for the facility.
PROPOSED MEASURES -PARK BFO EXPANSION
Stormwater Upgrade
While the project shall only Slightly decrease the amount of impervious paving on the property, the
stormwater separator system will be improved in terms of water quality and quantity during peak rain
events.
Urban Heat Island Reduction
The project shall take several measures to counteract the urban heat island effect caused by large
expanses of open asphalt surfaces exposed to the sun. The overall shading of the property shall be
increased with structural shading from the addition to the parking structure, The expanded and existing
portions of the structure will have a high-albedo surface on the upper level to reflect light and heat. New
planting at the perimeters of the surface portions of the property will provide summer shading to the high
traffic areas in the facility.
Planting
As part of the proposed site improvements to the property the design team has selected hardy, salty-soi"
tolerant columnar trees to form banks of green along the public sides of the facility. Trellis creepers and
other vine-type plantings would not reliably grow in this micro-climate, and their primary benefrt of cooling
a building is not necessary for an open-air structure. Naturalized poplar trees are proposed due to their
sea/e, shape, hardiness, year-round color change, their lack of invasive qualities, and economy.
Energy Efficiency
The project is being planned with the use of the latest LED light fixtures both within the garage and on the
October 2012
-50-
upper deck. These fixtures, while more expensive, provide much longer lamp life and as much as 70%
reduction in electrical consumption when compared to traditional HID lights still typically used as street
lights and parking lighting. These fixtures also provide significant energy savings when compared to
fluorescent lamps, without the fragility and problems with disposal associated with tube' lights.
The new elevators for the expansion will be highly-efficient electric systems that use a combination of
counterweights and dynamic energy-recovery flywheels (in a similar fashion to hybrid cars) to provide for
faster, lighter,and more economical operation.
Ught Pollution
One of the other salient features of LED fixtures is the ability to very tightly shape the throw' or 'pattern' of
light emitted from them. This results in little to no light trespass and a large reduction in light pollution.
The proposed facility shall use shielded 'night sky rated' fixture s.
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations
As it is anticipated that there will be a growth in the demand and usage of electric vehicles in the near to
medium term, the proposed project will be planned to have the capacity to charge several dozen
vehicles. The actual number of stalls would be rolled out incrementally as demand increased.
October 2Q12
-51-
TIME:
MINUTES
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Meeting of July 17,2012
4:00P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Nilmeyer, Harris, Nelson, Ruiz and Williams
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Billy Gross, Associate Planner
Linda Ajello, Associate Planner
Patricia Cotla, Planning Technician
1. • Administrative Business: -None
2. OWNER
APPLICANT
ADDRESS
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
DESCRIPTION
Robert Simms
Robert Simms
195 N Access Rd
PI2-0048: UPM12-0003 & DR12-0022
Park SFO Expansion
(Case Planner: Linda Ajello)
Use Pennit Modification & Design Review for a parking garage
expansion of approximately 1,600 spaces for the SFO Parking
Facility at 195 North Access Road in the Mixed Industrial (MD
Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.100,
20.480 & 20.490
The Board had the following comments:
1. The design showing tall poplar trees is excellent. There is concern for the success
of these trees due to the elevation being so close to the mean high tide level which
will add salt to the soil. Consider creating a planting trench in the landscape
connecting each row of trees, place a subdrain line at the bottom of the trench,
connected to a nearby stonn drain line. Plant the rootball of the poplar trees above
the mean high tide elevation, backfill the planting trench using fast draining
loamy sand soil. Installing a sub drain line at each row of trees will allow the
irrigation and winter rains to flush the salt water from planting soil.
-52-
Ms. Catherine Barber/City of South San Francisco
October 9, 2014
Page 2
District 4, P.O. Box 23660, Oakland, CA 94623-0660. Traffic-related mitigation measures
should be incorporated into the construction plans during the encroachment permit process. See
the website link below for more information. htm :l/www .dot.ca.gov!hg/traffQPs/developserv/permitsi
Please feel free to call or email SandraFineganat(51O)622-1644or sandrafinegan@.g.ot.ca.gov
with any questions regarding this letter.
Sincerely,
CP
District Brane Chief
Local Development -Intergovernmental Review
c: State Clearinghouse
-54-
Ms. Catherine Barber, Senior Planner, City of South San Francisco
Re: Notice of Availability of Public Review and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the Proposed Park SFO Parking Facility Expansion
Projeet, South San Francisco
October 22, 2013
Page 2
If you have any questions, please contact me at (650) 599-1489.
MC:EVG:jc
Very truly yours~
Mark Chow, P.E.
Principal Civil Engineer
Utilities-Flood Control-Watershed Protection
F:\Usm\admin\Udllty\San Bruno FCO\Revicw External Project\SSF\PvkSFO\Park8FO ISMND Comments.doc:
O:\Uscrs\utility\San Bnmo FCD\Review Ex1cmal Projcct\sSF\ParkSFO\ParkSFO ISMND Comments.doc
cc: Ann M. Stillman, P .E., Deputy Director, Engineering and Resource Protection
-56-
Park SFO Facility Expansion
Project Description
The existing PARK SFO parking facility Is located north of the San Francisco Airport on North Access
Road. The facility contains 1,276 parking spaces within a 7 level parking structure and approxImately SOD
additional parking spaces located on an adjacent surface lot. The facility was constructed in 2001.
Usage of the facility has Increased over the years to the point that the facility now frequently reaches its
capacity and has to turn away customers. The applicant Is proposing to expand the existing 7 level
parking structure located on the site. The proposed expansion will be located Just north of the existing
parking structure in an area that is currently used for surface parking. The expansion will provide 3 more
bays of parking on 7 levels encompassing approximately 1,600 parking spaces.
The proposed expansion is configured so that the vertical circulation ramps and the entry/exits in the
existing portion of the facility will serve the expanded parking area as well, i.e. no vehicle ramps are
needed in the expansion. The parking expansion encompasses three additional parking bays, Similar in
orientation to those of the existing facilHy. Each parking bay accommodates two way traffic with parking
spaces configured at 90 degrees to the drive aisle. A lobby with two elevators is provided on the north
side of the expansion. Stairs are provided in each corner of the expanded facility. The drIve aisles on the
east and west ends of the expansion will be connected to the existing facility on each level allowing traffic
to ftow between the two sections.
A cast-in-place, post tensioned concrete system will be used as the structural system for the parking
structure. This is a similar system as was used on the existing garage. It provides large, open parking
areas unobstructed by columns, which enhances end user convenience. The system lends itself to
effICient construction with conventionally used concrete forming systems for parking structures. The
structural system is composed of conventionally reinforced columns and post-tensioned beams and
slabs. The lateral force resisting system is composed of conventionally reinforced moment frames and
shear walls. Shear walls are provided in the east-west direction and moment framet! are provided in the
north-south direction. Transfer girders are used in the end bays of the parking structure to provide drive
aisles that are unobstructed by columns. Upturned beams are used at the ends of the structure to serve
as vehicle protection barriers In addition to their function as primary structural members.
The foundation system for the parking structure will be spread footings. as in the existing structure. The
presence of rock near the ground surface provides high soil bearing capacities, allowing the use of
spread footings. .
The exterior architecture of the expanded garage will be similar to and complement that of the existing
garage. The southwest corner of the expansion has been stepped back in a manner similar to the
southwest comer of the existing facility, breaking up the length of the west side. The sides of the
expansion are open to allow natural light and ventilation. Poplar trees are planned along the south and
west sides. These trees would act as a columnar accent that would stand up to the scaIe of the building,
handle the salt. fog, and wind, Bnd add a variety of color throughout the year.
-57 -
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
195 NORTH ACCESS ROAD, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PREPARED FOR:
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT- PLANNING DIVISION 315 MAPLE AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94083
PREPARED BY:
ALLISON KNAPP CONSULTING AllisonKnappConsulting.com September 9, 2013
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
DRAFT
INITIAL STUDY
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Submitted to:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
GOVERNORS OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
P.O. BOX 3044
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044
Submitted by:
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
MS .CATHERINE BARBER, SENIOR PLANNER
315 MAPLE AVENUE,
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94083
SEPTEMBER 9, 2013
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Initial Study and Legislative Framework 1-1
1.2 Project Applicant/Team/Contact 1-3
1.3 Documents Incorporated by Reference 1-3
1.4 City of South San Francisco Project Review Process 1-4
1.5 Standard Conditions of Approval Required by Law Addressing Environmental
Issues
1-5
1.6 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected 1-13
1.7 Lead Agency Determination 1-13
CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 Project Location and Setting 2-1
2.2 Project Site Characteristics 2-4
2.3 Proposed Project 2-5
2.4 General Plan and Zoning 2-8
2.5 Required Entitlements 2-8
CHAPER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
3.1 Aesthetics 3-2
3.2 Agricultural and Forest Resources 3-7
3.3 Air Quality 3-9
3.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3-21
3.5 Biological Resources 3-28
3.6 Cultural Resources 3-42
3.7 Geology and Soils 3-46
3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3-54
3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality 3-56
3.10 Land Use and Planning 3-71
3.11 Mineral Resources 3-72
3.12 Noise 3-75
3.13 Population and Housing 3-81
3.14 Public Services 3-82
3.15 Recreation 3-84
3.16 Transportation and Traffic 3-85
3.17 Utilities and Service Systems 3-106
3.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance/ Summary of Findings 3-110
3.19 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 3-115
ii
APPENDIX A
1 KBE Air Quality Assumptions and Methodologies
2 KBE CalEMod
3 Furgo West Geotechnical Report, 2003
4 Furgo West Geotechnical Report, February 12, 2013
5 Furgo West Geotechnical Report, July 15, 2013
6 CSA Peer Review Geotechnical, November, 2012
7 CSA Peer Review Geotechnical, March 22, 2013
8 Crane Traffic Study, 2012
9 Crane Traffic Study/Figures, 2012
LIST OF FIGURES
CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 Project Location 2-2
2.2 Proposed Project 2-3
2.3 Project Area 2-3
2.4 Bay Trail 2-5
CHAPTER 3: TRAFFIC SECTION
3.16 All Figures 3-96 -105
PARK SFO - INITIAL STUDY PAGE 1-1
1
INTRODUCTION
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 Applicant is requesting entitlement approvals to expand an existing parking facility at 195
North Access Road, South San Francisco, CA 1. The existing Park SFO facility, constructed in
2001 and expanded in 2007, contains approximately 1,306 parking spaces in a seven level
parking structure with approximately 629 additional spaces on an adjacent surface lot 2. The
proposed project would expand Park SFO by removing the adjacent paved surface parking lot
and constructing a seven level structure that would park an additional 1,600 vehicles and connect
to the existing seven-level parking structure. The proposed project would result in an
interconnected and expanded parking structure that could park up to 3,194 vehicles with an
1 Park SFO was constructed in 2001 after undergoing environmental, legislative and entitlement review in 1997 by both the City
and at that time, redevelopment agency, of South San Francisco. The surface parking was expanded in 2007 through a use
permit modification.
2 The plans submitted by the applicant (Bull Stockwell Allen Architects, May, 2012) tabulate 1,276 parking spaces in the garage
and 599 on the adjacent surface lot. A parking survey conducted by Crane Transportation Group (September, 2012) counted
1,306 spaces in the garage and 629 on the surface lot. Various other written application materials note 500 surface parking spaces.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
PAGE 1-2 PARK SFO - INITIAL STUDY
additional 361spaces on the remaining portions of the surface lot for a total of 3,555 parking
spaces.
The proposed project requires design review and modification to the existing conditional use
permit to expand the parking structure. The project would also require an administrative waiver
to the roof-top landscaping requirements contained in Section 20.330.010.L.8 of the Zoning
Code.
The proposed project (2013 Project) meets criteria “b” and “c”, identified above and therefore
requires environmental review. Preparation of an environmental analysis and subsequent
environmental determination is required prior to or simultaneously with 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/or merits review.
The Lead Agency for this document is the City of South San Francisco. The Planning
Commission will deliberate and take action on the 2013 Project entitlements and environmental
documentation. These actions will take place in legally-noticed public hearings.
This Initial Study, City Project Number: P12-0048, ND12-0003, UPM12-0003 and DR-0022 is
for the 2013 Project identified 195 North Access Road in South San Francisco, California
(APNs: 015-180-020 and 015-173-160).
Total site area is approximately seven acres (6.96). The site area includes the 5.71 acre parcel
supporting the existing parking garage (2001 Project) and the adjacent 1.25 acre parcel currently
containing surface parking (2007 Project). The 2007 Project would be demolished, re-graded
and reconstructed with a seven-level parking structure. Some demolition of the north wall of
the 2001 Project would be necessary to connect the two structures. The existing vertical
entrance and exit ramps would be expanded to provide access to the expanded facility (referred
to as the 2013 Project). New stairs and a lobby with two elevators are proposed as part of the
2013 Project. Drive aisles would be constructed and connected to allow vehicles to flow
between the new and existing facility. The 2013 Project architecture is proposed to be similar to
and compliment the existing facility. The totality of these actions, as well as the daily operations
of the expanded facility, constitutes the 2013 Project.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
PARK SFO – INITIAL STUDY PAGE 1-3
1.2 PROJECT APPLICANT/TEAM/CONTACT
PROJECT APPLICANT AND TEAM
The Project applicant and owner is R.E.S.T, represented by Mr. Robert Sims. The Project
development team consists of International Parking Design; Bull Stockwell Allen architects; and
Smith + Smith landscape architects.
The contact for the Project is:
Mr. Robert E. Simms
237 Harbor Way
South San Francisco, CA 94080
(650) 871-6137
LEAD AGENCY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT
The Lead Agency for this Initial Study is the City of South San Francisco. The administrative
record for the 2013 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:
Ms. Catherine Barber, Senior Planner
Department of Economic and Community Development-Planning Division
315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080
(650) 877-8535
The Environmental Document was prepared by:
Allison Knapp Wollam, Environmental Consultant
ALLISON KNAPP WOLLAM CONSULTING
345 Vicente Street, San Francisco, CA 94127
(415) 902-3238
The environmental consulting team consists of Allison Knapp Wollam Consulting, KB
Environmental Engineering for the air quality and hazard risk assessments, Environmental
Collaborative for the biology assessment and Crane Transportation Group for the traffic and
circulation.
1.3 DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
1997 Initial Study /Mitigated negative Declaration PARK SFO, Jerry Haag Consulting, February 1997.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
PAGE 1-4 PARK SFO - INITIAL STUDY
GEOLOGY
Updated Geotechnical Investigation Report 195 North Access Road , South San Francisco, California, Furgo
West, March 2003 and February 12, 2013).
Geotechnical Peer Review, 195 North Access Road, South San Francisco, California, Cotton Shires
Associates, November 21, 2012 and March 22, 2013.
TRAFFIC
Traffic Impact Report, Park SFO, Long Term Parking Expansion, Crane Transportation Group
September 13, 2012.
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. The following regulations are verified as satisfied and incorporated into the Project
as a matter of demolition, grading and /or building permit issuance. As such, these requirements
are considered a part of the Project, not a separate and distinct requirement.
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, subsequent to 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 certified 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 certified ‘complete’ as well as identifying 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, through its general plan, special, area, municipal code, special districts, or
memoranda of understanding (i.e., its police power).
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 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 ones added
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
PARK SFO – INITIAL STUDY PAGE 1-5
through the public review process. Permits are not issued by the Building Division in absence of
authorization from City staff or in absence of the requirements being incorporated into the
Project plans.
1.5 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REQUIRED BY
LAW ADDRESSING ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
The following COAs limit 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, the Project’s conditions of approval could not be altered
without additional City review and approval, which could entail subsequent or
supplemental CEQA review.
Failure of the Applicant to meet the required measures and/or elements of their Project
description relating to environmental issues, such as LEED measures and TDM
Programs may obviate this environmental document and require subsequent or
supplemental CEQA review as the Project as proposed coupled with the required
conditions of approval is the baseline from which environmental impacts were evaluated
for the Project.
1. AESTHETICS
AESTHETICS LIGHT AND GLARE: Signage is required to be reviewed by staff, and in some
instances the by 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
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, Basic Exhaust
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
PAGE 1-6 PARK SFO - INITIAL STUDY
Emissions Reduction Measures and some of the Additional Fugitive Dust Emissions Reduction Measures
identified by the BAAQMD May, 2011. The City requires Projects to:
a) Water all active construction sites at least twice daily.
b) Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to
maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
c) Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved
access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites.
d) Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas
at construction sites.
e) Sweep streets daily (with wet power vacuum sweepers) if visible soil material is carried
onto adjacent public streets at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is
prohibited.
f) Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously
graded areas inactive for ten days or more).
g) Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiled
materials.
h) Install sandbags or other erosion-control measures to prevent silt runoff to public
roadways.
i) Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
j) Watering should be used to control dust generation during the break-up of pavement.
k) Cover all trucks hauling demolition debris from the site.
l) Use dust-proof chutes to load debris into trucks whenever feasible.
m) Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by
the wind.
n) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with
manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic
and determined to be in proper running order prior to operation.
o) Diesel powered equipment shall not be left inactive and idling for more than five
minutes, and shall comply with applicable BAAQMD rules.
p) Use alternative fueled construction equipment, if possible.
q) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
PARK SFO – INITIAL STUDY PAGE 1-7
r) 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.
s) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or
reducing the maximum idling time to five (5) minutes (as required by the California
airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2484 of the California Code of
regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access
points.
t) Post a 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
24 hours. The Air District phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with
applicable regulations.
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 a J-Permit from the
BAAQMD. The J Permit is required to be posted on the job site and if it is not there the job
can be fined by the BAAQMD and may be shut down by the City’s Building Division.
Through this process, the 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 insure 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 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 all projects is twenty-
eight percent 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.
3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
GEOLOGY AND SOILS TABLE 18-1-B UNIFORM BUILDING CODE: All construction projects
are required to comply with the Uniform Building Code. Projects located on soils identified in
Volume 2 Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code are required to comply with the
construction specifications to limit potential damage due to liquefaction. This requirement is
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
PAGE 1-8 PARK SFO - INITIAL STUDY
enforced and monitored by the Engineering Division. Compliance with the Uniform Building
Code is also implemented and monitored by the Building Division.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS: The City Engineering Division also requires
geotechnical reports as a part of the permit package for projects to be constructed on vacant
land, demolition and rebuilding and 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 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. The geotechnical
professional of record is required to sign all project drawings and the City’s geotechnical
consultant provides construction inspections, oversight and monitoring for the City. The
Engineering Division implements and monitors this requirement.
4. 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”). The full text may be downloaded at
www.flowstobay.org/ms_municipalities.php.
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. However, biotreatment
(filtering stormwater through vegetation and soils before discharging to the storm drain system)
will be allowed only where harvesting and reuse, infiltration and evapotranspiration are infeasible
at the 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.)
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 will be 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 standard requirements.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY STORMWATER RUNOFF PREVENTION
(OPERATIONAL): All Projects are required to comply with the San Mateo Countywide Storm
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
PARK SFO – INITIAL STUDY PAGE 1-9
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. Typical storm water
quality protection measures include:
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 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
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
PAGE 1-10 PARK SFO - INITIAL STUDY
building and/or grading permits. The requirements are implemented and monitored by Water
Quality Control personnel. Typical construction stormwater protection measures include:
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
PARK SFO – INITIAL STUDY PAGE 1-11
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.
5. NOISE
NOISE INTERIOR AMBIENT NOISE: The City of South San Francisco regulates noise exposure
through state law and their General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan. The California Building
Code (CBC) Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 2.35 of the California Code of Regulation, collectively
known as Title 24, contains acoustical requirements for interior sound levels in habitable rooms
for multi-family residential land uses. Title 24 contains requirements for construction of new
hotels, motels, apartment houses, and dwellings other than detached single-family dwellings
intended to limit the extent of noise transmitted into habitable spaces. The standard specifies
the extent to which walls, doors, and floor-ceiling assemblies must block or absorb sound in
between units and the amount of attenuation needed to limit noise from exterior sources. The
standard sets forth an interior noise level of 45 dBA (CNEL or L dn ) in any habitable room with
all doors and windows closed and requires an acoustical analysis demonstrating how dwelling
units have been designed to meet this interior standard where such units are proposed in areas
subject to noise levels greater than 60 dBA (CNEL or L dn ). Title 24 requirements are enforced
as a condition of building permit issuance by the Building Division.
The City, through its General Plan, adopted the Noise Guidelines of the State Department of
Health Services in their Noise Element (1999). Table 9.2-1, Land Use Criteria for Noise Impacted
Areas, contained in the Noise Element of the General Plan (page 280) guides land use decisions
based upon noise thresholds and acoustical analysis and mitigation. Additionally, the General
Plan (page 279) also guides and mitigates development in light of aircraft noise. The City
implements the Federal Aviation Administration adopted noise contours and participates in an
aircraft noise insulation program. Figure 9-1 of the General Plan Aircraft Noise and Noise
Insulation Program (page 279) identifies the noise contours and program area. The East of 101
Area Plan requirement for interior ambient noise for commercial, office and retail is 45 dBA,
L eq , echoing state law. Residential land uses are prohibited. The Noise Guidelines are
implemented by the Planning Division through new project review.
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
regulates noise pursuant to land use and time of day. Lower 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 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 through its Code Enforcement Officer implements these regulations.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
PAGE 1-12 PARK SFO - INITIAL STUDY
Construction noise is also regulated through the Municipal Code (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 may be granted by the Chief Building Official.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
PARK SFO – INITIAL STUDY PAGE 1-13
1.6 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
This Initial Study evaluates the Project which is defined as that proposed by the
Applicant and as modified by the City of South San Francisco’s standard COAs,
identified above. Therefore any impacts identified by the following Initial Study are
those impacts that could occur above and beyond those that would be mitigated by the
City’s standard permitting process and as such will require additional mitigation and/or
additional environmental review.
Environmental factors that may be affected by the Project, as defined by CEQA and as
described herein, are listed below. Factors identified with shading have been determined to have
the potential for significant impacts and will be addressed in an EIR. Factors which are un-
shaded have been determined to be clearly insignificant and unlikely to occur. Factors identified
with shading have been determined to be potentially affected by the Project based on
discussion also provided in Chapter 3.
Aesthetics Hazards &Hazardous Materials Public Services
Agriculture & Forest Resources Hydrology and Water Quality Recreation
Air Quality Land Use and Planning Transportation
Greenhouse Gas Mineral Resources Utilities & Service Systems
Biological Resources Noise Cumulative Impacts
Cultural Resources Population &Housing
Geology & Soils
1.7 LEAD AGENCY'S DETERMINATION
On the basis of the analysis contained in Chapter 3:
X I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation
measures have been identified and are required to be implemented that reduce
potential impacts to less than significant and these mitigations have been agreed
to by the Project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
Chief Planner
PARK SFO - INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-1
2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
PROJECT LOCATION AND SURROUNDING LAND USES
As described in Chapter 1 Introduction, the 2013 Project, on approximately seven acres (6.96),
consists of a 5.71 acre parcel supporting the existing parking garage constructed in 2001 and the
adjacent 1.25 acre parcel currently containing surface parking constructed in 2007. The 2007 parcel
is owned by the City of South San Francisco and leased to Mr. Robert Simms, the Project sponsor.1
The 2013 Project would demolish the 2007 Project and construct a seven-level parking structure
connecting to the existing 2001 Project.
The site is located in the East of 101 Planning Area, in the southeastern corner of the City at 195
North Access Road. North Access Road and San Bruno Canal are immediately south of the site.
South of North Access Road is another parking structure. San Francisco International Airport is
property is 200 feet south of the site with its main operations approximately 1,300 feet further south.
San Francisco Bay is directly east, the City of South San Francisco wastewater treatment facility is to
the north and an aviation fuel tank farm is to the west. The site has access from South Airport
Boulevard, I-280 to 380 to North Access Road and U.S. 101 to North Access Road (see Figures 2.1
Project Location and 2.3 Project Area).
SITE PLANNING HISTORY-EXISTING CONDITIONS
The City received a development application in 1997 that triggered environmental, legislative and
entitlement review to construct the existing Park SFO facility. The 1997 review resulted in the City
adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance (MND) and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for site development and use. Amendments to the
1999 General Plan, East of 101 Area Plan and Zoning Ordinance to designate and zone the site as
Mixed Industrial (MI) to allow a parking facility that includes surface and structured parking, and
parking on the unused dry docks were also approved. Three of the dry docks are leased from the
City and one is owned by the Project sponsor. Other actions included authorization and execution
of a development agreement and land lease agreements; a lot line adjustment; and use permit and
design review approvals, with conditions of approval. The project was approved in April, 1998 and
1 The 2013 Project is the demolition of the 1.25-acre surface parking lot paved in 2007 and construction of a seven-level
parking structure connecting to the parking structure constructed in 1998. The Project site is typically described as the
entire seven acre site. Potential 2013 Project impacts consider the “whole of the project” which is the existing 1998
Project plus the 2013 Project.
CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PAGE 2-2 PARK SFO - INITIAL STUDY
constructed in 2001 (2001 Project). The 2001 Project also included relocation of portion of the Bay
Trail and construction of a park (+/-32,000 square feet) on the southern-most dry dock which is
owned by the Project sponsor. The old dry docks, five in total, are commonly referred to as
“fingers” (see Figure 2.1).
Mr. Simms, the Project sponsor, received approvals in 2007 to add an additional 166 stall surface
parking lot onto land owned by the City adjacent to the north the 2001 Project. The parcel
(colloquially known as the Tillo Property) was used by the City’s Water Quality Control Plant for
composting sludge during their facility upgrade from 1999-2001, and since 2001, was unused
property. In 2003 the City deemed the land as surplus and in 2007 Mr. Simms applied and received
approvals for the expansion of paved surface parking onto this parcel.
The 2013 Project, the subject of this analysis, would require demolition of pavement on the Tillo
Property, new grading and site preparation, emplacement of foundations and construction to expand
the parking structure. The 2013 Project does not propose to alter or disturb the existing use of the
old dry docks. The 2013 Project does not propose to encroach bay-ward beyond the line of the
existing parking garage (see Figure 2.2 Proposed Project).
FIGURE 2.1
PROJECT LOCATION
EAST OF 101 AREA LAND USE HISTORY
Land uses in the East of 101 Area have witnessed a change in land use over the years. The East of
101 Area was part of the first industrial development in South San Francisco approximately 100
years ago. Since then, the area has undergone many transformations. Pioneering industrial uses,
such as steel manufacturing, and meat packaging gave way to industrial park and warehousing and
distribution uses that came to dominate the area in the 1950s and 1960s. The recent emergence of
Area of 2013 Expansion
(Also referred to as
2007 Project Site)
CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PARK SFO- INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-3
modern office buildings and life science campuses mark the third major wave of land use change in
the area which are predominately located in the central and northern areas of the East of 101 Area.
The Project area, located in the southern portion of the East of 101 Area, largely consists of
industrial and manufacturing uses, big box retail, airport-related parking and transport and freight
forwarding. Industrial, warehousing, freight forwarding and airport-related parking uses are
permitted in the East of 101 south of East Grand Avenue (pps 110 and 111 South San Francisco
General Plan, 1999). San Francisco International Airport, airport-related parking services and
infrastructure designed to move motor vehicles (major arterials and surface connector streets)
dominate the Project area (see Figure 2.3 Project Area).
FIGURE 2.2
PROPOSED PROJECT
FIGURE 2.3
PROJECT AREA
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Shell Oil Tank Farms
SFO Maintenance Building
Project Site
CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PAGE 2-4 PARK SFO - INITIAL STUDY
2.2 PROJECT SITE CHARACTERISTICS
SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is relatively level and approximately 11 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The site includes
four dry docks extending into the bay. The site is underlain by Franciscan formation bedrock,
sandstone, shale and serpentine. Artificial fill and alluvial deposits derived from nearby hills overlay
the site (Furgo West, 2003). Research on envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov does not indicate hazardous or toxic
issues associated with the property although there may be monitoring wells on the property in
connection with monitoring nearby properties (website accessed December 5, 2012). Chapter 3,
Section 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials describes site conditions in more detail. Luis
DaSilva South San Francisco Fire Marshal did not identify hazardous issues, conditions or concerns
with the property (memorandum June 25, 2012). The Chief Planner, Ms. Susy Kalkin, concurs with
these findings. See Figure 2.1 Project Location which shows the existing site and area conditions.
BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (BCDC) BAY TRAIL AND
BAY ACCESS
The City, in 1998 amended the East of 101 Area Plan in part to relocate a portion of the planned-for
San Francisco Bay Trail (Bay Trail) along with the first entitlements for Park SFO. BCDC in
1996/97 approved a trail alignment for San Francisco International Airport (SFO) realigning the Bay
Trail entirely west of the SFO terminating at the comer of South Airport Boulevard and North
Access Road. The rerouting requested by Mr. Simms and approved by the City in 1998, resulted in
connecting the two trail segments and provided a direct route back to the shoreline north of the
SFO and the Project site (see Figure 2.4 Bay Trail).2 A regional view of the Bay Trail may be
located on www.abag.ca.gov/bayaarea/baytrail/map.html.
Mr. Simms constructed a 32,000 square foot public park on the southern-most dry dock as part of
the 1998 Project. The Bay Trail is just south of the park. The realignment realized in the late 1990’s
provides a public park, Bay Trail links north of the Project area and arguably a more pleasant
experience by avoiding the odoriferous activities of the Water Quality Control Plant as noted in the
City 1997 staff reports.
2 Prior to the City’s amendment the Bay Trail was planned to leave Belle Air Island westerly along North Access Road, traveling
northerly parallel to the dry docks (through the Project site) and through the Water Quality Control Plant where it would then bridge
the canal and connect further to northern portions of the City.
CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PARK SFO- INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-5
FIGURE 2.4
BAY TRAIL
2.3 PROPOSED PROJECT
The Project Sponsor is requesting various approvals (see 2.5 Project Entitlements) to demolish the
2007 surface parking lot and construct a seven-level 549,626 square foot parking structure. The new
structure would connect to the existing seven-level 477,048 square foot parking structure (see
Figure 2.2 Proposed Project) comprising the 2013 Project. The total area of the expanded parking
structure would be 1,026,647 square feet. The 2013 Project proposes to plant a minimum of eight
poplar trees around the perimeter of the site.
The 2013 Project does not propose to comply with City’s Zoning Code Section 20.330.010.L.8
requiring rooftop landscaping on parking structures. Plantings are prescribed to be placed a
minimum dimension of 24 inches in width around the perimeter of the roof. The application
materials state that the owner’s previous experience with planters on the existing Park SFO facility
roof has been “extremely negative.” According to Mr. Simms the irrigation systems have been
difficult and expensive to maintain and water leaks have caused damage to the facility and parked
cars within the structure. The damage to cars has resulted in claims against the facility.
The Project would include an unspecified amount of electric car charging stations. Application
materials indicate that the 2001 and 2007 Projects include a shuttle bus fleet that provides
transportation between Park SFO and the airport. The shuttle buses run on compressed natural gas
(CNG). CNG is a cleaner burning alternative transportation fuel, having fewer emissions than
gasoline and diesel. The 2013 Project would continue and expand the CNG running shuttle service.
Application materials indicate the Project would be illuminated by light-emitting diode (LED) lights.
LED lights draw less energy than halogen or incandescent lighting and are task oriented thus
limiting off-site spill of light. Solar panels were installed on the roof of the 1998 Project in the
Summer of 2013.
CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PAGE 2-6 PARK SFO - INITIAL STUDY
PROPOSED CIRCULATION AND ACCESS
Direct access and circulation to the 2013 Project site would remain unchanged. Customer and
shuttle bus access would be derived from the two existing driveways along North Access Road. The
Main access of the site is at the curve in North Access Road with a second access point on the
eastern side of the parking structure (see Figures 2.1 and 2.2). The eastern access is largely unused
and includes a gate restricting access. Parking capacity would increase from 1,901 to 3,194 spaces.
PROPOSED UTILITY CONNECTIONS AND HYDROLOGY
The 2013 Project would continue to connect to the existing utility lines present in the Project area.
Utility lines on the 2013 Project site would be reconfigured to accommodate the new site plan. A
stormwater quality control plan is required and shall address C-3 and C-6 permitting specifications,
rainwater harvesting, use of recycled water, capture, treatment and retention of stormwater and
other requirements outlined in Chapter 1, Introduction Section 1.5.4, Chapter 3.8 Hydrology
and Water Quality and a July 3, 2012 memorandum from Mr. Rob Lecel, Water Quality Control
Plant coordinator.
DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION
Project construction is expected to take approximately 16 months. There would be three main
phases of construction: (1) demolition, excavation, and foundation construction, (2) deck and
vertical structure forming and construction, and (3) finishing. The first and last phases are expected
to take approximately four (4) months each, with the second phase taking approximately eight (8)
months.
Typical construction equipment would include backhoes, concrete mixer trucks, cranes, dump
trucks, excavators, front end loaders, pickup trucks and forklifts. Operation of this construction
equipment would generate noise levels ranging from 75 dBA to 85 dBA at 50 feet. Construction
work would be limited to the hours of 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, five (5) days a week, with occasional
deliveries on Saturday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM. A possible exception to this would be to
accommodate concrete pours which requires a consistent and constant delivery of cement until the
pour is completed. Typically, concrete pours would occur on Thursdays or Fridays to take
advantage of weekend downtime allowing the concrete to adequately cure before construction
resumes on the following Monday. Should Saturday pours be necessary, the activity would occur
between the hours of 8:30 AM and 5:00 PM. These proposed hours of construction are in
conformance with the City’s noise ordinance outlined in Chapter 1, Introduction, Section 1.5.5
which limits weekday construction from 8 AM to 8 PM.3
3 Construction noise is regulated through the Municipal Code (8.32.050(d)). Hours of construction 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 may be granted by
the Chief Building Official.
CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PARK SFO- INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-7
The first major phase of construction (demolition, excavation and foundation construction) would
involve excavation, off haul of asphalt and excess soil, and import of rebar and concrete for the
structural foundation. Earth moving equipment would be on-site to support foundation
construction. Demolition on the site would include removal and disposal of the asphalt paving in
the area where the expansion is proposed. The area would encompass the building footprint plus
approximately 10 feet outside of the footprint; an area of approximately 90,000 square feet. Any
abandoned building pads or other subsurface impediments within the footprint of the expansion
would also be removed.
Site grading would involve excavation for the structure’s foundation. Demolition and excavation
would be performed in a manner to minimize the generation of dust pursuant to the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) Tier 1 and 2 methods identified in Chapter 1,
Introduction, Section 1.5.2. The Engineering Division requires and monitors compliance with the
BAAQMD measures. Soil would be excavated down to bedrock over the footprint of the proposed
structure for placement of spread footings. The distance from the ground surface to bedrock is
approximately 10 to 15 feet over most of the site. Off-haul of asphalt would likely occur over a two
week period and would result in an average of six truck trips per day. Off-haul of excess soil would
occur over a longer period and may result in three to four truck trips per day.
The heaviest construction traffic days during the first major construction phase would be during the
foundation concrete pours, when approximately 50 concrete trucks would travel to the site over the
course of the workday. Concrete trucks would be scheduled so that there would be two to three
concrete trucks on site at a time. Approximately six concrete pours are envisioned for the
foundation. On approximately six separate occasions during this four month period, semi-trailers
would deliver the foundation rebar to the site.
During the second major phase of construction, deck and vertical structure pours, construction
would include forming and construction of the parking decks and vertical elements (walls and
columns). The heaviest traffic days would be for forming and construction of the parking decks.
Concrete pours would typically occur every Thursday over the eight month period (or approximately
32 days). Equipment required on-site during to construct the parking decks would include concrete
pumping equipment and approximately 60 concrete trucks over the course of the work day. In
addition, delivery of rebar would occur two days per month, typically on Mondays, and would
include two semi-trucks with flatbed trailers. Vertical (column and wall) pours would also occur on
32 separate days with each pour requiring approximately 25 concrete trucks coming to the site over
the course of a work day, typically a Tuesday.
The last construction phase involves construction of exterior and interior finishes, stair and elevator
installation, painting, stall striping, and other closeout activities. Equipment used on-site during this
period would be typically limited to forklifts and trucks delivering finish materials. The geotechnical
report noted the existence of serpentine rock in several of the borings taken. Asbestos is a naturally
occurring material in some types of serpentine rock. Excavated material containing asbestos fibers
may need to be disposed of as hazardous waste and would be required to comply with the J-Permit
CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PAGE 2-8 PARK SFO - INITIAL STUDY
regulations of the BAAQMD outlined in Chapter 1, Introduction, Section 1.5.2. The demolition
and construction activities are included in the air quality analysis (see Section 3.2 Air Quality).
2.4 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The Project site is within the area subject to the provisions of the “East of 101” Planning Sub-Area
of the City of South San Francisco’s General Plan. The General Plan designates the Project site for
“Mixed Industrial” uses, and gives the following summary:
This designation is intended to provide and protect industrial lands for a wide range
of manufacturing, industrial processing, general service, warehousing, storage and
distribution and service commercial uses. The maximum floor area is 0.4, with an
increase to 0.60 for development seeking a FAR bonus with a Transportation
Demand Management Program in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Table
2.2-1 (page 32 General Plan) footnote (1) states that commercial parking structures
are excluded from the FAR restrictions.
ZONING CLASSIFICATION
The Project site is zoned “Mixed Industrial” (MI) and is consistent with the General Plan
designation. The MI District provides for a wide range of manufacturing, industrial processing,
general service, warehousing, storage and distribution and service commercial uses. Industries that
use or produce substantial amounts of hazardous materials or generate noise, odor, or other
pollutants are not permitted. The maximum floor area is 0.4, with an increase to 0.60 for
development providing specified off-site improvements save for structured commercial parking as
noted above. A complete list of permitted and conditional uses is identified in Chapter 20.110.002
of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (HTTP://Qcode.us).
2.5 REQUIRED ENTITLEMENTS
LEAD AGENCY REQUIREMENTS
The Applicant has applied for adjudicative and administrative actions as identified below.
ADJUDICATIVE
Modification to Conditional Use Permit to expand the parking facility.
Design Review approval.
MINISTERIAL
Grading and Encroachment permits to work in the public right-of-way (Engineering
Division).
CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PARK SFO- INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-9
Building permits (Building Division).
Waiver of the requirement to landscape the perimeter of rooftop parking deck (Planning
Division).
OTHER AGENCY REQUIRED PERMITS
J - Permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
Local and State approval of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (South San Francisco
Water Quality Control Plant and State Water Resources Board).
Bay Area Conservation and Development Commission (review and potential permit).
California Department of Fish and Game (review and potential permit).
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (review and potential permit).
PARK SFO - INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-1
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” 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” 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.
As noted in Chapter 2, the existing parking structure (2001 Project) underwent
environmental review in 1997. This 2013 Initial Study identifies mitigation measures that
carry forward from the 1997 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, as well as the
ones that do not carry forward. The 2001 Project, 2007 Project demolition and construction
of the 20013 Project will be the “complete 2013 Project” going forward.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-2 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
3.1 AESTHETICS
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS — Would the Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
X
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
X
1997 IS/MND
One mitigation measure, Mitigation Measure 14, was identified in the February, 1997 Initial
Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (1997 IS/MND). Mitigation Measure 14 requires a
lighting plan to ensure that all exterior fixtures would be downcast or equipped with cut-off
lenses to prevent spill of unwanted light onto adjacent properties, streets or sensitive biological
resources. Mitigation Measure 14 is superseded by 2013 Biology Mitigation 3, as well as the
City’s zoning ordinance and Area Plan requirements (see lighting discussion in c, above and
Section 3.5 Biological Resources).
SETTING
PROJECT SITE
The site is located in the East of 101 Planning Area, in the southeastern corner of the City at 195
North Access Road. North Access Road and San Bruno Canal are immediately south of the site.
South of North Access Road is another parking structure. San Francisco International Airport
(SFO) property is approximately 200 feet south of the site. San Francisco Bay is directly east, the
City of South San Francisco wastewater treatment facility is to the north and an aviation fuel
tank farm is to the west (see Figures 2.1 Project Location and 2.3 Project Area in Chapter
2).
The Project area largely consists of industrial and manufacturing uses, big box retail, airport-
related parking and transport and freight forwarding. SFO, airport-related parking services,
major arterials and surface connector streets dominate the Project area (see Figure 2.3 Project
Area in Chapter 2).
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-3
Prior to 2001, the 1.25 acre Project site supported industrial land uses, ship repair, warehouse
and freight forwarding, and from 2001-2003 was used as a composting area for the City’s Water
Quality Control Plant. In 2007, the property owner received approvals from the City to pave the
Project site and provide surface parking that is part and parcel to the existing Park SFO facility
that was constructed in 2001. Therefore, the Project site has been paved and used for a surface
parking lot as part of the Park SFO facility since 2007.
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, US 380 to the
south, and the San Francisco Bay to the east provide the City with distinctive edges. The City is
contained in almost a bowl like fashion 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, and
Sign Hill and San Bruno Mountain in the distance 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. South San Francisco’s industrial roots are reflected in its urban
character, especially in its eastern parts. Almost 20 percent of South San Francisco’s land is
occupied by industrial and warehousing uses.
EAST OF 101 AREA
NORTH OF EAST GRAND AVENUE: Land uses in the East of 101 Area have witnessed a
change in land use over the years. The East of 101 Area was part of the first industrial
development in South San Francisco about 100 years ago. Since then, the area has undergone
many transformations. Pioneering industrial uses, such as steel manufacturing, and meat
packaging gave way to industrial parks, including warehousing and distribution uses that
dominated the area in the 1950s and 1960s. The emergence of modern office buildings and life
science campuses in the 1980s marks the third major wave of land use change in the area.
SOUTH OF EAST GRAND AVENUE: The southern portion of the East of 101 Area, where the
Project is located retains more of a relationship to the older industrial land uses of South San
Francisco. Heavier industrial uses, such as ship repair, have gone by the wayside to be replaced
with a wide range of manufacturing, industrial processing, general service, warehousing, storage
and distribution, and service commercial uses. Dry docks are replaced with public parks and
airport-related parking. The southern area of the East of 101 is where most of South San
Francisco’s industrial uses are now located; a policy direction contained in the 1999 general plan.
The City’s zoning ordinance prohibits industries that use or produce substantial amounts of
hazardous materials or generate noise, odor, or other pollutants.
PROPOSED PROJECT
The Project would remove a surface parking lot and construct a seven-level parking structure
connecting to the existing Park SFO facility. The Project would not encroach towards the Bay
but would be located north of the existing Park SFO parking garage. A park on the southern-
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-4 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
most dry dock was constructed and the Bay Trail was relocated as part of the 1998 Project. The
Park SFO The site is 11 feet above mean sea level (MSL) (see Chapter 3.7 Geology and Soils).
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
As identified in Chapter 1.5.1, the Project is required by law to undergo review by the City’s
Design Review Board. Changes in design may be identified by the Board and may also be
identified by the Planning Commission. Design review regulates signage, site layout,
architecture, urban design and lighting.
GENERAL PLAN
The South San Francisco General Plan identifies maximum heights for structures with respect to
potential aircraft hazards as well as areas with special scenic considerations. The Project site is
between the 150 and 175 foot height contour airport-related height limit restriction
(Http://ialp.airplanonline.com). The Project would be 100 feet in height at its highest point
which includes the light poles at the roof top parking level. The building itself would be 80 to
90 feet including the stairwells and elevator. The Project would be 50 feet below the maximum
permitted height, measured from ground level.
The Project site is not located within a scenic vista or scenic corridor. The Project site is
identified as being visible from at least one viewpoint (Figure 2-4 Viewshed, South San Francisco
General Plan, page 36 and General Plan Background Report).
EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN DESIGN ELEMENT
In 1995, the East of 101 Area Plan established goals and policies for the East of 101 Area. The
policies contained in the Plan’s design element apply to development at the Project site and the
Project area (page 53, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999).
The stated goals of the Area Plan’s design concept are to promote quality design, to promote a
functional, safe and attractive environment, preserve the character of South San Francisco’s
heritage, protect public investment and land values, protect the natural environment, and
facilitate evaluation of individual development proposals through the use of the Area Plan’s
design guidelines.
The Area Plan design element sets area-wide design policies for streetscape, parking, loading and
access, site design and open space, landscaping and lighting, fencing and screening, building
design, signage and rooftop mechanical equipment. Additionally, the Area Plan sets more
specific guidelines for individual land use categories. For the Project site, the design guidelines
include specific requirements for street trees, landscape buffers, avoidance of blank walls,
building orientation toward the street, design guidelines, parking lot and shrubs.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-5
IMPACTS
a) Scenic Vistas
Significance Criteria: For the purpose of assessing impacts of a proposed 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 Project is not located within a formally designated public vista, nor would it result in the
obstruction of a formally designated public vista. Additionally, the Project would not conflict
with an adopted planning policy regarding scenic vistas. Therefore, the Project would have no
impact with respect to scenic vista impacts.
b) Scenic Resources and Scenic Routes
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 would not be visible from a state or local scenic highway. The Project site does not
contain historic buildings or trees or significant rock outcroppings. Therefore the Project
w ould have no impact on scenic resources.
c) Visual Character
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 visual character of new projects must conform to the design principles and policies set forth
in the East of 101 Area Plan Design Element. The design principles and policies, identified in
Policy DE-57 of the East of 101 Area Plan, applicable to the Project include:
Streetscape. Street trees are required to be planted every fifty (50) feet. The Project
shows a row of poplar trees along the southeast and southwest elevations (conceptual
landscape plans and architectural plans). Additional landscape improvement is required
by Biology Mitigation 2.
Footpaths and Sidewalks. The design guidelines call for sidewalks and footpaths and a
clear connection between the street and building. The Project is a parking structure that
would include clearly delineated pedestrian walkways, and provides access to the Bay
Trail and views of the Bay.
Landscape Buffers. The Project proposes to retain the existing landscape edges
approved in 1998/99 and 2007. Landscaping is shown along all perimeters of the site
and within surface parking areas.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-6 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
Building Orientation. The Project would not alter the orientation of the building
which clearly relates to North Access Road.
Massing of Walls. The Design Guidelines discourage blank walls in expanses greater
than 30 feet that are visible from the public right-of-ways. The Project does not
propose blank walls.
Lighting. A statement provided with the applications materials indicates that lighting
would be task orientated. Section 3.5 Biological Resources addresses lighting in more
detail, including the City’s regulatory requirements and identifies Biology Mitigation 3
to assure that lighting remains on site and does not negatively affect the Bay habitat.
Building Design and Height. The Project architecture is designed to conform with
the existing structure. The City’s Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed and approved
the Project on July 17, 2012. The DRB recommended subdrains and trenching, to
minimize salt water intrusion to promote the success and longevity of the poplar trees.
Building and Roof Materials. All types of building materials are permitted in the
Light Industrial category provided they are of high quality. The building materials match
the existing structure and the roof would provide parking.
Parking Lot Landscaping. Adequate landscaping is encouraged in parking lots. The
perimeter of the project and the surface parking areas are landscaped and the Project
would add to the landscaping.
The Project would be located in an area whose visual characteristics consist largely of big-box
retail, light industrial and airport-related parking. The Project complies with the East of 101 Area
Plan Design Guidelines and is compatible with the existing land use and architecture of the area.
The Project would have no impact on visual character.
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.
Implementation of Biology Mitigation 3, the City’s zoning ordinance and East of 101 Area Plan
requirements would reduce this impact to less-than-significant (see lighting discussion in c,
above and Section 3.5 Biological Resources).
Finding: The Project would not have an impact on the aesthetics or scenic quality on the site
or in the area. There would be no individual or cumulative impacts with respect to aesthetic,
visual quality or light and glare associated with the Project with implementation of Biology
Mitigation 2.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-7
3.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES
1997 IS/MND
No mitigation measures were identified in the 1997 IS/MND.
SETTING
Prior to 2001, the 1.25 acre Project site supported industrial land uses, ship repair, warehouse
and freight forwarding, and from 2001-2003 was used as a composting area for the City’s Water
Quality Control Plant. The Project site has been paved and used for a surface parking lot as part
of the Park SFO facility since 2007.
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: 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 the 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
the 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?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract? X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or 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 section51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use? X
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?
X
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-8 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
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 and as such would not involve the conversion of
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. 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
The site is not zoned for timberland production or in use as such, nor in proximity to such a use.
Use of the site for airport-related parking 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.
Finding: Prior to 2001, the 1.25 acre Project site supported industrial land uses, ship repair,
warehouse and freight forwarding, and from 2001-2003 was used as a composting area for the
City’s Water Quality Control Plant. The Project site has been paved and used for surface
parking as part of the Park SFO facility since 2007. The Project would not adversely affect any
existing agricultural operations as none exist on the site. The Project would not impact
agricultural resources individually or cumulatively and is not in any Farmland, Unique Farmland,
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), or in Williamson Act Contract. 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 section51104(g)).
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-9
3.3 AIR QUALITY
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the
significance criteria established by the applicable
air quality management or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the Project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
X
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
X
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions, which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
X
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people? X
1997 IS/MND
One mitigation measure was identified in the 1997 IS/MND. Mitigation Measure 7 from the
1997 IS/MND does not apply to the 2013 Project. The following air quality analysis evaluates
the whole of the Project which includes the existing 2001 Project as background conditions and
the 2013 Project. The analysis contained herein is compliant with current agency, state
guidelines and law and City regulatory requirements, as identified below which is considerably
more detailed and defined that that required in 1997.
Air Quality Modeling and Assessment
This air quality analysis was conducted by Mr. Mike Ratte of KB Environmental Consultants, air
quality specialists. This air quality analysis was performed using methodologies and assumptions
recommended within the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Air
Quality Guidelines (dated June 2010, updated in May 2011, and revised in May 2012).1 This
1 The Air District’s June 2010 adopted thresholds of significance were challenged in a lawsuit. On March 5, 2012 the Alameda
County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the Air District had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the
thresholds. The court found that the adoption of the thresholds was a project under CEQA and ordered the Air District to
examine whether the thresholds would have a significant impact on the environment under CEQA before recommending their
use. The court did not determine whether the thresholds are or are not based on substantial evidence and thus valid on the merits.
The court issued a writ of mandate ordering the District to set aside the thresholds and cease dissemination of them until the Air
District had complied with CEQA. The court’s order permits the Air District to develop and disseminate these CEQA
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-10 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
section describes existing air quality as well as air pollutant impacts related to construction and
operation of the proposed Project. Pursuant to the City of South San Francisco’s project review
process, Air Quality Conditions of Approval (as described in Chapter 1, Section 1.5.2) that are
required to be implemented as part of the Project are also addressed.
Air quality pollutants included in the analysis comprise carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic
compounds (ROG), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), particulate matter equal to or
less than 10 micrometers (coarse particulates or PM10)and particulate matter equal to or less
than 2.5 micrometers (fine particulates or PM2.5). Diesel particulate matter (DPM) from
construction equipment exhaust and asbestos/serpentine rock 2 fugitive dust from construction
and grading activities are of particular concern with regard to health risk assessments (HRAs).
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are also addressed within Section 3.4.
SETTING
CLIMATE
The peninsula region of the Bay Area Air Basin (Bay Area) extends from the area northwest of
San Jose to the Golden Gate. The Santa Cruz Mountain range extends up the center of the
peninsula, with elevations exceeding 2,000 feet at the south end, and gradually decreasing to an
elevation of 500 feet in South San Francisco, where it terminates. San Francisco is at the north
end of the peninsula and because most of the topography of San Francisco is less than 200 feet
in elevation, the marine air layer is able to flow across most of the city, making its climate
relatively cool and windy3.
Meteorological data collected at the San Francisco International Airport (SFO), which is
approximately two miles south of the Project site, are representative of general meteorological
conditions. Average maximum and minimum winter (i.e., January) temperatures at SFO are 56
and 42 ºF, respectively, whereas average summer (i.e., July) maximum and minimum
temperatures are 72 and 54 ºF, respectively. Precipitation at SFO averages approximately 20
inches per year4.
Guidelines, as long as they do not implement the thresholds of significance. Although the BAAQMD’s adoption of significance
thresholds for air quality analysis has been subject to judicial actions, the City of South San Francisco has determined that
BAAQMD’s Revised Draft Options and Justification Report (October 2009), provide substantial evidence to support the
BAAQMD recommended thresholds. Therefore, the City of South San Francisco has determined the BAAQMD recommended
thresholds are appropriate for use in this analysis.
2 In 2002, the California Air Resources Board adopted an Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure for construction, grading,
quarrying and surface mining operations. New emission control measures, such as dust suppressants apply to activities such as
road construction and road maintenance, construction, grading, and quarrying and surface mining operations in areas with
naturally-occurring asbestos/serpentine rock. Geologic mapping does indicate the existence of asbestos/serpentine rock within
the project site.
3 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. October 4, 2010, Bay Area Climatology
http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Communications-and-Outreach/Air-Quality-in-the-Bay-Area/Bay-Area-Climatology.aspx,
accessed February 4, 2012.
4 Western Regional Climate Center, Local Climate Data Summaries for San Francisco International Airport, California.
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/clilcd.pl?ca23234, accessed February 4, 2012.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-11
Annual average wind speeds throughout the peninsula range from five to 10 miles per hour
(mph). The east side of the mountains has a westerly wind pattern; however, it is influenced by
local topographic features. During stable atmospheric conditions a topographic feature
measuring a few hundred feet rise in elevation will induce flow around as opposed to over the
feature. This phenomenon can change the wind directional pattern by as much as 90 degrees
over short distances. Areas on the east side of the peninsula often experience eastern flow in the
surface layer, induced by upslope flow on the east-facing slopes and by the bay breeze on
mornings without a strong pressure gradient. The bay breeze is rarely seen in the afternoon
because the stronger sea breeze dominates the flow pattern 5.
SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
People that are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution within the general population
include children, elderly, and those that suffer from certain illnesses or disabilities, and land uses
including schools, convalescent homes, and hospitals are considered to be sensitive receptors to
air pollution. Residential areas are also considered sensitive to poor air quality because people
usually stay home for extended periods of time, which results in greater exposure to localized air
pollutants.
BAAQMD considers the relevant zone of influence for an assessment of health risks to be those
areas within 1,000 feet of the project boundary. There are no sensitive receptors within 1,000
feet of the Project boundary. Residential land uses are approximately 3,300 feet (0.65 miles) to
the west of the Project site (west of Route 101 and north of Interstate 380) and 4,050 feet (0.75
miles) to the southwest of the Project site (west of Route 101 and south of Interstate 380). The
closest school is Belle Air Elementary which is 1.1 miles (approximately 6,000 feet) from the
Project site. San Francisco International Airport (SFO) is located approximately 1,300 feet to the
south of the Project site (although airport-owned property is within 200 feet of the Project site).
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
The BAAQMD monitors and regulates air quality pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act, as
amended, and the California Clean Air Act. The BAAQMD also adopts and enforces controls
on stationary sources of air pollutants through its permit and inspection programs. Other
BAAQMD responsibilities include monitoring air quality, preparation of clean air plans, and
responding to citizen air quality complaints. The BAAQMD has also published CEQA Air
Quality Guidelines, to assist lead agencies in evaluating air quality impacts of projects and plans
proposed in the Bay Area.
5 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. October 4, 2010, Bay Area Climatology
http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Communications-and-Outreach/Air-Quality-in-the-Bay-Area/Bay-Area-Climatology.aspx,
accessed February 4, 2012.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-12 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
CURRENT AIR QUALITY
The BAAQMD operates a regional monitoring network of ambient concentrations of six criteria
pollutants. Currently, the criteria pollutants of most concern in the Bay Area are ozone and
particulate matter. The monitoring station closest to the Project site is in San Francisco on
Arkansas Street. This air quality monitoring station monitors levels of ozone, particulate matter
in the form of PM10 and PM2.5, CO, NO 2 , and SO 2 ).
Air Quality Table 1 summarizes the most recent three years of data published by the
BAAQMD for the San Francisco, Arkansas Street air monitoring station, which is approximately
seven and a half miles to the north of the Project site. The federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard was
exceeded twice in 2011, three times in 2010 and once in 2009. No other State or federal air
quality standards were exceeded during the three year period.
Therefore, the Bay Area is currently designated “nonattainment” for state and national (1-hour
and 8-hour) ozone standards, for the state PM10 standards, and for state and national (annual
average and 24-hour) PM2.5 standards. The Bay Area is designated “attainment” or
“unclassified” with respect to the other ambient air quality standards.
AIR QUALITY TABLE 1
AIR QUALITY DATA SUMMARY
SAN FRANCISCO, ARKANSAS STREET, CA, 2009 – 2011 6
Pollutant Standard Days Standard Exceeded
2009 2010 2011
Ozone State 1–Hour 0 0 0
Ozone Federal 8–Hour 0 0 0
Ozone State 8–Hour 0 0 0
PM10 Federal 24–Hour 0 0 0
PM10 State 24–Hour 0 0 0
PM2.5 Federal 24–Hour 1 3 2
Carbon Monoxide State/Federal
8–Hour
0 0 0
Nitrogen Dioxide State 1–Hour 0 0 0
Sulfur Dioxide State 24-Hour 0 0 0
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Annual Bay Area Air Quality Summaries,
http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Communications-and-Outreach/Air-Quality-in-the-Bay-Area/Air-Quality-Summaries.aspx,
2012.
IMPACTS
This section addresses each of the Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact outlined within the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines.
Relevant significance criteria are outlined and evaluated, including methodological descriptions
and computations, where necessary per each category. Significance findings are highlighted
6 2012 data will not be available until March/April, 2013.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-13
where applicable. Detailed methodology results can be found within Appendix A to this
document.
a) Conflicts with the Current Air Quality Plan
Significance Criteria: Any project that would not support the goals of the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air
Plan (CAP) would not be considered consistent with the 2010 CAP.
On September 15, 2010, the BAAQMD adopted the 2010 CAP. The 2010 Bay Area CAP
updates the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy in accordance with the requirements of the California
Clean Air Act (CCAA) to implement all feasible measures to reduce ozone; provide a control
strategy to reduce ozone, particulate matter, air toxics, and GHG emissions in a single,
integrated plan; and establish emission control measures to be adopted or implemented in the
2010 through 2012 timeframe. The primary goals of the 2010 Bay Area CAP are to:
• Attain air quality standards;
• Reduce population exposure and protecting public health in the Bay Area; and
• Reduce GHG emissions and protect the climate.
The recommended measure for determining Project support of these goals is consistency with
BAAQMD-approved CEQA thresholds of significance. Therefore, if approval of a project
would not result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts after the application of all
feasible mitigation, the Project would be considered consistent with the 2010 Bay Area CAP. All
Project air quality impacts addressed within this document have been deemed less than
significant or less than significant after mitigation therefore (see following discussion), the
Project would be consistent with the 2010 Bay Area CAP, and thus, the impact is less
than significant.
b and c) Violation of Standards and a Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would exceed
BAAQMD’s construction and/or operational mass emission thresholds for exhaust emissions
and/or if appropriate air pollutant control measures are not implemented. The BAAQMD
CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommend that cumulative air quality effects from criteria air
pollutants also be addressed by comparison to the mass daily and annual thresholds. These
thresholds were developed to identify a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant
regional air quality impact.
Air quality impacts are associated with both construction and operation of a project. BAAQMD
rules and regulations govern certain aspects of the construction phase of projects and relate to
portable construction equipment (e.g., gasoline- or diesel-powered engines used for power
generation, pumps, compressors, and cranes), architectural coatings, fugitive dust, and paving
materials. Project construction and operation impacts are discussed within the following
sections.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-14 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
CONSTRUCTION RELATED IMPACTS
The parking facility expansion would remove surface parking and construct a 549,626 square
foot expansion to park an additional 1,300 cars, for a total of approximately 3,3,194 parking
spaces. The construction would occur over a 16 month period. Chapter 2 Project
Description provides further information on Project phasing and construction characteristics.
Project construction would generate short-term emissions of criteria pollutants, including
fugitive dust and equipment exhaust emissions. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
recommend quantification of construction-related exhaust emissions and comparison of those
emissions to significance thresholds. Therefore, this analysis includes quantification of
construction emissions and comparison of the emissions to the BAAQMD’s construction
significance thresholds. The CalEEMod (California Emissions Estimator Model) was used to
quantify project construction emissions of criteria pollutants (see Appendix A for emissions
estimate assumptions).
Air Quality Table 2 provides the estimated short-term construction emissions that would be
associated with the Project and compares those emissions to the BAAQMD’s thresholds for
construction exhaust emissions. The average daily construction period emissions were
compared to the BAAQMD significance thresholds. All construction-related emissions would
be below the BAAQMD significance thresholds.
AIR QUALITY TABLE 2
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA POLUTANT EMISSIONS
(pounds per day)
Emission Sources ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 CO
Construction 21.8 40.1 2.44 2.44 30.6
Significance Thresholds 54 54 82 54 ---
Significant Impact? No No No No No
Notes: Refer to Appendix A for all emission assumptions.
BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provides a number of Construction Mitigation Measures
(related to fugitive dust and exhaust emissions) for construction activities which are required of
the Project through the City’s standard review and approval procedures (see Introduction,
Chapter 1, Section 1.5.2). All construction emissions would be below the BAAQMD
significance thresholds with the implementation of these measures that are required by law.
Therefore, Project impacts that would be associated with construction related exhaust
emissions would be less than significant with implementation of the measures the City
requires by law.
OPERATIONAL IMPACTS
The CalEEMod was used to estimate emissions that would be associated with natural gas space
heating, water heating, and landscape maintenance emissions expected to occur due to
implementation the Project. The Project would demolish a surface parking lot and construct a
seven-level 549,626 square foot parking structure connecting to the existing seven-level 477,048
square foot parking structure.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-15
The Project would increase on-site parking from 1,901 up to 3,194 spaces through expansion of
the parking garage (on property currently used for surface parking). After completion, there
would be 2,833 garage spaces and 361 surface parking spaces. Operational emissions associated
with the additional vehicle traffic were estimated. The daily trip rate was estimated to be 650 (or
1.2 per 1,000 square foot per day)7. Twenty-five percent of the trip generation is related to the
shuttle bus fleet, which transfer passengers from the facility to SFO.
The Project would include an unspecified amount of electric car charging stations. The existing
project includes a shuttle bus fleet that provides transportation between Park SFO and the
airport. The shuttle buses run on compressed natural gas (CNG). CNG is a cleaner burning
alternative transportation fuel, having fewer emissions than gasoline and diesel. The Project
would continue and expand the CNG shuttle service. Application materials indicate the Project
would be illuminated by light-emitting diode (LED) lights. LED lights draw less energy than
halogen or incandescent lighting and are task oriented thus limiting off-site spill of light.
Estimated operational daily and annual emissions that would be associated with the Project are
presented in Air Quality Tables 3 and 4 and are compared to BAAQMD’s thresholds of
significance. As indicated, the estimated operational emissions that would be associated
with the Project would be below the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds and would be
less than significant.
AIR QUALITY TABLE 3
PROJECT DAILY OPERATIONAL CRITERIA POLUTANT EMISSIONS
(pounds per day)
Emission Sources ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 CO
Operation 8.96 4.34 0.19 0.19 25.8
Significance Thresholds 54 54 82 54 ---
Significant Impact? No No No No No
Notes: Refer to Appendix A for all emission assumptions. Values reflect rounding.
AIR QUALITY TABLE 4
PROJECT ANNUAL OPERATIONAL CRITERIA POLUTANT EMISSIONS
(tons per year)
Emission Sources ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 CO
Operation 1.58 0.75 0.04 0.04 4.61
Significance Thresholds 10 10 15 10 ---
Significant Impact? No No No No No
Notes: Refer to Appendix A for all emission assumptions. Values reflect rounding.
The BAAQMD has identified preliminary screening criteria for determining whether CO
emissions would be exceeded. The screening criteria provide a conservative indication of
whether the implementation of the Project would result in CO emissions that are potentially
significant. The methodology includes the following:
7 Based upon trip generation rates found at commercial airports in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation
Manual (9th Edition - 2012), pm peak hour trip generation is about 5.6 to 6 percent of daily generation.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-16 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
■ Project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established
by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways,
regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans.
■ The project traffic would increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more
than 44,000 vehicles per hour.
■ The project traffic would increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more
than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is
substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban
street canyon, below-grade roadway).
The two signalized intersections at the South Airport Boulevard/I-380 interchange as well as the
North Access Road/I-380 end of freeway intersection just south of the site are currently
operating at Levels of Service (LOS) A and B during AM and PM commute peak hour
conditions. All three analysis intersections would have LOS A or B during the AM and PM peak
hour operation in the year 2015 with the addition of Project traffic 8. Two of the three analysis
intersections would have LOS A or B during the AM and PM peak hour operation in the year
2035 with the addition of Project traffic. In addition, the South Airport Boulevard/North
Access Road/I-380 westbound on-ramp intersection would maintain LOS B during the AM
peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour operation with the addition of Project traffic.
The additional traffic would not exceed the screening criteria based on the size of the facility, the
anticipated resultant traffic volumes, and the anticipated LOS at the analysis intersections.
Therefore, impacts that would be associated with long -term operational CO exhaust
emissions would be less than significant.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommend that cumulative air quality effects from
criteria air pollutants also be addressed by comparison to the BAAQMD’s mass daily and annual
significance thresholds. Project-related emissions would be below the thresholds with
implementation of the measures the City requires by law (see Introduction, Chapter 1, Section
1.2.2) as shown in Air Quality Tables 2 through 4. Therefore, the Project would not be
cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
d) Impacts to Sensitive Receptors
Significance Criteria: The significance of impact to sensitive receptors is dependent on the chance
of contracting cancer from exposure to carcinogenic toxic air contaminants (TACs) such as
DPM, or of having adverse health effects from exposure to non-carcinogenic TACs. A project
is considered to be significant if the incremental cancer risk at a receptor exceeds 10 in a million.
For cumulative analysis of cancer risk, BAAQMD recommends that the risks from all sources
within a 1,000 foot radius of the source or receptor be assessed and compared to a cumulative
8The trip generation and intersection levels of service are from the Project-specific traffic analysis conducted by Crane
Transportation Group and discussed in Section 3.16 Transportation and Traffic.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-17
increased risk threshold of 100 in one million. The non-cancer hazard index significance
threshold of 1.0 is defined in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. For cumulative
analysis of non-cancer hazard index, BAAQMD requires that the hazards from all sources within
a 1,000 foot radius of the source or receptor be assessed and compared to a cumulative hazard
index threshold of 10.
The BAAQMD has established a separate significance threshold for PM2.5 to protect public
health as emissions of PM2.5 are associated with health risks. For individual projects, the
BAAQMD significant threshold for PM2.5 impacts is an average annual increase of 0.3 µg/m3.
For cumulative analysis, BAAQMD recommends that the PM2.5 concentrations from all
sources within a 1,000 foot radius of the receptor be assessed and compared to a cumulative
threshold of an average annual increase of 0.8 µg/m3.
CANCER RISK
Cancer risk is defined as the lifetime probability of developing cancer from exposure to
carcinogenic substances. Cancer risks are expressed as the chances in one million of contracting
cancer, for example, ten cancer cases among one million people exposed.
Following HRA guidelines established by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment (OEHHA) and BAAQMD’s Health Risk Screening Analysis Guidelines, incremental
cancer risks were calculated by applying toxicity factors to modeled TAC concentrations in order
to determine the inhalation dose (milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day [mg/kg-day]).
See Appendix A for details.
Construction Related Impacts
As a result of construction activities (with implementation of the measures the City requires by
law), the unmitigated maximum cancer risk for a residential-adult receptor would be 0.18 per
million and for a residential-child would be 2.0 per million. Thus, the unmitigated cancer risk
due to construction activities is below the BAAQMD threshold of 10 per million and would
be less than significant.
Operational Related Impacts
The maximum cancer risks from the Project operations for a residential-adult receptor would be
0.30 per million and for a residential-child would be 0.15 per million with implementation of the
measures the City requires by law. Thus, the health impacts from Project operations would
be below the BAAQMD threshold of 10 per million and less than significant.
Total Project Impacts
The maximum cancer risks from the Project construction and operations (with implementation
of the measures the City requires by law), the unmitigated maximum cancer risk a residential-
adult receptor would be 0.30 per million and for a residential-child would be 2.0 per million with
implementation of the measures the City requires by law. Thus, the health impacts from
Project construction and operations would be below the BAAQMD threshold of 10 per
million and less than significant.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-18 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
NON-CANCER HEALTH IMPACTS
Both acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) adverse health impacts unrelated to cancer are
measured against a hazard index (HI), which is defined as the ratio of the predicted incremental
exposure concentration from the Project to a published reference exposure level (REL) that
could cause adverse health effects. The RELs are published by OEHHA based on
epidemiological research. The ratio (referred to as the Hazard Quotient [HQ]) of each non-
carcinogenic substance that affects a certain organ system is added to produce an overall HI for
that organ system. The overall HI is calculated for each organ system. If the overall HI for the
highest-impacted organ system is greater than 1.0, then the impact is considered to be
significant.
The chronic reference exposure level for DPM was established by the California OEHHA as
5 µg/m3. There is no acute REL for DPM. However, diesel exhaust does contain acrolein and
other compounds, which do have an acute REL. Based on BAAQMD’s DPM speciation data
acrolein emissions are approximately 1.3 percent of the total DPM emissions. The acute REL
for acrolein was established by the California OEHHA 9 as 2.5 µg/m3.
The chronic HI would be 0.01. The chronic HI would be well below the BAAQMD
threshold of 1 and the impact of the Project would therefore be less than significant.
The acute HI would be 0.01. The acute HI would be below the BAAQMD threshold of 1
and the impact of the Project would therefore be less than significant.
PM2.5 Concentration
Dispersion modeling was also used to estimate exposure of sensitive receptors to Project-related
concentrations of PM2.5. Because emissions of PM2.5 are associated with health risks the
BAAQMD has established a separate significance threshold to protect public health. The
BAAQMD guidance requires inclusion of PM2.5 exhaust emissions only in this analysis (i.e.,
fugitive dust emissions are addressed under BAAQMD dust control measures and are required
by law to be implemented into Project construction, see Introduction, Chapter 1, Section
1.5.2). The unmitigated maximum annual PM2.5 concentration as a result of Project
construction would be 0.02 µg/m3. The annual PM2.5 concentration due to
implementation of the Project would be below the BAAQMD threshold of 0.3 µg/m 3,
and hence is considered less than significant.
Cumulative Impacts
The BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines include standards and methods for determining
the significance of cumulative health risk impacts. The method for determining cumulative
health risk requires the addition of the health risks from permitted sources and major roadways
in the vicinity of a project (i.e., within a 1,000-foot radius of the source, also considered the zone
9 California Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment Toxicity Criteria Database, 2010.
http://www.oehha.ca.gov//.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-19
of influence for a health risk analysis), then adding the health risks of the Project impacts to
determine whether the cumulative health risk thresholds are exceeded.
The BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines include standards and methods for determining
the significance of cumulative health risk impacts. The method for determining cumulative
health risk requires the tallying of health risk from permitted sources and major roadways in the
vicinity of a project (i.e., within a 1,000-foot radius of the source or new receptor), then adding
the Project impacts to determine whether the cumulative health risk thresholds are exceeded.
BAAQMD has developed a geo-referenced database of permitted emissions sources throughout
the San Francisco Bay Area, and has developed the Stationary Source Risk & Hazard Analysis Tool
(dated May, 2011) for estimating cumulative health risks from permitted sources. Six permitted
sources are located within 1,000 feet of the Project.
BAAQMD has also developed a geo-referenced database of roadways throughout the San
Francisco Bay Area and has developed the Highway Screening Analysis Tool (dated May 2011) for
estimating cumulative health risks from roadways. BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines also
require the inclusion of surface streets within 1,000 feet of the project with annual average daily
traffic (AADT) of 10,000 or greater 10. Route 101 is located approximately 2,000 feet to the west
of the project site. Upon review of nearby roadways, no nearby roadways meet the criteria.
Air Quality Table 5 lists the BAAQMD-permitted facility and major roadways within 1,000 feet
of the Project. Air Quality Table 5 also shows the cumulative cancer risk, hazard impact, and
PM2.5 concentrations (in µg/m3) associated with these facilities (developed by BAAQMD), as
well as the Project. The cumulative impacts are below the BAAQMD significance
thresholds. Secondly, given that the Project would not result in increased health impacts
exceeding the Project-level thresholds, the Project would also not result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to localized health risk and hazard impacts,
resulting in a less than significant cumulative air quality impact.
AIR QUALITY TABLE 5
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Site # Facility Type Address Cancer
Risk
Hazard
Impact
PM2.5
Concentration
5876 South San Francisco-San
Bruno Water Quality
195 Belle Air
Road 11.3 0.01 0.05
13863 City of SSF Water Quality
Plant
477 South
Airport Blvd 1.72 0.0006 <0.01
6329 Sing Tao Newspaper 215 Littlefield
Ave - - -
G10732 Costco Wholesale 479 South
Airport Blvd 0.85 0.0003
10926 NRI 436 South
Airport Blvd - - -
10 BAAQMD County Surface Street Screening Tables, May 2011 and CEHTP Traffic Linkage Service
Demonstration, http://www.ehib.org/traffic_tool.jsp
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-20 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
Site # Facility Type Address Cancer
Risk
Hazard
Impact
PM2.5
Concentration
1703 Inter-City Cleaners 438 South
Airport Blvd 26.5 0.0706 -
Permitted Sources Total 40.4 0.08 0.05
Project 2.0 0.01 0.02
Grand Total 42.4 0.09 0.07
Significance Thresholds 100 10 0.3
Significant Impact? No No No
e) Odor Impacts
Significance Criteria: The BAAQMD’s significance criteria for odors are more 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. Projects that would site a new odor source or
a new receptor farther than the applicable BAAQMD-established screening distances from an
existing receptor or odor source, respectively, would not likely result in a significant odor impact.
An odor source with five more confirmed complaints per year averaged over three years is
considered to have a significant impact on receptors within the screening distances.
Typical odor sources of concern include wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, transfer
stations, composting facilities, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical
manufacturing facilities, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, auto body shops, rendering plants,
and coffee roasting facilities. Diesel-fueled construction equipment would generate some odors
associated with diesel exhaust; however, these emissions typically dissipate quickly and would be
unlikely to affect a substantial number of people. The Project operations include a parking
facility, which would not be expected to create or increase odors. Therefore, odor impacts
associated with construction and operation of the Project would be less than significant.
Finding: The Project would not result in a significant impact to air quality and would not result
in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria nonattainment pollutants (ozone
precursors, PM10, and PM2.5). The annual PM2.5 concentration due to implementation of the
Project would be 0.02 µg/m3 below the BAAQMD threshold of 0.3 µg/m3, and hence is
considered less than significant. The City’s building permit procedure captures the BAAQMD
permitting regulations, as well as BAAQMD’s recommended emission control measures. The
Project would be below the daily and annual operational criteria pollutant thresholds and would
not result in significant or cumulative impacts. Odor impacts associated with construction and
operation of the Project would be less than significant.
The Project would be below the thresholds of significance for health risks. The chronic HI
would be 0.01 well below the BAAQMD threshold of 1 and the impact of the Project would
therefore be less than significant. The acute HI would be 0.01. The acute HI would be below
the BAAQMD threshold of 1 and the impact of the Project would therefore be less than
significant.
The cumulative impacts are below the BAAQMD significance thresholds. Given that the
Project would not result in increased health impacts exceeding the Project-level thresholds, the
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-21
Project would also not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to localized health risk
and hazard impacts, resulting in a less than significant cumulative air quality impact.
3.4 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS —Would
the Project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
X
1997 IS/MND
AB 32 was adopted in 2006 therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 1997
IS/MND pertaining to GHG.
SETTING
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as greenhouse gases (GHGs) because they
capture heat radiated from the sun as it is reflected back into the atmosphere, much like a
greenhouse does. The accumulation of GHGs has been implicated as the driving force for
global climate change. Primary GHGs include carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ), and
nitrous oxide (N 2 O), ozone, and water vapor.
Although the presence of the primary GHGs in the atmosphere are naturally occurring, CO 2 ,
CH 4 , and N 2 O are also emitted from human activities, accelerating the rate at which these
compounds occur within earth’s atmosphere. Emissions of CO 2 are largely by-products of fossil
fuel combustion, whereas methane results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices
and landfills. Other GHGs include hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur
hexafluoride, and are generated in certain industrial processes. Greenhouse gases are typically
reported in “carbon dioxide-equivalent” measures (CO 2 e).11
There is international scientific consensus that human-caused increases in GHGs have and will
continue to contribute to global warming. Potential global warming impacts in California may
include, but are not limited to, loss in snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year,
more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years. Secondary effects are
likely to include a global rise in sea level, impacts to agriculture, changes in disease vectors, and
changes in habitat and biodiversity.12
11 Because of the differential heat absorption potential of various GHGs, GHG emissions are frequently measured in “carbon
dioxide-equivalents,” which present a weighted average based on each gas’s heat absorption (or “global warming”) potential.
12 California Climate Change Portal. Frequently Asked Questions about Global Climate Change. Available Online at:
http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/publications/faqs.html. Accessed June 17, 2012.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-22 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
California Air Resources Board (CARB) estimated that in 2006 California produced about
484 million gross metric tons of CO 2 e (MMTCO 2 e), or about 535 million U.S. tons.13 CARB
found that transportation is the source of 38 percent of the state’s GHG emissions, followed by
electricity generation (both in-state and out-of-state) at 22 percent and industrial sources at
20 percent. Commercial and residential fuel use (primarily for heating) accounted for 9 percent
of GHG emissions.14 In the San Francisco Bay Area, fossil fuel consumption in the
transportation sector (on-road motor vehicles, off-highway mobile sources, and aircraft) and the
industrial and commercial sectors are the two largest sources of GHG emissions, each
accounting for approximately 36 percent of the San Francisco Bay Area’s 95.8 MMTCO 2 e
emitted in 2007.15 Electricity generation accounts for approximately 16 percent of the San
Francisco Bay Area’s GHG emissions followed by residential fuel usage at 7 percent, off-road
equipment at 3 percent and agriculture at 1 percent.16
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The following regulations and guidelines are applicable to GHGs in California.
EXECUTIVE ORDER S-3-05
In 2005, in recognition of California’s vulnerability to the effects of climate change, Governor
Schwarzenegger established Executive Order S-3-05, which set forth a series of target dates by
which statewide emissions of GHGs would be progressively reduced, as follows:
■ By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels;
■ By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and
■ By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
ASSEMBLY BILL 32 – CALIFORNIA GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT
In 2006, the California legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (California Health and Safety
Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500, et seq., or AB 32), also known as the Global Warming
Solutions Act. AB 32 requires CARB to design and implement emission limits, regulations, and
other measures, such that feasible and cost-effective statewide GHG emissions are reduced to
1990 levels by 2020 (representing a 25 percent reduction in emissions).
In June 2007, CARB directed staff to pursue 37 early actions for reducing GHG emissions
under AB 32. The broad spectrum of strategies to be developed, including a Low Carbon Fuel
Standard, regulations for refrigerants with high global warming potentials, guidance and
protocols for local governments to facilitate GHG reductions, and green ports, reflects that the
serious threat of climate change requires action as soon as possible.
13 California Air Resources Board (ARB), “California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2006— by Category as Defined in the
Scoping Plan.” Available Online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/tables/ghg_inventory_scopingplan_
2009-03-13.pdf. Accessed June 17, 2012.
14 Ibid.
15 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Base Year 2007,
Updated: February 2010. Available Online at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/
Emission%20Inventory/regionalinventory2007_2_10.ashx. Accessed June 17, 2012.
16 Ibid.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-23
In addition to approving the 37 GHG reduction strategies, CARB directed staff to further
evaluate early action recommendations made at the June 2007 meeting, and to report back to
CARB within six months. CARB suggested a desire to attempt to pursue greater GHG
emissions reductions in California in the near-term. Since the June 2007 CARB hearing, CARB
staff has evaluated all 48 recommendations submitted by stakeholders and several internally-
generated staff ideas and published the Expanded List of Early Action Measures To Reduce Greenhouse
Gas Emissions In California Recommended For Board Consideration.17
Pursuant to AB 32, CARB adopted a Scoping Plan in December 2008, outlining measures to
meet the 2020 GHG reduction limits. In order to meet these goals, California must reduce its
GHG emissions by 30 percent below projected 2020 business as usual emission levels or about
15 percent from today’s levels.18 The Scoping Plan estimates a reduction of 174 MMTCO 2 e
(about 191 million U.S. tons) from the transportation, energy, agriculture, forestry, and high
global warming potential sectors (see GHG Emissions Table 1). CARB has identified an
implementation timeline for the GHG reduction strategies included in the Scoping Plan.19 Some
measures may require new legislation to implement, some will require subsidies, some have
already been developed, and some will require additional effort to evaluate and quantify.
Additionally, some emissions reductions strategies may require their own environmental review
under CEQA.
AB 32 requires CARB to establish a statewide GHG emissions cap for 2020 based on 1990
emission levels, as well as to adopt regulations by January 1, 2008 that identify and require
selected sectors or categories of GHG emitters to report and verify their statewide GHG
emissions, and CARB is authorized to enforce compliance with the program. Under AB 32,
CARB was also required to adopt a statewide GHG emissions limit by January 1, 2008
equivalent to the statewide GHG emissions levels in 1990, which must be achieved by 2020.
CARB established this limit, in December 2007, at 427 MMTCO 2 e. This is approximately
30 percent below forecasted business-as-usual emissions of 596 MMTCO 2 e, and about
10 percent below average annual GHG emissions during the period of 2002 through 2004.
17 California Air Resources Board (CARB), Expanded List of Early Action Measures To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions In
California Recommended For Board Consideration, October 2007. Available Online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccea/
meetings/ea_final_report.pdf. Accessed June 17, 2012.
18 California Air Resources Board (CARB), California’s Climate Plan Fact Sheet, Updated January 27, 2010. Available Online at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/facts/scoping_plan_fs.pdf. Accessed June 17, 2012.
19 California Air Resources Board (CARB), Scoping Plan Measures Implementation Timeline, October 28, 2010. Available
Online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/sp_measures_implementation_timeline.pdf. Accessed June 17, 2012.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-24 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
GHG EMISSIONS TABLE 1
GHG REDUCTIONS FROM THE AB 32 SCOPING PLAN SECTORS20
GHG Reduction Measures By Sector
GHG Reductions
(MMTCO 2 e)
Transportation Sector 62.3
Electricity and Natural Gas 49.7
Industry 1.4
Landfill Methane Control Measure (Discrete Early
Action) 1
Forestry 5
High Global Warming Potential GHGs 20.2
Additional Reductions Needed to Achieve the GHG
Cap 34.4
Total 174
Other Recommended Measures
Government Operations 1-2
Agriculture- Methane Capture at Large Dairies 1
Methane Capture at Large Dairies 1
Additional GHG Reduction Measures
Water 4.8
Green Buildings 26
• High Recycling/Zero Waste
• Commercial Recycling
• Composting
• Anaerobic Digestion
• Extended Producer Responsibility
• Environmentally Preferable Purchasing
9
Total 42.8-43.8
Notes: GHG = greenhouse gas; MMTCO 2 e = million gross metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents
On January 1, 2011, CARB was required to adopt rules and regulations, to achieve the maximum
technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission reductions. AB 32 permits the use of
market-based compliance mechanisms to achieve those reductions. By January 1, 2012, the rules
and market mechanisms adopted by CARB took effect and are legally enforceable. The cap-and-
trade measure went into effect on January 1, 2013. Full implementation of AB32 and its
timeline may be subject to legal challenges.
AB 32 also anticipates that local government actions will result in reduced GHG emissions.
CARB has identified a GHG reduction target of 15 percent from current levels for local
governments themselves and notes that successful implementation of the plan relies on local
governments’ land use planning and urban growth decisions because local governments have
20 Ibid.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-25
primary authority to plan, zone, approve, and permit land development to accommodate
population growth and the changing needs of their jurisdictions.
The CARB Scoping Plan relies on the requirements of SB 375 to implement the carbon
emission reductions anticipated from land use decisions. SB 375 was enacted to align local land
use and transportation planning to further achieve the state’s GHG reduction goals. SB 375
requires regional transportation plans, developed by Metropolitan Planning Organizations, to
incorporate a “sustainable communities strategy” in their regional transportation plans (RTPs)
that would achieve GHG emission reduction targets set by CARB. SB 375 also includes
provisions for streamlined CEQA review for some infill projects such as transit-oriented
development. SB 375 would be implemented over the next several years and the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission’s 2013 RTP would be its first plan subject to SB 375.
SB 97 required the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to amend the state CEQA
Guidelines to address the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHGs. In
response, OPR amended the CEQA Guidelines to provide guidance for analyzing GHG
emissions. Among other changes to the CEQA Guidelines, the amendments add a new section
to the CEQA Initial Study Checklist to address questions regarding the project’s potential to
emit GHGs.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES REVISIONS
In 2007, the California legislature passed SB 97, which required amendment of the CEQA
Guidelines to incorporate analysis of, and mitigation for, GHG emissions from projects subject
to CEQA. The California Natural Resources Agency adopted these amendments on
December 30, 2009, and they took effect March 18, 2010, after review by the Office of
Administrative Law and filing with the Secretary of State for inclusion in the CCR.
The CEQA Guideline revisions include a new section (Section 15064.4) that specifically
addresses the significance of GHG emissions. Section 15064.4 calls for a good-faith effort to
describe, calculate or estimate GHG emissions; Section 15064.4 further states that the
significance of GHG impacts should include consideration of the extent to which the project
would increase or reduce GHG emissions; exceed a locally applicable threshold of significance;
and comply with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or
local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. The revisions also state that a
project may be found to have a less than significant impact if it complies with an adopted plan
that includes specific measures to sufficiently reduce GHG emissions (Sec. 15064(h)(3)).
Importantly, however, the revised guidelines do not require or recommend a specific analysis
methodology or provide quantitative criteria for determining significance of GHG emissions.
CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE
The Green Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11, better
known as CALGreen), requiring all new buildings in the state to be more energy efficient and
environmentally responsible, took effect on January 1, 2011. These comprehensive regulations
are targeted to achieve major reductions in GHG emissions, energy consumption and water use
to create a greener California. CALGreen requires that every new building constructed in
California:
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-26 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
Reduce water consumption by 20 percent
Divert 50 percent of construction waste from landfills
Install low pollutant-emitting materials
Requires separate water meters for nonresidential buildings’ indoor and outdoor water
use
Requires moisture-sensing irrigation systems for larger landscape projects
Requires mandatory inspections of energy systems (e.g., heat furnace, air conditioner and
mechanical equipment) for nonresidential buildings over 10,000 square feet to ensure
that all are working at their maximum capacity and according to their design efficiencies.
BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
The BAAQMD is the primary agency responsible for air quality regulation in the nine county
San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. As part of their role in air quality regulation, BAAQMD has
prepared CEQA air quality guidelines to assist lead agencies in evaluating air quality impacts of
proposed projects and plans. The guidelines provide procedures for evaluating potential air
quality impacts during the environmental review process consistent with CEQA requirements.
The CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provide CEQA thresholds of significance for operational
GHG emissions from land use projects for the first time. The BAAQMD has not defined
GHG thresholds from construction activities, but recommends that significance be determined
in relation to meeting AB 32 GHG reduction targets. OPR’s amendments to the CEQA
Guidelines as well as BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines and thresholds of significance
have been incorporated into the analysis of potential GHG impacts associated with the Project.
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
The City of South San Francisco does not have an adopted plan or specific policies to reduce
GHG emissions, although many of the City’s policies and ordinances-such as one of the region’s
most aggressive TDM programs-achieve the same objective. Currently, the City is preparing a
community-wide comprehensive Climate Action Plan (CAP). The CAP will provide goals,
policies, and programs to reduce GHG emissions, climate change adaptation and support the
goals of AB 32 and SB 375. In preparation of the CAP, the City has completed a Government
Operations Emissions Inventory, a community-wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, and
has recently adopted a Bicycle Master Plan. Although the general plan did not specify policies
and programs designed to reduce GHG emissions, many of the Plan’s policies will contribute to
this objective by promoting development that is less reliant on motor vehicles. According to the
City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance Update (December 17, 2009), South San
Francisco emitted approximately 527,000 tons of CO2e in 2005 from all major sources, nearly
half of which were from transportation.
IMPACTS
a) Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Significance Criteria: The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines identify a project specific
threshold of either a bright-line threshold of 1,100 metric tons of CO 2 e per year or an efficiency
threshold of 4.6 metric tons of CO 2 e per year per service population (i.e., the number of
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-27
residents plus the number of employees associated with a new development) as resulting in a
cumulatively considerable contribution of GHG emissions and a cumulatively significant impact.
Alternatively, a project that is found to be consistent with a Qualified CAP would have a less
than significant impact to global climate change. This analysis applies the 1,100 metric tons of
CO 2 e per year significance criterion.
CalEEMod was used to quantify GHG emissions associated with Project construction activities
(for informational purposes), as well as long-term operations associated with natural gas space
and water heating, electricity, landscape maintenance, and vehicles.
The Project would include an unspecified amount of electric car charging stations. The existing
project includes a shuttle bus fleet that provides transportation between Park SFO and the
airport. The shuttle buses run on CNG. CNG is a cleaner burning alternative transportation
fuel, having fewer emissions than gasoline and diesel. The Project would continue and expand
the CNG running shuttle service. Application materials indicate the Project would be
illuminated by LED lights. LED lights draw less energy than halogen or incandescent lighting
and are task oriented thus limiting off-site spill of light.
Estimated construction GHG emissions that would be associated with the Project are presented
in GHG Emissions Table 2. The estimated construction GHG emissions are 736 metric tons.
As indicated, 30-year amortized annual construction related GHG emissions would be 25 metric
tons. Of note, there is no BAAQMD CEQA significance threshold for construction-related
GHG emissions. Nevertheless, GHG construction impacts would be less than the
BAAQMD GHG operational threshold of 1,100 metric tons .
GHG Emissions Table 2 also provides the estimated operational GHG emissions that would
be associated with the Project. The GHG operational impacts would be 838 metric tons
per year, which is below the BAAQMD threshold of 1,100 metric tons and thus, less than
significant.
GHG EMISSIONS TABLE 2
PREFERRED PROJECT RELATED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Emission Source GHG CO 2 e Metric Tons Per Year
Construction (30-year amortized) 25
Operations 838
BAAQMD Bright line Threshold 1,100
Potentially Significant? No
Notes: Refer to Appendix A for all emission assumptions.
b) Potential Conflicts with an Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation
The City of South San Francisco currently does not have an applicable adopted plan, policy, or
regulation regarding the reduction of GHG emissions. The City has established a baseline
government and community-wide inventory of GHG emissions. The Project would result in a
significant impact if it would be in conflict with AB 32 State goals for reducing GHG emissions.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-28 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
The assumption is that AB 32 will be successful in reducing GHG emissions and reducing the
cumulative GHG emissions statewide by 2020. The State has taken these measures, because no
project individually could have a major impact (either positively or negatively) on the global
concentration of GHG. Therefore, the Project has been reviewed relative to the AB 32
measures and it has been determined that the Project would not conflict with the goals
of AB 32.
Finding: The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact with
respect to GHG emissions.
3.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the
Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
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 Game or
US Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
X
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?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
X
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?
X
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-29
1997 IS/MND
One mitigation measure was identified in the 1997 IS/MND. Mitigation Measure 10 from the
1997 IS/MND does apply to the 2013 Project, and is superseded by Biology Mitigation 1. The
1997 mitigation required:
All lighting on the Project shall be directed inward and downward toward the Project
and away from the Bay. This mitigation is enhanced to comply with current regulations for lighting
and restated in 2013 Biology Mitigation 3.
Buffer/landscaped setback areas shall be provided as follows, as measured from the top
of the bank: a minimum of 30 feet from the easterly tips of all fingers and a minimum of
five feet from the sides of the fingers. This mitigation shall continue to be maintained for the
Project for the life of the Project unless modified by future environmental review compliant with CEQA.
Shuttle pick up and drop off areas shall be precluded from the eastern portion of the
fingers areas. This mitigation shall continue to be required and maintained for the Project for the life of
the Project unless modified by future environmental review compliant with CEQA.
Human activity should be restricted from the end of each of the fingers to minimize
disturbance in the canal area. Signs shall be posted at the end of each parking area
prohibiting further access and describing the sensitivity of the wildlife habitat. This
mitigation shall continue to be required and maintained for the Project for the life of the Project unless
modified by future environmental review compliant with CEQA.
Bank stabilization of the fingers shall be accomplished in a manner which does not
disrupt wetland or tidal mudflat areas adjacent to the fingers. This mitigation shall continue
to be required maintained for the Project for the life of the Project unless modified by future environmental
review compliant with CEQA.
1997 Mitigation Measure 10 is modified by 2013 Biology Mitigation 3:
The landscape buffer shall be planted with native vegetation, including native toyon.
Plantings shall be maintained by the Project sponsor for a period of 5 years following
installation. As noted in Biology Impact 3, some of the bank areas are not well maintained and
invasive exotic plants are becoming established in violation of the East of 101 Area Plan CON-7 policy
and the 1997 IS MND mitigation measure.
Biological Assessment
The biological assessment and analysis was prepared by Jim Martin of Environmental
Collaborative.
SETTING
VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE HABITAT 21
The Project site is largely developed with an existing parking structure and paved surface
parking, with limited landscaping around the perimeter of the “finger” projections of the former
drydocks that extend into the San Bruno Canal. Landscape plantings include ornamental and
21 The analysis in this section is based upon the work and research conducted by Jim Martin of Environmental Collaborative. Mr.
Martin is a biologist.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-30 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
native species installed around the edges of the paved parking and ends of the fingers. The
plantings at the ends of the fingers are primarily native species such as coyote brush (Baccharis
pilularis), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), and coffeeberry (Rhamnus californica), although scattered
tufts of non-native invasive pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana) have become established in several
locations. Both pampas grass and highly invasive French broom (Genista monspessulana) occur
along the north bank of San Bruno Creek, just south of the existing parking structure on the site
and the landscape plantings along the canal-side of the paved Bay Trail (see Figure 2.4 in
Chapter 2) segment adjacent to the site. These planting areas are in poor condition, with
exposed concrete rubble, and very little visible soil necessary to allow for successful plant
establishment.
The site boundaries extend down the slope of each of the finger projections to the mid-marsh
zone of the tidelands of San Bruno Canal. The mid-marsh zone along the shoreline of the
fingers, between the unvegetated mudflats and open water of San Bruno Canal and the uplands
that are not under tidal influence, supports native pickleweed (Salicornia virginica), with gum plant
(Grindelia stricta) and salt grass (Distichlis spicata) at higher elevations. Most of the former
drydocks are now exposed mudflats during low tides.
The upland areas of the site provide only marginal habitat for species typical of urban and
suburban areas. However, the adjacent tidelands support scattered clumps of northern coastal
saltmarsh and mudflats, which are highly sensitive habitat. The mudflats support numerous
species of invertebrates which provide foraging opportunities for wading and shorebirds such as
willets, godwits, dowitchers, sandpipers, snipes, turnstones, and plovers. The open water habitat
of the adjacent turning basin provides foraging opportunities for grebes, cormorants, bay ducks,
coots, gulls, kingfishers, terns, and pelicans.
The Project site is paved for surface parking with approximately 10 percent of the area in
ornamental landscaping. Given the absence of essential habitat features, it appears unlikely that
the site supports any special-status plant or animal species 22. No occurrences of species with
special-status have been mapped in the Project vicinity by the California Natural Diversity Base.
A small population of the state and federally-endangered California clapper rail (Rallus longirostris
obsoletus) was reported in the salt marsh habitat of San Bruno Point in 1975. Suitable foraging
habitat for this species is absent in the scattered clumps of pickleweed along the lower elevations
of the fingers on the site. There remains a possibility that special-status bird and fish species
22 As defined further below under Regulatory Framework, special-status species are plants and animals that are legally
protected under the state and/or federal Endangered Species Acts or other regulations, as well as 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 Endangered Species Acts 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.
A “take” as defined by the federal ESA means to ‘harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, kill, trap, capture or collect” a threatened or
endangered species. “Harm” is further defined by USFWS to include the killing or harming of wildlife due to significant
obstruction of essential behavior patterns (i.e., breeding, eating, or sheltering) through significant habitat modifications or
degradation. The CDFW may also consider the loss of listed species habitat as “take,” although this policy lacks statutory
authority and case law support under CEQA.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-31
known to occur in the bay may occasionally utilize the tidal areas adjacent to the site. However,
essential habitat for breeding or roosting is absent in the upland portion of the site, and this
occasional activity should not pose a significant constraint to proposed improvements.
JURISDICTIONAL WATERS
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. The Regulatory Framework below provides a detailed
discussion of the regulatory structure related to wetlands and jurisdictional waters.
The open waters of the former drydocks and San Bruno Canal are jurisdictional waters regulated
by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (Corps), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB),
and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). All modifications associated with the
Project would be located in upland areas at the existing paved parking lot, and would not affect
any jurisdictional wetlands or waters.
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 National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA
Fisheries) is responsible for protection of anadromous fish and marine wildlife. 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) are responsible 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 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 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.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-32 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
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.23 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.
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 river banks, lakes, stream channels and
other wetland features. Technical standards for delineating wetlands have been developed by
the Corps and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), which generally define
wetlands through consideration of three criteria: hydrology, soils and vegetation.
The 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
23 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; 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
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-33
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 the
Environmental Protection Agency's 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 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 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.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-34 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
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 ecosystem-level 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 shown in 3.5 Biological Resources v.b, above. 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.
LOCAL REGULATIONS
Several policies in the City of South San Francisco General Plan and the East of 101 Area Plan pertain
to the protection of sensitive biological and wetland resources. Following is a description of the
key policy documents and regulations that are applicable to the site.
City of South San Francisco General Plan
The Open Space and Conservation Element of the City of South San Francisco General Plan
contains a number of policies related to protection of sensitive biological and wetland resources
that are applicable to the site. The policies are:
• 7.1-G-1: Protect special status species and supporting habitats within South San
Francisco, including species that are State or federally listed as Endangered, Threatened,
or Rare.
• 7.1-G-2: Protect and, where reasonable and feasible, restore saltmarshes and wetlands.
• 7.1-I-2: As part of the Park, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Master Plan update,
institute an ongoing program to remove invasive plant species from ecologically sensitive
areas, including Sign Hill Park, Colma Creek Linear Park, Bayfront Linear Park, and
other City-owned open space, as depicted in Figure 7-1.
• 7.1-I-3: As part of development approvals on sites that include ecologically sensitive
habitat designated in Figure 7-2, require institution of an on-going program to remove
and prevent the re-establishment of the invasive species and restore the native species.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-35
• 7.1-I-4: Require development on the wetlands delineated in figure 7-1 to complete
assessments of biological resources.
• 7.1-I-5: Work with private, non-profit conservation, and public groups to secure funding
for wetland and marsh protection and restoration projects.
East of 101 Area Plan
The East of 101 Area Plan was adopted by the City of South San Francisco in July 1994. The
Area Plan includes a Conservation Element that contains policies intended to protect and
enhance natural resources in the East of 101 Area. Policies relevant to the site are:
• Policy CON-1: Prior to construction of development projects on sensitive resource
lands the City shall require an applicant to conduct a formal wetlands delineation at the
project site The results of the wetlands delineation shall be made available to evaluate
project specific impacts associated with sensitive habitats
• Policy CON-2: The City shall require that developments comply with all applicable State
and federal laws and regulations regarding protection and replacement of wetlands.
• Policy CON-4: The City shall take all feasible measures to preserve any sensitive plant
and animal species that occur in the East of 101 Area.
• Policy CON-5: Prior to receiving approval for construction activities or other
disturbances on undeveloped land in the East of 101Area project sponsors shall conduct
environmental analyses to evaluate the site-specific status of sensitive plant and animal
species
• Policy CON-6: If sensitive plant or animal species would be unavoidably affected by a
proposed project the City shall require the project developer to implement appropriate
mitigation measures
• Policy Con-7: New development adjacent to sensitive resource areas shall be required to
incorporate the following measures into project design:
• Shield lights to reduce off-site glare.
• A buffer area of at least 100 feet in width shall be provided between known
sensitive resources and development area. Encroachments into the 100-foot buffer
area may be allowed on a case-by-case basis as follows:
o Buildings which have a water oriented theme and which further the
goals of allowing or encouraging public access to the Bay or inland
waterways;
o Development located adjacent to inland waterways;
o Accessory parking from adjacent development;
o Development on the “fingers’ portion of the planning area.
Any encroachment into the 100-foot buffer must receive approval of the City, Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and the California
Department of Fish and Game, and shall only be permitted if supported by a site-
specific biological assessment prepared by a qualified biologist. Mitigation measures
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-36 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
identified through the biological analysis shall be attached as conditions of any
encroachment approvals.
• Landscape all on-site buffer areas with native vegetation to screen habitat areas
from adjacent land uses.
• Restrict entry to habitat areas through devises such as fencing landscaping or
signage.
• Ensure that run-off from development does not adversely affect the biotic values
of adjacent wetlands or other habitat areas.
Municipal Code
South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 13.30.020 defines a “Protected Tree” as one with a
circumference of 48” or more when measured 54” 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 and Nesting Habitat
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant impact if were to result in a substantial
adverse effect on special-status species, as identified in 3.5 Biological Resources a, above.
Essential habitat for special-status species would not be affected by the Project. The addition to
the parking structure would be located adjacent to the open water habitat of the basin area to
San Bruno Canal, where special-status birds and fish may occasionally forage and disperse. The
Project would have no direct affect on this area and is not likely to disrupt the existing foraging
and dispersal activity for these species.
Suitable nesting habitat for State and federally-listed bird species is absent on the site. However,
the few native shrubs along the perimeter of the fingers could be used for nesting by more
common bird species. These nests would be protected under the federal MBTA when in active
use. The MBTA prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds, except in accordance
with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior, including whole birds, parts of birds,
and bird nests and eggs. Construction activities during the breeding season could result in the
incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings or nest abandonment.
A standard requirement is to either initiate construction during the non-nesting season, which in
San Mateo County is September 1- January 31, or to conduct a nesting survey within seven days
prior to initial grubbing and construction to determine whether any active nests are present that
must be protected until any young have fledged and are no longer dependent on the nest.
Protection of the nests, if present, would require that construction setbacks be provided during
the nesting and fledging period, with the setback depending on the type of bird species, degree
to which the individuals have already acclimated to other on-going disturbance, and other
factors.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-37
In summary, suitable nesting habitat for State and federally-listed bird species is absent on the
site. However, the few native shrubs along the perimeter of the fingers could be used for
nesting by more common bird species. These nests would be protected under the federal
MBTA when in active use. Disturbance of active nests would be considered a significant
impact. Biology Mitigation 1 would reduce this impact to less than significant.
BIOLOGY IMPACT 1: POTENTIAL PRESENCE OF ACTIVE BIRD NESTS IN
PROXIMITY TO CONSTRUCTION COULD RESULT
IN A TAKE OF A PROTECTED SPECIES
There is a remote potential for presence of active nests in close proximity to the construction
site. Construction activities could disturb or result in a take if nesting birds are present.
BIOLOGY MITIGATION 1.A: Outside of Nesting Season: Vegetation and tree removal
shall be scheduled to take place outside of the nesting season (which occurs from February 1 to
August 31) to avoid impacts to nesting birds;
or,
BIOLOGY MITIGATION 1.B: During Nesting Season: A qualified biologist (Biologist)
shall conduct a pre-construction nesting bird (both passerine and raptor) survey within seven
days prior to the commencement of construction if construction is unavoidable during the
nesting season. The survey shall be within 300 feet of the limits of proposed construction shall
be performed by a Biologist. If no nesting birds are observed no further action is required and
grading and ground breaking activities shall occur within one week of the survey to prevent take
of individual birds that could begin nesting after the survey.
Another nest survey shall be conducted if more than seven days elapse between the initial nest
search and the beginning of tree removal and construction activities. The Biologist shall
determine the disturbance-free buffer zone to be established around the nest tree(s) until the
young have fledged if active bird nests (either passerine and/or raptor) are observed during the
pre-construction survey.
A qualified biologist shall determine the radius of the required buffer zone. Buffer zones vary
depending on the species, (i.e., 75-100 feet for passerines and 300 feet for raptors). The
dimensions of the zone shall be determined by a qualified biologist in consultation with the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Orange construction fencing, flagging, or other marking system shall be installed to delineate the
buffer area at the specified radius from nest location(s) within which no cranes or other
equipment associated with the parking structure construction shall intrude. Continued use of
the surface parking areas for parking and parking lot maintenance may continue within this
setback zone.
There would be no restrictions on grading or construction activities outside the prescribed
buffer zone after the no-construction zone has been identified.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-38 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
A survey report of findings verifying that any young have fledged shall be submitted for review
and approval by the Chief Planner at the City of South San Francisco Planning Division prior to
initiation of any grading or other construction activities within the buffer zone. Following
approval by the Chief Planner, grading and construction in the nest-buffer zone may proceed.
Implementation of the Biology Mitigation 1 would reduce potential Project impacts to
nesting birds to less-than-significant.
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. as identified in
Biological Resources 3.5 b-c, above.
The proposed parking structure improvements would all be located in uplands, and would not
directly affect any sensitive natural communities, jurisdictional wetlands or open waters of the
former drydocks and the basin area of San Bruno Canal. The Project would have no impact
on any sensitive natural communities or jurisdictional wetlands.
d) Native Fish and Wildlife Movement Opportunities 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.
The Project would expand the existing parking structure over an existing surface parking lot.
The existing surface parking lot does not serve as an important movement corridor for native
wildlife and the new structure is not expected to interfere substantially with native wildlife
corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The new structure could disrupt the
flight path of local birds, but they could continue to fly around or over the structure when
passing through the vicinity. Species common in the vicinity would continue to forage in the
open water habitat of the former drydocks and the basin area of San Bruno Canal. The Project
would not result in any significant impacts on native wildlife movement opportunities or
nursery sites .
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.
Protected Trees
There are no Protected Trees on the site as defined by City ordinance. South San Francisco
Municipal Code Section 13.30.020 defines a “Protected Tree” as one with a circumference of
48” or more when measured 54” above natural grade; a tree or stand of trees designated by the
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-39
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. There are no trees on the site which meet the City’s definition of protected tree, and
no adverse impacts are anticipated.
Biological Study and Protection of Resources
As indicated in the Regulatory Framework discussion, the City of South San Francisco General Plan
and the East of 101 Area Plan contain policies relevant to the site and Project. Policies 7.1-G-1
and 7.1-G-2 of the general plan pertain to protection of special-status species and wetland
habitat. As discussed under criterion a and c, the Project would not affect any essential habitat
for special-status species or nearby wetland habitat associated with the San Bruno Canal.
Biology Mitigation 1 is identified to ensure Project construction does not disrupt and bird
nesting activity, in the remote instance new nests were established in close proximity to the site,
consistent with the intent of these goals. The biological assessment conducted as part of this
Initial Study preparation provides the review called for in Policy 7.1-I-4. The Project site is
located adjacent to wetlands but does not contain wetlands. Policy 7.1-I-5 does not directly apply
to the Project as the Project would not affect these wetland areas and does not include any
restoration component.
Control of Invasive Exotics
General Plan Policies 7.1-I-2 and 7.1-I-3 pertain to invasive species controls from ecologically
sensitive habitat areas. The fingers and southern boundary of the site along San Bruno Canal are
identified in Figure 7.1 Sensitive Biological Resources and Figure 7-2 Special Environmental
Studies Required for Development Proposals (pps 226 and 227, South San Francisco General Plan).
Pampas grass occurs in scattered locations on the site and both pampas grass and French broom
are spreading along the north bank of the San Bruno Canal just south of the existing parking
structure on the site. These invasive species, unless removed and prevented from becoming
established, will eventually spread throughout the margins of the site and compromise the
wildlife habitat values in the area. Additionally, the soil improvements associated with the Bay
Tail segment in this location were poorly implemented, with concrete rubble and a lack of top
soil preventing the establishment of even ornamental shrubs in this location. The Project
currently does not include any provisions to address the invasive species establishment on the
site and the poor condition of some of the landscape plantings on and adjacent to the property.
The East of 101 Area Plan also contains policies relevant to the site and Project. The biological
assessment conducted as part of this Initial Study preparation provides for the review called for
in East of 101 Area Plan Policies CON-1 and CON-5 and implements the biological review
required by Figure 7-2 of the General Plan. No wetlands would be affected by the Project, as
discussed above under criterion c, above. Therefore the Project by default conforms to Policy
CON-2. No significant adverse impacts on special-status species are anticipated (as discussed
above under criterion a). The Project would not conflict with Policies CON-4 and CON-6.
Policy CON-7 includes standards for new development adjacent to sensitive habitat, including
the wetlands adjacent to the site, addressing requirements for native landscaping, shielding of
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-40 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
new lighting, restrictions on entry, and controls on run-off. The policy states that the City will
review developments proposed within the 100-foot buffer area on a case-by-case basis. The
policy requires a biological assessment which is conducted through this initial study and
implementation of identified mitigation measures, if warranted. Mitigation measures are
identified in this Initial Study to reduce biological impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Left unmitigated the spread of invasive exotic plant materials would be a significant impact.
Implementation of Biology Mitigation 2 would reduce the spread of invasive species on the
site, provide for habitat enhancement through establishment of native species, and provide
compliance with General Plan Policies 7.1-I-2 and 7.1-I-3. Implementation of Biology
Mitigation 2 would reduce Project impacts to less-than-significant with respect to habitat
quality and policy compliance.
BIOLOGY IMPACT 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS ON THE SITE ARE NOT IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN
FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN AND THE EAST OF 101
AREA PLAN POLICIES THAT DIRECT THE
PROTECTION OF HABITAT, REMOVAL OF INVASIVE
EXOTIC PLANTS AND PLANTING AND
MAINTENANCE OF NATIVE VEGETATION TO
PROVIDE ADEQUATE CONTROL OF INVASIVE PLANT
SPECIES AND SUCCESSFUL ESTABLISHMENT OF
NATIVE ENHANCEMENT PLANTINGS.
BIOLOGY MITIGATION MEASURE 2: The landscape plan for the Project shall be
revised to include an “Invasive Species Removal Program”, eliminating pampas grass, French
broom, and other invasive species listed as having a “high” or “moderate” rating for “Invasive
Non-Native Plants that Threaten Wildlands in California” according to the electronic Inventory
of the California Invasive Species Council (Cal IPC). All invasive species shall be removed from
the site and the adjacent segment of the Bay Trail along the north side of the San Bruno Canal
on the south side of the existing parking structure.
The landscape plan shall also be revised to include a “Native Species Enhancement Program”; a
plan to provide for installation of additional native species in areas where existing landscape
plantings are absent or performing poorly. Of particular concern is the area south of the
existing parking structure, between the concrete Bay Trail and top of bank to San Bruno Creek;
an area planted with non-native species that are performing poorly or dead. Concrete rubble
and non-organic fills shall be removed from the ground surface and a layer of top soil shall be
installed to a minimum depth of six inches to provide a growing substrate for new plantings.
The entire area shall be planted with native creeping wildrye (Leymus triticoides) installed from
plugs on approximately one-foot centers to provide a continuous groundcover. Any shrubs or
trees planted in this location shall be restricted to native species indigenous to the South San
Francisco area. All new native plantings shall be provided short-term irrigation for a minimum
of three years during the dry season to ensure successful establishment, and any plantings that
die shall be replaced during this establishment period.
All native plantings installed as part of the Native Species Enhancement Program shall be
monitored annually, for a period of three years, by a qualified landscape architect or biologist.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-41
The annual monitoring report shall summarize the condition of the native enhancement
plantings, status of invasive species removal, and include recommendations for any corrective
work necessary. Copies of the annual monitoring reports shall be provided to the Chief Planner
at City of South San Francisco Planning Division by December 31 of each reporting year. If
native enhancement plantings have not become successfully established or target invasive
species are still present on the site and adjacent corridor of the Bay Trail, the applicant shall be
required to submit a remedial enhancement plan and extend the monitoring period and annual
reporting until successful establishment has been achieved.
A report of successful completion of the Native Species Enhancement Program shall be
provided for review and approval by the Chief Planner of the City of South San Francisco at the
end of the three year monitoring period. The row of non-native Lombardy poplar proposed as
part of the Landscape Plan along the east side of the new parking structure is appropriate to
screen the building in views from the east; however, the area between the row of poplar
plantings and shoreline of the drydock shall be planted exclusively with native species to
enhance this area as part of the Native Species Enhancement Program.
Future landscape maintenance of the site shall include the routine monitoring and annual
removal of any target invasive species identified in the Invasive Species Removal Program. The
maintenance and monitoring shall include the native species enhancement area on the south side
of the existing parking structure.
Lighting
The application materials note that lighting would be designed to minimize additional lighting
skyward and are silent on light seepage towards the Bay. Chapter 1, Legislative Framework,
Section 1.5.1 Aesthetics stipulate the City’s requirement to control off-site glare and light.
Municipal Code Section (Zoning) 20.300.008.4 also requires light to be shielded so as not to
produce obtrusive glare onto the public right-of-way or adjoining properties. Protection of the
Bay lands from an additional substantial light source, such as non-directed or unshielded light
associated with doubling the size of the existing parking structure, is of biological concern as
noted in the East of 101 Area Plan Policy CON-7 and left unmitigated could result in a significant
impact. Implementation of Biology Mitigation 3 would reduce the lighting impact to less-
than-significant.
BIOLOGY IMPACT 3: SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN LIGHT ONTO BAY
LANDS MAY REDUCE THE HABITAT VALUE OF THE
TIDAL AREA (WETLAND HABITAT) AND WOULD
CONFLICT WITH EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN POLICY
CON-7.
BIOLOGY MITIGATION 3: All lighting in the new parking structure and any modifications
to existing lighting shall be shielded and oriented onto the site to prevent off-site illumination
and glare into the adjacent wetland habitat along San Bruno Canal and the former drydocks.
Resource Agency Review and Approval
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-42 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
As noted in Chapter 1, Legislative Framework, above in the Setting Section and identified in
East of 101 Area Plan Policy CON-7 the Project is required to obtain approval from the Bay
Conservation and Development Commission and the California Department of Fish and Game
prior to commencement of grading or construction. Eclipsing the review and regulatory
authority of these two agencies would be a significant impact. Implementation of Biology
Mitigation 4 would reduce the permitting and policy impact to less-than-significant.
BIOLOGY IMPACT 4: PROJECT COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION
PRIOR TO APPROVAL OR CONDITIONAL APPROVAL
FROM THE BAY CONSERVATION AND
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AND THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
LAW AND EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN POLICY CON:-7.
BIOLOGY MITIGATION 4: No building, grading or construction permit shall be issued by
the City in absence of written approvals/conditional approvals for the development analyzed in
this Initial Study by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the California
Department of Fish and Game. Written approvals from the Bay Conservation and
Development Commission and the California Department of Fish and Game shall be provided
to the Chief Planner and Building Official prior to issuance of any demolition, grading on
construction permits for the Project. Any plan modifications required by the permitting
agencies shall be incorporated into the Project plans and reviewed by the Chief Planner, prior to
issuance of any demolition, grading on construction permits for the Project.
f) Approved Habitat Conservation Plans
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to
conflict with any Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
No approved Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan
encompasses, governs or regulates the site. The Project would not conflict with any
approved Habitat Conservation Plans and as such would have no impact.
Finding: Implementation of the Biology Mitigation 1 would reduce potential Project impacts
to nesting birds to less-than-significant. The Project would have no impact on any sensitive
natural communities or jurisdictional wetlands as it would be completely located in uplands, and
would not directly affect any sensitive natural communities, jurisdictional wetlands or open
waters of the former drydocks and the basin area of San Bruno Canal.
The Project would expand the existing parking structure over an existing surface parking lot that
does not serve as an important movement corridor for native wildlife. The new structure is not
expected to interfere substantially with native wildlife corridors or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites. Species common in the vicinity would continue to forage in the open
water habitat of the former drydocks and the basin area of San Bruno Canal.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-43
Implementation of Biology Mitigation 2 would reduce Project impacts to less-than-significant
with respect to habitat quality and policy compliance. Implementation of Biology Mitigation 3
would reduce the lighting impact to less-than-significant. Implementation of Biology
Mitigation 4 would reduce the permitting and policy impact to less-than-significant.
No approved Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan
encompasses, governs or regulates the site. Therefore the Project would not conflict with any
approved Habitat Conservation Plans and as such would have no impact.
The Project would have a less-than-significant impact with implementation of Biology
Mitigations 1-4. 1997 Mitigation 10 is not applicable to the 2013 Project and has been
redefined in Biology Mitigations 1 and 3.
3.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the
Project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
X
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
X
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries? X
1997 IS/MND
Mitigation Measure 15 was identified in the 1997 ISMND requiring the cessation of grading
and/or construction activity should archeological artifacts be discovered during Project
construction. Review of City planning and building files indicate that archaeological and
paleontological artifacts were not discovered in 1998/99 or 2007 when the grading and paving
for the surface parking area was conducted. Review of the geotechnical boring logs (Furgo,
2012) does not reveal the presence of culturally significant soils or content. Mitigation Measure
15 is not required for the 2013 Project.
SETTING
Prior to 2001, the 1.25 acre Project site supported industrial land uses, ship repair, warehouse
and freight forwarding, and from 2001-2003 was used as a composting area for the City’s Water
Quality Control Plant. The 2013 Project site was unused from 2003 to 2007. In 2007, the
property owner received approvals from the City to pave the 2013 Project site and provide
surface parking that is part and parcel to the existing Park SFO facility that was constructed in
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-44 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
1999. Therefore, the Project site has been paved and used for a surface parking lot as part of the
Park SFO facility since 2007.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
CEQA relies on the criteria identified in Title 14 California Code of Regulations, Public
Resources Code Section 4852.1 to identify if a building is appropriate for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources (Determining the Significance of Impacts on Historical and
Unique Archaeological Resources, Section 15064.5 Title 14, Chapter 3, California Code of
Regulations). In summary, these criteria include consideration of whether the building:
A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
California history and cultural heritage;
B. Associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
C. Embody 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,
D. Yield 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
(Determining the Significance of Impacts on Historical and Unique Archaeological Resources,
Section 15064.5 Title 14, Chapter 3, California Code of Regulations).
IMPACTS
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 §15064.5.
The Project would modify the northern elevation of the existing parking structure by
constructing and connecting a seven-level parking structure where the paved surface parking lot
is currently located. The existing parking structure (Park SFO) was constructed in 1998 and is
not considered an historic resource. The Project site is not identified on Figure 7-3 Designated
Historic Resources in the City’s General Plan (page 241). There are no historical resources or
structures on the Project site. T he Project would have no impact on historic resources.
b - d) 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
§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.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-45
The Project site was graded and paved in 2007. There is no evidence of archaeological or
paleontological resources on the site as witnessed during previous grading and construction
activities in 1999 and 2007 (City planning and building files and Linda Ajello, Associate Planner,
January 28, 2013). The boring logs taken in 2003 and 2013 by Furgo West, Inc (see Section 3.7
Geology and Soils, below) does not indicate the presence of culturally significant soils, such as
shell or artifact fragments. The Project would have no impact on archaeological or
paleontological resources.
Finding: The Project is located on a developed site and in a developed area. There is no
evidence of archaeological or paleontological resources on the site as witnessed during previous
grading and construction activities in 1999 and 2007 and in the boring logs. In light of Title 14
California Code of Regulations, Public Resources Code Section 4852.1, there are no historic
resources on the entirety of the Project site. The Project would have no impact on cultural
resources.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-46 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the Project:
a) Expose people or structures to 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.
X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? X
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil? X
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?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
X
1997 IS/MND
Mitigation Measure 1 was identified in the 1997 ISMND requiring the applicant to submit a soils
and geotechnical report to the City, characterizing site conditions and identifying design
requirements. 1997 Mitigation Measure 1 is not required for the 2013 Project as an updated
geotechnical characterization and design measures have been provided, peer reviewed by the
City’s consulting geologists, summarized herein and included in Attachment A in its complete
form. Mitigation Measure 2 identified in the 1997 ISMND requiring preparation, approval and
implementation of an erosion and sedimentation control plan is not required as a mitigation
measure in the 2013 Project; it is replaced by the City’s requirement to comply with NPDES and
C.3 regional board permitting regulations as a matter of law (see Section 3.9 Hydrology and
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-47
Water Quality, subsection a for the exact requirements of the Project through entitlement
review and Chapter 1.5.4).
SETTING
PROJECT SITE
The Project site is approximately seven acres in area (6.96). The existing Park SFO (2001
Project) parking garage sits on 5.71 acres adjacent to and south of the 1.25-acre site that would
support the parking garage expansion. The 1.25-acre site (2007 Project) is paved and used as
surface parking associated with the existing Park SFO parking garage. As noted throughout this
document, prior to 2001, the 1.25 acre 2007 Project site supported industrial land uses, ship
repair, warehouse and freight forwarding, and from 2001-2003 was used as a composting area
for the City’s Water Quality Control Plant. In 2007, the property owner received approvals
from the City to pave the Project site and provide surface parking that is part and parcel to the
existing Park SFO facility that was constructed in 1998. Therefore, the Project site has been
paved and used for a surface parking lot as part of the Park SFO facility since 2007.
The site is relatively level and surface the elevation is approximately 11 feet above mean sea level
(MSL) (Furgo West, Inc., March 2003, see below) San Francisco Bay is immediately east of the
Project. Although the 2013 Geotechnical Report prepared by Furgo West makes note of a
potential basement level parking area, this initial study analyzes an above grade parking structure
only consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Division.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The City Engineering Division requires geotechnical reports as a part of the permit package 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). 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 the projects 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.
A geotechnical investigation was conducted and a report prepared for the 2013 Project. The
report is incorporated herein by reference (Geotechnical Investigation Report REST Parking Facilities
South San Francisco, California, Furgo West, Inc., March, 2003 and Geotechnical Study Update REST
Parking Facilities South San Francisco, California, Furgo West, Inc., February, 2013) (Geotechnical
Report). The Geotechnical Report was peer reviewed by the City’s Consulting Geologists,
Cotton Shires Associates (CSA), Geotechnical Investigation REST Investments Parking Facilities,
November 12, 2012 and Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review REST Investments Parking Facilities,
March 22, 2013 and is incorporated herein by reference (both are included in Appendix A).
PROJECT SITE GEOLOGY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-48 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
Seven subsurface borings were conducted in 2003 and again in 2012 to a maximum depth of 35
feet below ground surface (bgs) (Furgo West). The boring locations and logs are shown in the
Furgo West Report, attached in Appendix A of this initial study. Groundwater was not
encountered during the borings and for design purposes is assumed to be two feet below
existing grade, or nine feet MSL. The 2001 Park SFO parking structure with a basement level
approximately seven feet below existing grade is supported on deep spread footings founded at a
depth of approximately 10 feet below existing grade (approximately +one foot MSL) which
would be connected to the proposed seven-level parking facility.
Site constraints or challenges include the presence of: 1) undocumented fills and alluvial soils of
various thickness over bedrock, 2) underground mixing basins, 3) existing below-grade footings
associated with the existing Park SFO parking garage, 4) variations of depth to bedrock, and 5)
San Francisco Bay. Specifically site reconnaissance revealed:
• An abandoned surface building pad approximately 40 by 60 feet in dimension of
unknown thickness affecting the uniformity of the surface.
• Two abandoned mixing basins approximately eight feet in depth and approximately 45
by 90 feet in dimension. The bottom of the basin consists of 12 inch thick reinforced
concrete slab overlain by undocumented fills consisting of medium to dense silty gravel
and stiff clay at approximately eight feet below existing surface and +four feet MSL.
Below the concrete slab approximately five feet of very stiff clay characterized as natural
alluvial deposits was found before encountering Franciscan formation bedrock at a
depth of approximately 13 feet below existing grade or Elevation - one foot. The
Franciscan formation consists of weathered sandstone and shale extending to the
maximum depth explored of 35 feet.
• An abandoned surface building pad approximately 60 by 110 feet in dimension and of
unknown thickness.
• An existing 100 foot retaining wall east of the 2001 Project facing San Francisco Bay
with a total height of 12 feet (three feet above existing grade) supported on 36-inch
diameter drilled caissons spaced approximately eight feet center-to-center.
• A dewatering building, approximate dimension 70 by 80 feet, previously belonging to the
WPCP is located at the northwest corner of the site. Approximately four feet (depth) of
gravely fills, underlain by 12 feet of very dense sand and very stiff clay followed by
Franciscan bedrock at a depth of about 14 feet or Elevation –four feet MSL was
encountered in this area.
The remaining areas of the 1.25 acre development area consists of approximately three to five
feet of undocumented sandy gravel fills underlain by up to nine feet of stiff to very stiff clay;
these clays are natural alluvial deposit. The competent Franciscan formation bedrock, with
standard penetration blow counts (N-SPT) exceeding 100 blows per foot was encountered at
depths of approximately 13 to 15 feet below existing grade, or an elevation of one to-three feet.
The Franciscan bedrock encountered in the borings generally consisted of severely weathered
sandstone, shale and serpentine.
Based upon the Geologic Map of the San Francisco South Quadrangle (Bonilla, M.G., 1965,
Department of the Interior, United States Geological Society) the site is underlain by Franciscan
formation bedrock (Kjs) consisting of interbedded sandstone, shale and serpentine. The fresh
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-49
bedrock, commonly medium dark grey in color, is hard and intact. The olive gray to yellowish
gray soft bedrock is severely weathered and or sheared. As mentioned above, artificial fill (Qaf)
and/or alluvial deposits (Qsr) overlay the Franciscan bedrock formation. The alluvial deposits
generally consist of sands, silts and clays derived from the nearby hills to the west.
The grading plan (Luk and Associates, July 9, 2013) indicates that approximately 6,118 cubic
yards of soils would be hauled from the site and 6,694 cubic yards would be re-compacted and
reused on the site. Total grading would be approximately 12,187 cubic yards.
SEISMIC FAULTS
No active earthquake faults have been recognized within the immediate site area. Although the
site and vicinity is believed to be free of active faults, the San Francisco Bay Area is known to be
within a seismically active region. The dominant fault in this area is the San Andreas Fault,
located about 3.4 miles southwest of the site. Other active faults in the area include the San
Gregorio fault located roughly 8.8 miles west-southwest, Monte Vista-Shannon is located 17.2
miles southeast, and the Hayward fault located on the order of 14.7 miles northeast. Additional
faults in the area that are not considered active include the San Bruno and Sierra faults located
roughly 2.2 and 3.3 miles southwest of the site, respectively.
The Hillside fault, a northwesterly-trending escarpment aligned with a zone of sheared rocks on
the knoll of Point San Bruno just south of Oyster Point, has also been mapped a short distance
from the Project site. Until the late 1990’s this fault was considered active for planning purposes.
Subsequent geophysical studies conducted in the late 1990’s using a more accurate high-powered
deep-penetrating sonar system found no evidence suggesting that the Hillside fault is potentially
active. Moreover, geologic observations of the Hillside fault exposed during recently graded cuts
on San Bruno Mountain did not detect any recognizable offsets of units that would indicate a
current fault rupture hazard. Therefore, there is no evidence that this fault has been active
within geologically recent time; however, it may be possible for sympathetic movements to be
imposed on this fault as a result of stress from major earthquakes on nearby faults, such as the
San Andreas and Hayward faults.
The site is located three miles northeast of the active San Andreas fault zone. The San Gregorio
fault zone lies 8.5 miles northeast and the Hayward fault zone lies 15 miles southwest of the
Project site.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-50 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
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.
i) 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.
There are no active faults underlying the site and the nearest one is the San Andreas Fault,
located about three miles northeast. The hazard from fault rupturing on the site is considered to
be low (Furgo West, 2003). The Hillside fault is located nearby, but there is no evidence that
this fault has been active within geologically recent time. Therefore, the Project would have a
less than significant impact on exposing people or structures to danger from surface
rupture of a known earthquake fault.
ii) 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 Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale, which accounts for variables such as the size
and distance from the earthquake. For the Project site, Mercalli Intensity estimates indicate that
earthquake-shaking 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 7.9 and 7.4, respectively) the shaking intensities would be IX,
“violent” and VIII, “very strong”, respectively, at the Project site. The site is located in Seismic
Zone 4 and the San Andreas, San Gregorio and Hayward faults are characterized is Type A
faults (California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998).
Development of the Project would increase the number of structures and people potentially
exposed to hazards associated with a major earthquake in the region. The Project and all
buildings in the San Francisco Bay Area are built with the knowledge that an earthquake could
occur, and are required by law through the issuance of building permits to meet the California
Building Code (CBC) standards for seismic safety.
The 2010 CBC identifies the site within Site Class C (stiff soil profile). The geotechnical report
(Furgo West, February, 2013, page 6) contains the design criteria applicable to 2013 Project
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-51
construction, in compliance with the 2010 CBC (see Appendix A). These requirements have
been reviewed by the City’s peer reviewer, Cotton Shires Associates (CSA), and CSA agrees with
the site characterization and assessment with the exception of the mitigation measure identified
in c, below. The Project would be designed and constructed pursuant to the 2010 CBC as a
matter of building permit issuance. Conformance with the latest C BC would ensure that
the impact of seismic ground-shaking is reduced to a level of less than significant.
iii) 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.
Liquefaction is a secondary seismic hazard involving saturated cohesionless sand and silty sand
sediments located close to the ground surface. Liquefaction occurs when the strength of a soil
decreases and pore pressure increases as a response to strong seismic shaking and cyclic loading.
During the loss of strength, the soil becomes mobile, and can move both horizontally and
vertically, if not confined. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are loose, clean, saturated,
uniformly-graded, fine-grained sands.
The Project site is underlain by a non-saturated layer of medium dense to dense sand and gravel
encountered within the upper five feet of undocumented fills and will likely induce a minor
seismic settlement due to dynamic densification on the order of less than a quarter (1/4) inch
during a design seismic event. The non-saturated medium dense to dense sand and silty gravel,
along with the stiff clay and weathered rocks are not susceptible to liquefaction. The
Geotechnical Report (Furgo West, March 2003) concludes that the liquefaction potential
necessary for liquefaction of materials under the Project site is low. Therefore, the Project
would have a less than significant impact with respect to liquefaction of subsurface
materials.
iv) 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.
The Project site is flat. There is no threat of landslides on the Project site; therefore the
P roject 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.
In absence of the NPDES C-3 requirements implemented by the City as a condition of building
and grading permit issuance the Project would have a potential to increase erosion during
construction. These requirements are described in detail in Section 3.8: Hydrology and Water
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-52 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
Quality and in Chapter 1, Section 5. E rosion control measures are required as a matter of
law and as a result this impact is considered to be less than significant.
c) Geologic Instability
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.
The Geotechnical Report, based upon subsurface testing (maximum depth of 35 feet) found that
the site is located on Franciscan bedrock at a depth of 13 feet, a stable geologic unit. The site
does contain undocumented fill consisting of dense silty gravel and stiff clay to approximately
eight feet below existing grade, followed by five feet of very stiff clay and alluvial deposits.
The Applicant indicates that an intention to export approximately 6,118 cubic yards of material
and re-compact approximately 6,694 cubic yards of material from the site. The City Engineer
(Mr. Sam Bautista, May 7, 2013) and Cotton Shires Associates (March 22, 2013) have indicated a
concern with respect to site stability in absence of details regarding re-compacting of the soil.
Specifically Cotton Shires notes:
“…concerns about the proposed use of undocumented fill materials for passive
resistance or support of slabs-on-grade (even with the propped 12 inches of over
excavation). The Standard of Practice in the City is to remove and replace
undocumented fill or to obtain support for new structures (including slab-on-grade
floors) with foundations that exceed through undocumented fill and into
competent native materials. The Standard of Practice in the [c]ity also does not
include reliance on undocumented fill for passive resistance.”
The Project would have less than significant impacts with respect to a geologic unit
becoming unstable with implementation of Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure 1.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS IMPACT 1: REUSE OF IMPROPERLY COMPACTED
OR INCOMPETENT SOIL ON THE SITE
COULD RESULT IN UNSTABLE
CONDITIONS
GEOLOGY AND SOILS MITIGATION 1: A state licensed registered engineering geologist
and principal geotechnical engineer shall be on site during grading and site preparation to
supervise and inspect conditions and shall certify to the City that the soil has been properly
compacted and emplaced to the City’s Standards or that all undocumented fill was removed
from the site prior to construction commencing.
d) Expansive Soils
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if located on
expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life or property.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-53
Project soils were identified as having a PI of 16 in the 2003 geotechnical report (Furgo West).
According to Cotton Shires Associates, the City’s geotechnical consulting firm, a PI of 16 is a
low plasticity level and suitable for the proposed development (Ted Sayre, Principal Engineering
Geologist, May 1, 2013). Issues related to expansive soils typically occur when the PI exceeds 25
(op., cit). T he Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to expansive
soils because it would be located on soils with a low potential of expansion (PI 16).
e) Capability of Soils to Support Septic Tanks
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it involved
construction of septic systems in soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks
or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
The Project does not propose to build any new septic tank or alternate waste disposal systems.
The Project site is connected to the city’s sanitary sewer system. T he Project would have no
impact on soils due to septic systems as the project is connected to the City’s sanitary
system.
Finding: There are no active faults underlying the site and the nearest one is the San Andreas
Fault, located about three miles northeast. The hazard from fault rupturing on the site is
considered to be low (Furgo West, 2003). Therefore, the Project would have a less than
significant impact on exposing people or structures to danger from surface rupture of a known
earthquake fault. Conformance with the latest CBC would ensure that the impact of seismic
ground-shaking is reduced to a level of less than significant.
The Geotechnical Report concludes that the liquefaction potential necessary for liquefaction of
materials under the Project site is low. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant
impact with respect to liquefaction of subsurface materials. There is no threat of landslides on
the Project site; therefore the Project would have no impact with respect to landslides.
Erosion control measures are required as a matter of law and as a result this impact is considered
to be less than significant.
The Project would have less than significant impacts with respect to a geologic unit becoming
unstable with implementation of Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure 1.
The Project would have no impact on soils due to septic systems as the project is connected to
the City’s sanitary system. The Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to
expansive soils because it would be located on soils with a low potential of expansion (PI 16).
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-54 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS — Would the Project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
X
e) For a Project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the Project
result in a safety hazard for people residing
or working in the Project area?
X
f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the Project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
Project area?
X
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
X
h) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
X
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-55
1997 IS/MND
Mitigation Measure 11 in the 1997 IS/MND required the applicant to obtain letters from both
Santa Fe Pipeline and Shell Oil, indicating that sufficient construction and operational safeguards
have been included as part of the construction plans and specifications to ensure no damage to
either facility. 1997 Mitigation Measure 11 is superseded by Hazards Mitigation 1.
SETTING
The site is located in the East of 101 Planning Area, in the southeastern corner of the City at 195
North Access Road. North Access Road and San Bruno Canal are immediately south of the site.
South of North Access Road is another parking structure. San Francisco International Airport
(SFO) is approximately 1,300 feet south of the site with their property beginning approximately
200 feet south of the site. San Francisco Bay is directly east, the City of South San Francisco
wastewater treatment facility is to the north and an aviation fuel tank farm is to the west. The
site has access from South Airport Boulevard, I-280 to 380 to North Access Road and U.S. 101
to North Access Road (see Figures 2.1 Project Location and 2.3 Project Area).
Prior to 2001, the 1.25-acre Project site supported industrial land uses, ship repair, warehouse
and freight forwarding, and from 2001-2003 was used as a composting area for the City’s Water
Quality Control Plant. The site was unused from 2001 to 2007 when the City leased the
property to the Project sponsor. The Project site has been paved and used for a surface parking
lot as part of the Park SFO facility since 2007.
The 2013 Project would demolish the surface parking lot and construct a seven-level 549,626
square foot parking structure connecting to the existing seven-level 477,048 square foot parking
structure constructed in 1998. The 2013 Project would increase on-site parking from 1,901 up
to 3,194 spaces. After completion, there would be 2,833 garage spaces and 361 surface parking
spaces.
There are no sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the Project boundary. Residential land uses
are approximately 3,300 feet (0.65 miles) to the west of the Project site (west of Route 101 and
north of Interstate 380) and 4,050 feet (0.75 miles) to the southwest of the Project site (west of
Route 101 and south of Interstate 380). The closest school is Belle Air Elementary which is 1.1
miles (approximately 6,000 feet) from the Project site. San Francisco International Airport is
located approximately 1,300 feet to the south of the Project site (although airport-owned
property is within 200 feet of the Project site).
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
The South San Francisco Fire Department (SSFFD) requires businesses using or transporting
hazardous substances to provide a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) for their review
and approval. SSFFD reviews development and entitlement applications, levies and enforces
code requirements for fire prevention and safety and conducts periodic inspections of business
activities.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-56 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
Hazardous materials use, storage, and disposal would be governed by the following standards
and permits at both the federal and state level.
FEDERAL
• Toxic Substances Control Act, administered by the EPA, Regulation 40 CFR 720.
• Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, administered by the Department of
Transportation, Regulation 49 CFR 171-177.
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 4 USC 6901-6987.
• Hazardous Waste Management Standards for Generators, Transporters, and Waste Facilities,
administered by EPA, 40CFR 260-2625.
STATE
• California Hazardous Waste Control Act. California Health and Safety Code, Division 20,
Chapter 6.5.
• California Hazardous Waste Management Regulations. California Administrative Code, Title
22. Social Security, Division 4. Environmental Health, Chapter 30.
• Occupation Safety and Health Act, 29 USC 651.
• Workplace Exposure Limits, administered by Occupational Health and Safety
Administration. 29CFR 1900-1910.
• California Occupational Safety and Health Act.
TYPICAL SITE REMEDIATION MEASURES
Hazards Table 1 outlines the type of hazardous material impacts and standard and acceptable
remediation measures, typically levied by the San Mateo Department of Environmental Health
(SMCDEH) as the lead permitting agency through various memoranda of understandings with
federal and state agencies and local government.
IMPACTS
a) and b) Hazardous Materials
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to create
a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials or if it were to create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the environment.
The Project is located in an area zoned for light industrial land uses. The Project would not
handle hazardous materials as a course of conducting business operations. There are no
sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the Project boundary. Residential land uses are
approximately 3,300 feet (0.65 miles) to the west of the Project site (west of Route 101 and
north of Interstate 380) and 4,050 feet (0.75 miles) to the southwest of the Project site (west of
Route 101 and south of Interstate 380). The closest school is Belle Air Elementary which is 1.1
miles (approximately 6,000 feet) from the Project. SFO main operations are located
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-57
approximately 1,300 feet to the south of the Project (although airport-owned property is within
200 feet).
HAZARDS TABLE 1
STANDARD REMEDIATION PRACTICES
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
(in-situ)
SVOCs • Consult SMCEHD for requirements.
• Bioremediation – saturate soils with bio-treatment
materials.
• 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
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-58 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
Media Hazardous
Materials
Approach
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.
Operational Impacts
Any hazardous materials incident on the site would first be responded to by the South San
Francisco Fire Department. As with all development and entitlement review applications, and as
described in Chapter 1, project plans are routed to various City Departments for review and
comment. These departments include the Planning and Building Divisions, Public Works,
Water Quality Control, Engineering, Police and Fire. The South San Francisco Fire Department
(Fire Marshal, Luis DaSilva in a letter to applicant and Ms Linda Ajello, Associate Planner, June
25, 2012) reviewed the plans for the Project and is requiring the following as conditions of
approval:
1. Fire sprinkler system shall be central station monitored per California Fire Code section
1003.3.
2. Install a standpipe system per NFPA 14/SSFFD requirements under separate fire plan
check and permit.
3. Install exterior listed horn/strobe alarm device, not a bell.
4. Elevator if provided shall not contain shunt-trips.
5. At least one elevator shall be sized for a gurney the minimum size shall be in accordance
with the CFC.
6. Fire alarm plans shall be provided per NFPA 72 and the City of South San Francisco
Municipal Code.
7. Provide fire extinguishers throughout the building.
8. All Non parking space curbs to be painted red to local Fire Code Specifications.
9. Access road shall have all weather driving capabilities and support the imposed load of
75,000 pounds.
10. Road gradient and vehicle turning widths shall not exceed maximum allowed by
engineering department.
11. Provide fire hydrants; location and number to be determined.
12. Provide fire hydrants with an average spacing of 400 feet between hydrants.
13. The fire hydrants shall have a minimum fire flow of 3000 gallons per minute at 20
pounds per square inch residual pressure for duration of four (4) hours.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-59
14. All buildings shall provide premise identification in accordance with SSF municipal code
section 15.24.100.
15. Provide Knox key box for each building with access keys to entry doors,
electrical/mechanical rooms, elevators, and others to be determined.
16. The minimum road width is 20 feet per the California Fire Code.
17. Local Fire Code and vehicle specifications and templates available at
http://www.ssf.net/depts/fire/prevention/fire_permits.asp
18. All buildings shall have Emergency Responder Radio Coverage throughout in
compliance with Section 510 of the California Fire Code.
The Project through the entitlement process and routine inspection is required as a matter of law
to operate under all applicable federal, state and local guidelines governing hazardous waste, the
impact of the Project with regards to hazardous waste would therefore Project operational
impacts would be less than significant.
Construction
The Project sponsor did not submit civil drawings, or a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
(Phase 1 ESA), as apart of the application materials. Civil drawings show the location of utility
and other easements, such as off-and on-site monitoring wells, underground fuel lines and right-
of-ways. Shell Oil 24 owns and operates a fuel tank farm adjacent to and northwest of the 2013
Project. Review on the National Pipeline Mapping System (www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov) indicates
that Shell Oil and Santa Fe 25 pipelines may cross the 2013 Project site (viewed on January 29,
2013). The mapping system is a macro-based service and as such shall not be deemed
completely reliable for the location of pipelines and other underground utilities; civil drawings or
a Phase I ESA would provide this information.
Review of Geotracker (https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/) accessed on January 29, 2013
indicates that there are two closed hazardous spill sites on the 2001 Project site, but none on the
2013 portion of the Project. One was an underground storage tank which leaked gasoline and
was closed in 1992. The other was a sump that contained volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
The site was closed and the monitoring wells destroyed in 2011. SMCDEH Director Dean
Peterson issued a notice of case closure on August 8, 2011.
Geotracker also indicates that some off-site monitoring wells from the Shell Oil Tank Farm may
be located on the 2013 Project site. The wells appear to be northwest of the 2001 Project
parking structure, on the 2013 Project portion of the site along its western boundary. The
architectural drawings do not show the location of the wells and civil drawings were not
provided. The location of the monitoring wells and access thereto, must be shown on civil
drawings to assure as-built conditions allow access to the wells. Absence of access to the
monitoring wells would be a significant impact.
24 Map Viewer identifies Deborah Price at (713) 241-2035 as the contact person for Shell Oil. Local records indicate that Eric
Hansen at (650) 761-1424 is the contact.
25 Map Viewer identifies Mark Jensen at (714) 560-4862 as the contact person for Santa Fe pipelines.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-60 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
Grading, emplacing foundations and construction on the 2013 Project site could result in a
significant impact if activities were to rupture gasoline and fuel pipelines or monitoring wells.
Construction over fuel line easements would preclude maintenance or emergency repair.
Implementation of Hazards Mitigation Measure 1 would reduce impacts to less than
significant.
HAZARDS IMPACT 1: PROJECT PLANS DO NOT INCLUDE CIVIL
DRAWINGS THAT INDICATE THE LOCTION OF
POTENTIAL ON- AND OFF-SITE MONITORING
WELLS, GAS AND FUEL PIPELINES, UTILITY
EASEMENTS, OTHER EASEMENTS AND ACCURATE
PROPERTY LINES. CONSTRUCTING OVER THESE
TYPES OF FACILITIES WITHOUT PROVIDING
PROPER ACCESSS FOR MAINTENANCE WOULD BE A
SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. MOREOVER, GRADING AND
FOUNDATION EMPLACEMENT COULD RUPTURE
PIPELINES RESULTING IN A LEAK OR OTHER
HAZARDOUS CONDITION.
HAZARDS MITIGATION 1: The Applicant, contractor or Project sponsor shall provide
civil engineering (wet stamped by a California licensed civil engineer) drawings identifying all
utility and access easements as well as the location of all underground facilities, including
monitoring wells and fuel lines and property lines, prior to issuance of any grading, demolition
or building permits by the City. Project construction plans shall comply with the access
requirements for underground utility maintenance. Santa Fe Pipeline and Shell Oil
representatives shall be contacted and provided an opportunity to review the 2013 Project plans
to assure adequate access is provided for their facilities. Written confirmation of their review,
approval and/or modifications shall be provided to the City prior to issuance of any grading,
demolition or construction permits. The construction drawings shall be altered as necessary to
provide adequate access and depending upon the magnitude of alteration may require the
Project to undergo subsequent design and entitlement review.
Prior to beginning any underground excavation or drilling work, the contractor shall outline the
location using white paint (for paved surfaces), flags, stakes, or whiskers (for unpaved surfaces).
The contractor shall then contact USA North at (800) 227-2600 for a dig ticket at least two
working days prior to the start of excavation work so that underground utility owners can clear
the location of underground utilities or mark the location of their facilities within the excavation
area footprint. Facilities that are in conflict with the excavation are to be located with hand tools
and protected before power equipment is used. The dig ticket shall be kept active until the
completion of underground work. The contractor shall contact the City Engineering Division to
inspect the flagging and marking required by this mitigation measure prior to initiating any
underground excavation or drilling work. 2013 Project construction impacts would be less
than significant with the implementation of Hazards Mitigation 1.
c) and d) Hazardous Materials Presence
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to emit
hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within a quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, or if it was located on a site which is
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-61
included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 (“Cortese List”).
There are no existing or proposed schools or day care centers or facilities within a quarter mile
of the 2013 Project site. As noted above, residential land uses are approximately 3,300 feet (0.65
miles) to the west (west of Route 101 and north of Interstate 380) and 4,050 feet (0.75 miles) to
the southwest of the Project (west of Route 101 and south of Interstate 380). The closest school
is Belle Air Elementary which is 1.1 miles (approximately 6,000 feet) from the Project site.
Therefore, t he Project would have no impact from the emission or handling of
hazardous materials or wastes on schools or from any environmental contamination
posed by the sites listed on the Cortese List.
e) and f) Safety Hazards Due to Nearby Airport or Airstrip
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were located
within an airport land use plan (or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport), if it would result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the Project area; or if it were located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, if it
would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area.
The 2013 Project site is located 200 feet from SFO property and approximately 1,300 feet from
SFO operations and within the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission’s (ALUC)
jurisdiction. The ALUC allows development within ALUC boundaries, provided that
development is below a prescribed height limit. The City, in concert with the ALUC and in
coordination with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), established height limits in the South
San Francisco General Plan in compliance with the ALUC and FAA. The South San Francisco General
Plan indicates the maximum height for the Project is below the 160.9 contour. SFO has a
website that provides additional height information. The 2013 Project site is between the 150
and 175 foot height contour airport-related height limit restriction as noted on SFO’s website
(Http://ialp.airplanonline.com).
The maximum height of the Project, including the light poles on the roof level would be 100
feet. The building itself would be 80 to 90 feet in height including the stairwells and elevator.
The Project would not encroach in the 150 -175 foot zone. Potential safety impacts
associated with airports and airstrips is considered to be less than significant.
g) Conflict with Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to impair
implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan.
There are no emergency response or evacuation plans in effect in the Project vicinity. The
Project is required to have Emergency Responder Radio Coverage throughout in compliance
with Section 510 of the California Fire Code (Fire Marshal, Luis DeSilva letter to Planning
Department, June 25, 2012), see a and b above. T he Project would have no impact on the
implementation of any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-62 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
h) Exposure of People or Structures to Wildland Fires
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to
expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.
There is no wildland in the vicinity of the Project site or area. The Project would have no
impact with respect to wildland fires .
Finding: The Project through the entitlement process and routine inspection is required as a
matter of law to operate under all applicable, federal, state and local guidelines governing
hazardous waste. The Project would have no impact from the emission or handling of hazardous
materials or wastes on schools or from any environmental contamination posed by the sites
listed on the Cortese List. The impact of the Project with regards to hazardous materials would
be less than significant with respect to operational activities. The Project would have a less than
significant impact on the potential to emit hazardous materials during construction with
implementation of Hazards Mitigation 1.
There are no existing or proposed schools or day care centers or facilities within a quarter mile
of the Project site.
The Project would be 100 feet in height including the light poles at the roof top parking level.
The building itself would be 80 to 90 feet including the stairwells and elevator. The Project
would be 50 feet below the lowest range of the maximum permitted height determined by the
ALUC and FAA.
There are no emergency response or evacuation plans in effect in the Project vicinity. Therefore
the Project would have no impact on the implementation of any adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan. The South San Francisco Fire Department is in the process
of initiating a study to identify offensive capabilities in the Project area. The Project would be
required through conditions of approval to provide a fair share financial contribution to the
department’s study and improvements.
There is no wildland in the vicinity of the Project site or area. The Project would have no
impact with respect to wildland fires.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-63
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the
Project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit
in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing land uses
or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner, which would result
in flooding on- or off-site?
X
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
X
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
X
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures, which would impede or redirect flood
flows?
X
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
X
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X
1997 IS/MND
Mitigation Measure 3 identified in the 1997 ISMND requiring a hydrological analysis is not
required for the 2013 Project because it is replaced by the City’s standard conditions of approval
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-64 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
identified in Chapter 1 Section 1.5.4 and a, below. Mitigation Measure 4 requiring compliance
with the NPDES and RWQCB permitting processes is not required of the 2013 Project because
it is replaced and by the City’s conditions of approval requiring NPDES and RWQCB
compliance with more conservative measures (see Setting Section below and Chapter 1
Section 1.5.4). Mitigation Measure 5 requiring stormwater to be directed to the storm drain
system is not required because the 2001 Project is constructed and complies with this measure.
The 2013 Project is required to comply with the storm drain measure through the standard
conditions of approval that are required by law (see Setting Section below and Chapter 1
Section 1.5.4). Mitigation Measure 6 requires the car wash water run-off to be directed to the
City’s sanitary sewer facility and the 2001 Project as built complies with this requirement.
Therefore the mitigation measure is implemented.
SETTING
Colma Creek, the City’s main natural drainage system, is a perennial stream with a watershed of
about 16.3 square miles that trends in a roughly southeasterly direction through the center of the
City. The Colma Creek watershed is one of the three largest in the County. The basin is
bounded on the northeast by San Bruno Mountain and on the west by a ridge traced by Skyline
Boulevard. Dominant topographic features of the drainage basin include two relatively straight
mountain ridges that diverge toward the southeast that are connected by a low ridge at the
northern boundary of the area. The valley enclosed by the ridges widens toward the southeast
where it drains into San Francisco Bay.
Flooding potential is evaluated by use of the Federal Emergency Mapping Agency (FEMA)
Community Maps. South San Francisco’s Community Panel Number is 0044E, Map
#06081C00H4E and dated October 16, 2012. Flood risk is based upon a one percent (1%)
annual chance of a 100 year flood, also known as the base flood, which is the flood that has a
one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year known as the Special Flood
Hazard Area (SFHA). SFHA areas include flood zones A, AE, AH, AO, AR, A99, V and VE.
The base flood elevation is the water surface elevation of the one percent annual chance flood.
The Project site is 11 feet above MSL and located in a Flood Zone A (minimal flooding) and no
base flood elevation level has been determined. The site is adjacent to Flood Zone AE with a 10
foot base flood level elevation at this location. The City’s Building Official is the Flood
Administrator whom is responsible for ensuring that construction complies with FEMA
regulations.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
FEDERAL
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Storm Water Discharge Permit: As
identified in Chapter 1 Section 5.4, the City of South San Francisco is a member of 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.
STOPPP's goal is to prevent polluted storm water from entering creeks, wetlands, and the San
Francisco Bay. The City requires the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP’s)
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-65
and Low Impact Development (LID) measures for new development and construction as part
of its storm water management program, as levied through standard City conditions of project
approval.
The City requires the implementation of BMP’s and LID measures to ensure the protection of
water quality in storm runoff from the Project site. In brief, the measures presented in the BMP
handbook address pollution control and management mechanisms for contractor activities, e.g.
structure construction, material delivery and storage, solid waste management, employee and
subcontractor training, etc. The handbook also provides direction for the control of erosion and
sedimentation as well as the establishment of monitoring programs to ensure the effectiveness
of the measures. The City also requires an agreement with the applicant that ensures the
permanent and on-going maintenance of water quality control improvements by the applicant
and/or project site owner(s). Refer to the Bay Area Storm Water Management Agencies
Association (BASMAA) Start at the Source Design Guidance Manual for Storm Water Quality
Protection (available from BASMAA @ 510-622-2465 for a comprehensive listing of required
measures. Typical storm water quality protection measures are identified in Chapter 1, Section
1.5.4 of this document. The City’s requirements are in compliance with state and federal laws
and regulations that are designed to mitigate potential hydrological and stormwater impacts
associated with project construction and on-going operational activities.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
State Water Quality Control Board’s General Permitting Requirements: As identified
above and in Chapter 1 Section 1.5.4, the City of South San Francisco requires through
conditions of project approval, project compliance with the State Water Quality Control Board’s
general permitting requirements which require 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, Public Works Department Division of Water Quality, prior to issuance of building
and/or grading permits. The conditions of approval identified in the Introduction Chapter 1
Section 1.5.4 apply to the Project as a matter of law. These measures are required in order to
reduce water quality impacts to a less than significant level.
IMPACTS
a) Violation of Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result
in any violation of existing water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
The Project as a matter of law is required to comply with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP). The City requires the implementation of LIDs and BMPs for new development
and construction as part of its storm water management program, as levied through standard
City conditions of project approval by the Water Quality Control Division of the Public Works
Department. Rob Lecel, Senior Environmental Compliance Inspector for the City of South San
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-66 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
Francisco reviewed the proposed plans and provided the following requirements (memorandum
dated July 3, 2012) pursuant to the City’s review procedures:
The following items must be included in the plans or are requirements of the Stormwater
and/or pretreatment programs and must be completed prior to the issuance of a permit:
1. A plan showing the location of all storm drains and sanitary sewers must be
submitted.
2. Fire sprinkler test discharge line must be connected to the sanitary sewer.
3. Trash area(s) shall be covered and have a drain(s) that is connected to the sanitary
sewer.
4. The onsite catch basins are to be stenciled with the approved San Mateo Countywide
Stormwater Logo (No Dumping! Flows to Bay).
5. Install a separate water meter for landscaping.
6. Garage floors 1 through 6 drainage must be discharged to an oil/water separator,
properly sized (calculations must be submitted) with minimum liquid capacity of
2000 gallons and it must be plumbed to the sanitary sewer.
7. The top floor drainage shall be discharged to the storm water system.
Stormwater from the entire site must be included in the treatment system design.
Stormwater treatment systems must be designed to treat stormwater runoff from the
entire site. Rainwater harvesting and infiltration feasibility will be used to the
maximum extent feasible. Storm water pollution preventions devices are to be
installed. Clustering of structures and pavement; directing roof runoff to vegetated
areas; use of micro-detention, including distributed landscape-based detention; and
preservation of open space are preferred. Treatment devices must be sized according
Provision C.3.d Numeric Sizing Criteria for Stormwater Treatment Systems of
NPDES No. CAS613008.
8. The applicant must submit a signed Operation and Maintenance Information for
Stormwater Treatment Measures form for the stormwater pollution prevention
devices installed.
9. The applicant must submit a signed maintenance agreement for the stormwater
pollution prevention devices installed. Each maintenance agreement will require the
inclusion of the following exhibits:
a. A letter-sized reduced-scale site plan that shows the locations of the
treatment measures that will be subject to the agreement.
b. A legal description of the property.
c. A maintenance plan, including specific long-term maintenance tasks and a
schedule. It is recommended that each property owner be required to
develop its own maintenance plan, subject to the municipality’s approval.
Resources that may assist property owners in developing their maintenance
plans include the operation manual for any proprietary system purchased by
the property owner.
10. Applicant must complete the C.3 and C.6 Development Review Checklist prior to
issuance of a permit and return to the Technical Services Supervisor at the WQCP.
11. Landscaping shall meet the following conditions related to reduction of pesticide use
on the Project site:
a. Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat
stormwater runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain, and
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-67
infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are
tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolonged exposure to water shall be
specified.
b. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics
such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight,
prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological
consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment.
c. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and
incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent practicable.
d. Proper maintenance of landscaping, with minimal pesticide use, shall be the
responsibility of the property owner.
e. Integrated pest management (IPM) principles and techniques shall be
encouraged as part of the landscaping design to the maximum extent
practicable. Examples of IPM principles and techniques include:
i. Select plants that are well adapted to soil conditions at the site.
ii. Select plants that are well adapted to sun and shade conditions at the
site. In making these selections, consider future conditions when
plants reach maturity, as well as seasonal changes.
iii. Provide irrigation appropriate to the water requirements of the
selected plants.
iv. Select pest-resistant and disease-resistant plants.
v. Plant a diversity of species to prevent a potential pest infestation
from affecting the entire landscaping plan.
vi. Use “insectary” plants in the landscaping to attract and keep
beneficial insects.
12. Source control measures must include:
• Landscaping that minimizes irrigation and runoff, promotes surface
infiltration where possible, minimizes the use of pesticides and fertilizers, and
incorporates appropriate sustainable landscaping practices and programs such as
Bay-Friendly Landscaping.
• Appropriate covers, drains, and storage precautions for outdoor material storage
areas, loading docks, repair/maintenance bays, and fueling areas.
• Covered trash, food waste, and compactor enclosures.
Plumbing of the following discharges to the sanitary sewer, subject to the local
sanitary sewer agency’s authority and standards:
• Dumpster drips from covered trash and food compactor enclosures.
• Discharges from outdoor covered wash areas for vehicles, equipment, and
accessories.
13. A construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan must be submitted and
approved prior to the issuance of a permit.
14. A copy of the NOI filed with the state must be submitted to the WQCP.
15. Plans must include location of concrete wash out area and location of
entrance/outlet of tire wash.
16. A grading and drainage plan must be submitted.
17. The applicant must file a Notice of Termination with the WQCP when the Project is
completed.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-68 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
18. The applicant must pay sewer connection fee at a later time based on anticipated
flow, BOD and TSS calculations.
The Project would present no impact with respect to violation of water quality standards
or waste discharge standards as the result of the City’s permitting requirements which
are in compliance with regional, state and federal laws designed to mitigate hydrological
including stormwater impacts both on individual projects and as well as cumulative
impacts .
b) Deplete or Interfere Substantially with Groundwater
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it substantially
depletes groundwater supplies or interferes substantially with groundwater recharge such that
there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level.
The 2013 1.25-acre Project site is currently paved with minimal pervious surfaces consisting of
small landscape areas. The conceptual landscape plan indicates additional planting along the
perimeter of the 2013 Project and Biology Mitigation Measure 3 requires native landscaping
improvements. The Project would not increase or decrease impervious surfaces appreciably as
the expanded parking garage would be emplaced in an area currently paved. The Project would
have no impact with regards to groundwater depletion. T he Project would continue to
receive its water supply from existing local infrastructure, not groundwater and would not
increase impermeability of the site from existing conditions.
c) Alter Existing Drainage Patterns/Erosion and Siltation Effects
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to
substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation.
The Project would be built on a site previously developed in a suburban, industrial area. The
Project is required to comply with current NPDES and SWPPP measures, as noted in a, above.
The regulations mandate the Project to treat all stormwater runoff from the entire Project on-
site; use plants that are suited for the site including insectary plants to attract beneficial insects
and a diversity of plants among other items (Mr. Lecel, Senior Environmental Compliance
Inspector, Water Quality Control Plant, July 3, 2012 memorandum to Linda Ajello, Associate
Planner). There would be no impact related to altered drainage patterns or siltation at the
Project site as a result of the NPDES and SWPPP measures required by the City and the
requirement noted in a above to retrofit the entire site, i.e., the 2001 P roject and 2013
Project.
d) Alter Existing Drainage Patterns/Flooding Effects
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to
substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area or substantially increase the rate
or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-69
The Project would improve the existing drainage pattern of the site as noted in c above and as
such would not increase the amount of surface runoff. The Project would result in no impact
related to an increase of surface runoff.
e) Runoff Exceeding Drainage System Capacity/Increase Polluted Runoff
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to
create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm
water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
The Project, as a matter of law, is required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) and an Erosion Control Plan to the City Engineer and the Water Quality Control
Division prior to the commencement of any grading or construction of the proposed Project.
The SWPPP as noted in the Chapter 1.5.4, the Setting Section above and in a, above is
required to include storm water pollution control devices to treat all stormwater on site and use
stormwater onsite for landscaping to prevent pollutants from entering the City’s storm drain
system and San Francisco Bay. The Plan shall be subject to review and approval of the City
Engineer and the City’s Water Quality Control Plant coordinator.
Water quality measures are required to be included in the building permit packet; therefore all
contractors are as a matter of law made aware of the requirements. Additionally, the
Engineering Division of the Public Works Department as well as the Water Quality Control
Plant Compliance Inspector conducts routine inspections of this and all project sites to insure
compliance. Failure to comply with the approved construction BMPs would result in the
issuance of correction notices, citations and/or a Stop Work Order. Plans for the Project
would as a matter of law include erosion control measures to prevent soil, dirt and debris from
entering the storm drain system. Implementation of the measures required as a matter of
law would reduce the Project’s impact runoff to a level of less than significant.
f) Otherwise Degrade Water Quality
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to
degrade water quality.
The Project, as required by law, would treat all stormwater on site. The Project would result in
a less than significant impact on water quality from point source water pollution.
g – i) Flood Hazards
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to place
any housing units within a designated 100-year flood hazard area; if it placed any structures in a
manner which would impede or redirect flood flows; or if it were to result in the exposure of
people or structures to flooding hazards.
The Project site is located in a Flood Zone A (minimal flooding) and no base flood elevation
level has been determined (Community Panel Number is 0044E, Map #06081C00H4E, October
16, 2012). The site is adjacent to Flood Zone AE with a 10 foot base flood level elevation at this
location. The City’s Building Official is the Flood Administrator whom is responsible for
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-70 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
ensuring that construction complies with FEMA regulations. By law, the Project is required to
be constructed one foot above base flood level, or 11 feet in elevation. The site meets this
requirement and additional mitigation is not required (Mr. Jim Kirkman, Chief Building Official,
May 1, 2013). The Project would result in a less than significant impact with respect to
flooding.
j) Tsunami Hazards
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result
in the exposure of people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow.
The Project site is located in a low-lying adjacent to San Francisco Bay. An earthquake could
cause tsunamis (tidal waves) and seiches (oscillating waves in enclosed water bodies) in the Bay.
The City’s general plan estimates that potential wave run-up of a 100-year tsunami would be
approximately 4.3 feet above mean sea level (msl) and approximately 6.0 feet above msl for a
500-year tsunami (Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, adopted October 1999, page
250). The Project site is 11 feet above MSL, would be outside the runup zone subject to
inundation by a 500-year tsunami and would be outside any potential tsunami hazard zone26.
The State of California emergency mapping website shows the 1.25-acre site outside of and
adjacent to the tsunami inundation zone. Additionally, the Project would conform to the latest
building code requirements. The Project is not within an inundation zone therefore the
impact of potential inundation by tsunami or seiche is considered to be less than
significant.
Finding: The City’s standard conditions of approval which implement state, federal and local
regulations are required by law and are adequate to address any potential water quality impacts as
a result of Project construction or occupation. The site is not within a flood zone or an area
subject to seiche or tsunami inundation or run-up zones. No mitigation measures, above those
required by the City as a matter of law, are identified in this Initial Study. The Project would not
result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact to hydrology or water quality resources.
26 Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, State of California South San Francisco Quadrangle, April 2,
2013.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-71
3. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the Project:
a) Physically divide an established community? X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan? X
1997 IS/MND
No mitigation measures were identified in the 1997 IS/MND.
SETTING
The site is located in the East of 101 Planning Area, in the southeastern corner of the City at 195
North Access Road. North Access Road and San Bruno Canal are immediately south of the site.
South of North Access Road is another parking structure. San Francisco International Airport is
property is 200 feet south of the site with its main operations approximately 1,300 feet south of
the site. San Francisco Bay is directly east, the City of South San Francisco wastewater treatment
facility is to the north and an aviation fuel tank farm is to the west. The site has access from
South Airport Boulevard, I-280 to 380 to North Access Road and U.S. 101 to North Access
Road (see Figures 2.1 Project Location and 2.3 Project Area in Chapter 2).
The Project, on approximately seven acres (6.96), consists of a 5.71 acre parcel supporting the
existing parking garage (Park SFO) constructed in 2001 and the adjacent 1.25 acre parcel
currently containing surface parking. The surface lot was paved for parking 166 vehicles in 2007.
Prior to 2001, the 1.25 acre Project site supported industrial land uses, ship repair, warehouse
and freight forwarding, and from 2001-2003 was used as a composting area for the City’s Water
Quality Control Plant.
The City received a development application in 1997 that triggered environmental, legislative
and entitlement review to construct the existing Park SFO facility. The 1997 review resulted in
the City adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance (MND) and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for site development and use, and
amendments to the South San Francisco General Plan, East of 101 Area Plan and Zoning Ordinance
to designate and zone the site as Mixed Industrial (MI) to allow a parking facility that includes
surface and structured parking and parking on the unused dry docks.
Other actions included authorization and execution of a development agreement and land lease
agreements; a lot line adjustment; and use permit and design review approvals, with conditions
of approval. The project was approved in April, 1998 and constructed in 2001 (2001 Project).
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-72 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
The 2001 Project also included relocation of portion of the Bay Trail and construction of a park
(+/-32,000 square feet) on the southern-most dry dock (see Figure 2.1 in Chapter 2).
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
South San Francisco General Plan
The Project site is within the area subject to the provisions of the “East of 101” Planning Sub-
Area of the South San Francisco’s General Plan. The general plan designates the Project site for
“Mixed Industrial” uses, and gives the following summary:
This designation is intended to provide and protect industrial lands for a wide
range of manufacturing, industrial processing, general service, warehousing,
storage and distribution and service commercial uses. The maximum floor area
is 0.4, with an increase to 0.60 for development seeking a FAR bonus with a
Transportation Demand Management Program in compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance. Table 2.2-1 (page 32 General Plan) footnote (1) states that
commercial parking structures are excluded from the FAR restrictions.
ZONING CLASSIFICATION
The Project site is zoned “Mixed Industrial” (MI) and is consistent with the general plan
designation. The MI District provides for a wide range of manufacturing, industrial processing,
general service, warehousing, storage and distribution and service commercial uses. Industries
that use or produce substantial amounts of hazardous materials or generate noise, odor, or other
pollutants are not permitted. The maximum floor area is 0.4, with an increase to 0.60 for
development providing specified off-site improvements save for structured commercial parking
as noted above. A complete list of permitted and conditional uses is identified in Chapter 20.110
of the South San Francisco Municipal Code.
IMPACTS
a and b) Division of an Established Community and Conflicts with Land Use Plan and
Zoning
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to
physically divide an established community and/or the Project would have a significant
environmental impact if it were to result in a conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect.
The Project is located within a mixed industrial land use designation and an area developed as
such. The 2013 Project would expand airport-related parking consistent with the South San
Francisco General Plan and zoning designation and classification and existing land use. The Project
meets the development guidelines of the East of 101 Area Plan as described in Section 3.1
Aesthetics and is under the ALUC and general plan height limitations. As mitigated in Section
3.5 Biology, the 2013 Project would comply with the East of 101 Area Plan conservation
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-73
policies. Thus, the Project would have no impact on dividing an established community
and would continue to be consistent with City’s general plan and zoning. The Project
would conform to all applicable land use plans and zoning regulations and, therefore,
would have no impact.
c) Conflict with Conservation Plan
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result
in a conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan.
There are no conservation or natural community conservation plans that govern the Project site
(or area) as identified in Section 3.5, Biological Resources. Therefore, the Project would
have no impact on conservation plans.
Finding: The Project would not physically divide an established community. The site is
planned for mixed industrial and the Project is consistent with the planned uses. There are no
conservation or natural community conservation plans that govern the Project site or area. The
Project would not result in any individually or cumulatively considerable impacts.
3.11 Mineral Resources
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the Project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
X
1997 IS/MND
No mitigation measures were identified in the 1997 IS/MND.
SETTING
The Project is located in a largely mixed industrial area. The site is located in the East of 101
Planning Area, in the southeastern corner of the City at 195 North Access Road. North Access
Road and San Bruno Canal are immediately south of the site. South of North Access Road is
another parking structure. San Francisco International Airport is property is 200 feet south of
the site with its main operations approximately 1,300 feet south of the site.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-74 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
IMPACTS
a) and b) Loss of Mineral Resources
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result
in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state, or if it were to result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use
plan.
No mineral resources of value to the region and the residents of the state have been identified at
the Project site. The Project site has not been delineated as a locally important mineral recovery
site on the City of South San Francisco General Plan, on any specific plan, or on any other land use
plan. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on any known mineral resource, or
result in the loss of availability of any locally important resource recovery site.
Finding: The Project site does not contain any local or regionally significant mineral resources.
The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact to mineral
resources.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-75
3.12 NOISE
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. NOISE — Would the Project:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
X
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
X
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels
existing without the Project?
X
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity
above levels existing without the Project?
X
e) For a Project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the Project expose
people residing or working in the Project area to
excessive noise levels?
X
f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the Project expose people
residing or working in the Project area to
excessive noise levels?
X
1997 IS/MND
No mitigation measures were identified in the 1997 IS/MND.
SETTING
The Project site is located in the southern area of the City, within an industrial area. SFO
property is 200 feet south of the site and SFO operations are approximately 1,300 feet south.
The area is dominated by aircraft and roadway noise. The site is within the 65 dB noise contour
for both roadway and aircraft sources (Figure 9-2 Projected Rail and Road Noise, page 283, and
Figure 9-1 Aircraft Noise and Noise Insulation Program page 279, South San Francisco General Plan).
SFO’s website shows the site at the 65 dB contour (ialp.airplaneonline.com).
NOISE DEFINED
Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Whether a sound is unwanted depends on when
and where it occurs, what the listener is doing when it occurs, characteristics of the sound
(loudness, pitch and duration, speech or music content, irregularity) and how intrusive it is above
background sound levels. In determining the daily level of environmental noise, it is important
to account for the difference in response of people to daytime and nighttime noises. During
nighttime, exterior background noises are generally lower than daytime levels. However, most
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-76 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
household noise also decreases at night and exterior noise becomes more noticeable. Further,
most people sleep at night and are very sensitive to noise intrusion.
Noise attenuates (reduces in level) the further it travels from the source. Typically noise
attenuates 6 dB per doubling distance in hard surface environments (paving, hardscape). The
shell of a building (sometimes referred to as the envelope) does attenuate noise 15 to 25 dB
depending on the type construction and insulation contained therein.
SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Residential, schools, child care facilities and convalescent facilities are typically considered noise
sensitive land uses. There are no sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the Project boundary.
Residential land uses are approximately 3,300 feet (0.65 miles) to the west of the Project site
(west of Route 101 and north of Interstate 380) and 4,050 feet (0.75 miles) to the southwest of
the Project site (west of Route 101 and south of Interstate 380). The closest school is Belle Air
Elementary which is 1.1 miles (approximately 6,000 feet) from the Project site. San Francisco
International Airport (SFO) is located approximately 1,300 feet to the south of the Project site
(although airport-owned property is within 200 feet of the Project site).
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The South San Francisco Noise Element contains land use criteria for noise as it pertains to
various land uses. These criteria define the desirable maximum noise exposure of various land
uses in addition to certain conditionally acceptable levels contingent upon the implementation of
noise reduction measures. Noise levels over 85 dBA are acceptable for airport-related
development only; less than 75 dBA is acceptable for industrial and open space land uses; and
75-85 dBA is conditionally acceptable for industrial land uses and open space uses not involving
high concentrations of people or animals (Table 9.2-1 Land Use Criteria for Noise Impacted Areas,
South San Francisco General Plan, page 280)
The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32, Section 8.32.050) restricts
construction activities to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. This ordinance also limits
noise generation of any individual piece of equipment to 90 dBA at 25 feet or at the property
line. The Building Division enforces the noise limits at the time of building permit issuance by
informing applicant’s of the requirement and if necessary requiring quieter equipment. The
Building Division also conducts routine site inspections prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy or finalization of the building permit. The inspections monitor building and
municipal code compliance.
Noise attenuates approximately 6 dB per doubling distance from the source in hardscape areas
such as paved sites. Noise can also be reduced by structures that break the line of sight from the
noise source to the receiver. For example, a building between a construction site and a park can
reduce the noise levels reaching the park in addition to the attenuation afforded by distance.
Noise can also be reduced 15 to 25 dB by the shell or as it is commonly referred to “envelope of
the building.” Older buildings and open windows reduce noise less than newer buildings with
closed windows.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-77
Projects can result in an increase in noise (unwanted sound) from demolition and construction
and operational activities. Demolition and construction are typically short-term in nature
depending upon the construction schedule. Operational impacts run with the life of the project
and largely result from increased traffic, ventilation systems and/or land use activities that are
conducted external to a building.
PROJECT OPERATIONS
The 2001 and 2007 portions of the Project operate a parking and shuttle bus service. There are
three shifts, eight hours in length and nine employees per shift. There are three cashiers and six
shuttle bus drivers per shift.
Currently patrons hold their tickets until they return to their cars and exit the structure at which
time they pay a cashier in a kiosk. The kiosks are enclosed and insulated. A new method of
payment, to be enacted within the next few months, would offer patrons two payment options.
One option would be to pay through an automated machine and the other to a cashier within
the office. The office is enclosed and insulated. The new system is called “pay-on-foot” (John
Fugle, Applicant’s Representative, e-mail July 26, 2013).
IMPACTS
a – d) Exposure of Persons to or Generation of Noise Levels in Excess of Standards,
Exposure of Persons to or Generation of Excessive Groundborne Noise Levels, a
Substantial Temporary or Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the Project
Vicinity above Levels Existing Without the Project.
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result
in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the
South San Francisco General Plan or the City’s Noise Ordinance.
PROJECT DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION
The noise environment in the Project area is industrial and dominated by aircraft, traffic and
trucking activities. Noise levels over 85 dBA are conditionally acceptable for airport-related
activities, less than 75 dBA is acceptable for industrial land uses and 75-85 dBA is conditionally
acceptable for industrial land uses (Table 9.2-1 Land Use Criteria for Noise Impacted Areas, General
Plan, page 280). As stated above, the City’s noise ordinance regulates noise exposure at the
property line to 90 dB.
Noise levels associated with various types of demolition and grading equipment, using the Leq
sound metric at 50 feet, range from 87 to 86 dB for a hoe ram attachment, grader and scrapers;
84 dB for bulldozers; 83 dB for excavators; 80 to 81 dB for backhoes and loaders; 101 dB for
pile drivers; impact wrenches and rock drills 85 to 98 dB. Generators and compressors can
range from 72 to 87 dB at 50 feet. Water trucks and street sweepers can reach 77 dB at 50 feet.
Back up warning alarms required on construction equipment (California Occupational Safety
Health Administration or Cal OSHA) range from 87 to 112 dB at four feet (Federal Highway
Administration, 2006).
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-78 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
Project demolition and construction activities are expected to take approximately 16 months.
There would be three main phases of construction: (1) demolition, excavation, and foundation
construction, (2) deck and vertical structure forming and construction, and (3) finishing. The
first and last phases are expected to take approximately four (4) months each, with the second
phase taking approximately eight (8) months.
Noise Levels Reaching the Property Lines
The worst case equipment noise level could exceed 90 dB at the property line to the west, north
and east in particular during heavy grading and demolition activities associated with removal
abandoned building pads noted in Section 3.7 Geology and Soils and pavement and concrete
demolition. Noise levels that could be experienced south of the site and southeast at the park on
the first dry dock and the Bay Trail would attenuate to approximately 81 dB to 79 dB due to the
2001 Project blocking the line of sight and distance from the source.
NOISE IMPACT 1: NOISE LEVELS MAY EXCEED 90 DB AT THE PROPERTY
LINE IN VIOLATION OF THE CITY’S NOISE
ORDINANCE.
NOISE MITIGATION 1.A: At the discretion of the Building Official a waiver may be applied
for and secured given that the Project is not located in a noise sensitive area and there are no
sensitive receptors within 0.65 miles of the site,
or,
NOISE MITIGATION 1.B: Erect temporary sound barriers, select quieter equipment and
locate the noisiest equipment further from the property lines whenever possible to increase
noise attenuation.
The Applicant indicates that construction work would be limited to the hours of 8:00 AM to
5:00 PM, five (5) days a week, with occasional deliveries on Saturday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
A possible exception to this would be to accommodate concrete pours which requires a
consistent and constant delivery of cement until the pour is completed. Typically, concrete
pours would occur on Thursdays or Fridays to take advantage of weekend downtime allowing
the concrete to adequately cure before construction resumes on the following Monday. Should
Saturday pours be necessary, the activity would occur between the hours of 8:30 AM and 5:00
PM.
Saturday Work Schedules
The weekday hours of construction are in conformance with the City’s noise ordinance outlined
in Chapter 1, Introduction, Section 1.5.5 and above in the Setting Section which limits
weekday construction from 8 AM to 8 PM.27 The proposed Saturday hours of operation would
27 Construction noise is regulated through the Municipal Code (8.32.050(d)). Hours of construction 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
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-79
be in violation the City’s permitted hours of construction in absence of a waiver by the Chief
Building Official.
The Project is located in an area dominated by aircraft and traffic noise. There are no sensitive
receptors such as residential, school, day care, convalescent uses within a quarter mile. The
Project Sponsor may opt to not begin construction or delivery activities until 9 AM on Saturdays
or in the case of an emergency secure a temporary waiver.
NOISE IMPACT 2: THE PROJECT PROPOSES SATURDAY CONSTRUCTION
TO BEGIN AT 8:30 AM IN VIOLATION OF THE CITY’S
NOISE ORDINANCE START TIME OF 9 AM.
NOISE MITIGATION 2.A: The Project sponsor shall note on the approved building and job
copy plans that Saturday operations shall not begin prior to 9 AM.
NOISE MITIGATION 2.B: At the discretion of the Building Official: The Project Sponsor
or contractor shall apply for and secure a waiver to the Saturday start time.
Employee Noise Exposure
Three on-site cashiers would be exposed to demolition and construction noise during an eight
hour shift. The cashiers would be located inside either insulated and enclosed kiosks or the
office that is also insulated and enclosed. The 2001 Project was constructed in 2001 and may
attenuate noise 15-20 dB depending on the quality of construction. The shuttle bus drivers
would not experience a continuous eight hour exposure to noise as they would be on and off
site periodically throughout an eight hour shift.
The new pay-on-foot program would result in all three shift workers being inside a standard-
construction (metal studs and drywall) office located inside the parking structure further
protecting the employees from excessive noise. New construction can reduce interior noise
levels up to 25 dB.
The entry kiosk is approximately 100 feet from the northern wall of the facility where the
addition is proposed to be constructed (Architectural Sheet A102). Assuming a conservative
analysis, noise could attenuate 6 dB from the northern wall to the kiosk resulting in an 84 dB
noise level. The intermittent sound from the required back-up alarms would be higher and
could be as much as 106 dB at the kiosk. The kiosk itself would be expected to attenuate some
noise if it is indeed entirely closed and of solid construction. Noise exposure to an employee
located in the kiosk could be 80-84 dB with a periodic Lmax of 106 dB for the day shift, and
potentially a portion of the evening shift.
The Applicant’s representative indicates that the pay-on-foot program is anticipated to be in
place prior to commencing construction on the 2013 Project should the project be approved.
holidays. The Building Division enforces and monitors these regulations. Exceptions to the hours of construction
may be granted by the Chief Building Official.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-80 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
The noise exposure would be annoying and in some cases startling and disruptive to a cashier in
a kiosk.
NOISE IMPACT 3: Noise exposure to the cashiers during the day and early evening shifts
could be annoying, disruptive and distracting at levels around 84 dB
with periodic Lmax levels that could reach 106 dB.
NOISE MITIGATION 3: The Applicant shall install the pay-on-foot program prior to the
City issuing and grading, demolition or construction permits for the 2013 Project. The kiosks
and office shall be designed and constructed to attenuate noise by at least 25 dB.
OPERATIONAL NOISE
The operation of a Project could increase ambient noise levels in two ways, through the creation
of additional traffic on local roadways and the operation of exterior mechanical equipment.
Typically, traffic volumes need to double in order to result in a barely perceptible increase in
noise levels (i.e., 3-5 dB).
A traffic study was prepared for the Project (Crane Transportation Group, September, 2012) as
a part of the scope of services for this initial study. The Project area is dominated by roadway
traffic from U.S. 101 and Interstate 380, South Airport Boulevard and other surface streets (see
Traffic and Circulation Section 3.16). U.S. 101 is an eight-lane freeway that provides access to
the Project area extending from downtown San Francisco and Northern California to Los
Angeles and Southern California running in the north-south direction. U.S.101 is approximately
0.38 miles west of the Project site. U.S.101 is over 1,500 miles long and runs between Los
Angeles and Olympia, WA, and is a major regional freeway on the peninsula. The freeway has
an Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) of approximately 229,000 vehicles south of I-380
including 15,900 vehicles during the peak hour. North of I-380 the AADT is approximately
204,000 vehicles and 14,700 vehicles during the peak hour.
The 2013 Project would be expected to generate 56 AM peak hour trips and 77 PM peak hour
trips. The Project is largely a traffic mitigation measure in that it provides shuttle services to and
from the airport. The addition of 133 trips during AM and PM peak hours is insignificant with
respect to adding to noise associate with traffic on the roadways. The 2013 Project would have
no impact with respect to increasing the noise levels in the Project area associated with traffic.
The Project would not individually increase noise levels in the area n or would the Project
contribute to a cumulative impact with respe ct to noise and as such noise impacts
associated with the P roject would result in no impact.
e) and f) Aircraft Noise
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were located
within an airport land use plan (or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport) or in the vicinity of a private airstrip and were to expose
people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels.
The site is located the 65 dB contour interval and is an airport related use which is long-term
parking. The Project would have no impact with respect to excessive aircraft noise
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-81
exposure as it is an airport-related use consisting of long term parking and contains no
sensitive receptors or land uses.
Finding: Demolition and construction related noise impacts would be considered a less than
significant with implementation of the Noise Mitigation Measures 1-3.
The Project would not individually increase noise levels in the area related to traffic nor would
the Project contribute to a cumulative impact with respect to noise and as such noise impacts
associated with the Project would result in no impact. The site is located the 65 dB contour
interval and is an airport related use which is long-term parking. The Project would have no
impact with respect to excessive aircraft noise exposure as it is an airport-related use consisting of
long term parking and contains no sensitive receptors or land uses.
3.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the Project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
X
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
X
1997 IS/MND
No mitigation measures were identified in the 1997 IS/MND.
SETTING
The Project site is a 1.25 acre parcel currently developed with a paved parking lot which was
constructed in 2007. The Project site is adjacent to the 5.96-acre Park SFO parking garage and
would become an integral part of that garage, if approved.
IMPACTS
a) Population Growth
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to
induce either directly of indirectly substantial population growth.
The Project is designed and proposed to provide long term parking for airport commuters. The
Project is not proposing a large office or industrial complex that would employ a quantity of
people. The Project currently requires three shifts and nine employees per shift. The 2013
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-82 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
Project expansion would largely be served by the existing number of staff as the entrance and
exit points would remain the same. The Project would not add to the growth assumptions
contained in the City’s general plan and its impact on population growth would be less
than significant.
b) and c) Displacement of Housing or People
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would result
in the displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing units or people living at the
project site.
There are no residential units on the Project site. The Project would not require the
displacement of any existing residential units or persons living on the site and therefore
would have no impact on the displacement of housing or people.
Finding: The Project is consistent with the development and growth assumptions contained in
the South San Francisco General Plan in that it would be an expansion of the existing airport-related
facility, and not a significant contributor to the job market. The Project site does not include
housing and would not displace housing units or residents.
3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES —
a) Would the Project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection? X
ii) Police protection? X
iii) Schools? X
iv) Parks? X
v) Other public facilities? X
1997 IS/MND
Mitigation Measure 12 requiring video surveillance, security and safety elements and adequate
lighting reflects the as-built conditions of the 2001 Project. The 2013 Project is updated by a
condition of approval required by Sergeant Campbell of the South San Francisco Police
Department. The condition requires the 2013 Project to comply with the provisions of the
South San Francisco Municipal Code which requires surveillance and lighting through building
permit review.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-83
SETTING
The Project would connect to and expand the existing 2001 Project parking facility and would
not be an employment generator as identified in Section 3.13 Population and Housing. Land
use and development density is consistent with the City’s general plan and zoning, as noted
above in Section 3.10 Land Use and Planning.
IMPACTS
a – d) Public Services
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result
in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives
for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks and recreational facilities, or other
government facilities.
As described above, in Section 3.10 Land Use and Planning and Section 3.13 Population
and Housing, the Project is not anticipated to increase the City of South San Francisco’s
population. School impact fees are required for new construction and paid for at the time of
building permit issuance; although the 2013 Project would not increase the population of South
San Francisco. The South San Francisco Police and Fire Departments commented on the
Project through the City’s standard review process identified in Chapter 1 Sections 4 and 5.
The required conditions of Project approval (many identified within Section 3.8 Hazardous
and Hazardous Materials) are standard. Neither department identified staffing or service
issues associated with redevelopment of and intensification of development on the site. The
Police Department identified requirements for building security. The condition of approval
required by Sergeant Scott Campbell reads:
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.48 of the
Municipal Code, "Minimum Building Security Standards" Ordinance revised
May, 1995. The Police Department reserves the right to make additional
security and safety conditions, if necessary, upon receipt of detailed / revised
building plans.
Any increased demand for public services as a result of the Project would not require
construction of new facilities and would be considered less than significant.
Finding: The Project would not exceed the development and growth assumptions contained in
the South San Francisco General Plan. Redevelopment of the Project site would not increase the
demand for public services individually or cumulatively.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-84 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
3.15 RECREATION
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. RECREATION —
a) Would the Project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
X
b) Does the Project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
X
1997 IS/MND
No mitigation measures were identified in the 1997 IS/MND.
SETTING
The 2013 Project is a 1.25 acre parcel currently developed with a paved parking lot that was
constructed in 2007 and would connect to the 2001 Project, if approved. The whole of these
actions constitute the 2013 Project.
The Project is consistent with the City’s general plan and zoning, as noted above in Section 3.10
Land Use and Planning and Section 3.13 Population and Housing.
IMPACTS
a) and b) Recreation
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result
in an increase in the use of existing parks or recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of these facilities could be anticipated, or if it were to include recreational facilities,
the construction of which might have adverse physical effects on the environment.
The 2001 Project created a public park on the southern-most dry dock, and relocated and
improved the Bay Trail. The 2013 Project would not result in a significant increase in the use of
existing parks or recreational facilities as the site would not be used for residential, office or
industrial purposes. Parks and recreational needs within the City are derived from the
population and development projections contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. The
2013 Project is consistent with these development assumptions and would not increase the
population of the City, as noted in Sections 3.10 Land Use and Planning and 3.13
Population and Housing. The 2013 Project impact on recreational facilities and the need
to construct new facilities would be less than significant.
Finding: Parks and recreational needs within the City are derived from the development
assumptions contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. The Project is consistent with
planning projections and needs assessments based upon the projections contained in the general
plan and is not a population or employment generator. The Project would not result in an
individual or cumulatively considerable impact on parks and recreation.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-85
3.16 Transportation and Traffic
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC — Would the
Project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or
policy establishing measures of effectiveness for
the performance of the circulation system, taking
into accounts all modes of transportation
including mass transit and non-motorized travel
and relative components of the circulation
system, including but not limited to intersections,
streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and
bicycle paths and mass transit?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program including but not limited to
the level of service standards and travel demand
measures, or other standards established by the
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
X
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
X
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
X
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
X
1997 IS/MND
Mitigation Measure 8 requiring the north leg of the North Access/East Access intersection to be
restriped is complete. Mitigation Measure 9 requiring the final design of the parking structure to
meet all police, fire and public works policies and standards for internal streets and corner radii
have been met as part of the 2001 Project.
Traffic and Circulation Analysis
The following traffic and circulation analysis is summarized from the Traffic Impact Report, Park
SFO, Long Term Parking Expansion, for the City of South San Francisco and Allison Knapp Consulting, by
Mark D. Crane, P.E. California Registered Traffic Engineer (#1381), Crane Transportation
Group, dated September 13, 2012 (Traffic Report). The complete Traffic Report is included in
Appendix A.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-86 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
The Traffic Report and the following section evaluates the local area circulation impacts due to
expansion of the Park SFO long term parking facilities for San Francisco International Airport
along North Access Road in South San Francisco (2013 Project). The existing surface parking
constructed in 2007, would be demolished and a seven-level parking structure constructed in its
place, connecting to the existing Park SFO facility constructed in 2001. Total on-site parking
would increase from 1,901 to 3,194 spaces.28
Access to all parking would remain in its existing location along North Access Road. A
circulation impact evaluation has been conducted for existing, year 2015 and year 2035
conditions, both with and without the 2013 Project. Locations evaluated are the two
South Airport Boulevard intersections with I-380 ramps, the North Access Road intersection
with the eastbound end of the I-380 freeway just south of the Park SFO site and the North
Access Road/parking facility access driveway intersections.
SETTING
The existing Park SFO (2001 and 2007 Projects) long term parking operation (serving the San
Francisco International Airport-SFO) is located in the southern section of the City of South San
Francisco adjacent to and north of North Access Road. The eastbound end of the I-380
freeway terminates at a signalized intersection with North Access Road just south of the Project
site. Access between the site and the I-380 freeway is provided at two locations: via North
Access Road just south of the site and via South Airport Boulevard to the west of the site. The
I-380 ramps connecting to South Airport Boulevard also provide access to a northbound on-
ramp to the U.S.101 freeway. The I-380 freeway connecting to North Access Road just south of
the Project site also provides full access to the U.S.101 freeway via a series of north and
southbound on- and off-ramps (see Traffic Figure 1 Area Map and Traffic Figure 2 Project
Vicinity Roadways. Note: All figures are located at the end of the Traffic Section while
tables are provided throughout the text).
The existing Park SFO facility has a total of 1,901 long term parking spaces: 1,276 in the garage
and 625 in surface parking lots to the north and east of the garage. Access to both garage and
surface parking is provided via two side-by-side driveways on the outside of a 90-degree curve
along North Access Road, about 180 and 270 feet north of the signalized North Access Road/I-
380 end of freeway intersection. The southerly driveway connection is used by both in and
outbound traffic, while the northerly driveway is used primarily by outbound traffic (see
Appendix Traffic Figure 1 – Existing Site Plan). The 2013 Project would result in 2,833
garage spaces and 361 surface parking spaces. Customer and shuttle bus access would remain
via the two existing driveways along North Access Road (see Appendix Traffic Figure 2 –
Proposed Project Site Plan).
28 Existing parking numbers reflect what was surveyed in the field as a part of the Traffic Report. Project plans and
narratives provide differing numbers. This initial study uses 1,901 spaces as the existing number of parking stalls on
the 2013 Project portion of the site.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-87
ROADWAY SYSTEM AND EXISTING CIRCULATION SYSTEM OPERATION
A. Roadways
Direct access to the Project site is provided via North Access Road. North Access Road
connects to the I-380 and U.S.101 freeways via the end of I-380 freeway connection just south
of the Project site and via two intersections with South Airport Boulevard to the west of the site.
Each roadway is briefly described below (see Traffic Figure 2).
North Access Road extends easterly from a signalized intersection with South Airport
Boulevard and an I-380 westbound on-ramp. Approximately 900 feet to the east it curves 90
degrees to the south and Tees into a signalized intersection with the end of the freeway (the west
leg of the intersection). North Access Road then continues around the north and east edges of
San Francisco International Airport (as the east leg of the intersection). North Access Road
adjacent to the Project site has two north (west) bound through travel lanes, a single east (south)
bound through travel lane, and a single east (south) bound left turn lane serving vehicles turning
into the existing Park SFO facility as well as continuing to the I-380 signalized intersection south
of the site. Class II striped bike lanes are along the segment of North Access Road between
South Airport Boulevard and the I-380 ramp intersections. These lanes are part of the Bay Trail.
South Airport Boulevard is primarily a four-lane arterial roadway in South San Francisco
running parallel to and just east of the U.S.101 freeway. Additional through and turn lanes are
provided on the approaches to its signalized intersections with an I-380 eastbound off-ramp and
an I-380 westbound on-ramp & North Access Road. Traffic Figure 3 Lane Geometrics and
Intersection Control provides a schematic presentation of approach lanes and control at major
intersections near the Project site.
U.S. 101 is an eight-lane north-south freeway that provides access to the Project area extending
from downtown San Francisco and Northern California to Los Angeles and Southern California.
U.S.101 is approximately 0.38 miles west of the Project site. U.S. 101 is a major regional freeway
on the peninsula. The freeway has an Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) of approximately
229,000 vehicles south of I-380 including 15,900 vehicles during the peak hour. North of I-380
the AADT is approximately 204,000 vehicles and 14,700 vehicles during the peak hour.
B. Volumes
Existing weekday AM and PM peak period (7:00-9:00 AM and 4:00-6:00 PM) turn movement
counts were conducted by Crane Transportation Group on Wednesday, August 27, 2012 29 at the
following locations.
• South Airport Boulevard/I-380 Eastbound Off-Ramp (signal)
• South Airport Boulevard/I-380 Westbound On-Ramp/North Access Road (signal)
• North Access Road/Eastern End of the I-380 Freeway (signal)
• North Access Road/Park SFO Two Driveways
29 Wednesday preceding the Labor Day weekend holiday.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-88 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
The local street system peak traffic hours were 8:00-9:00 AM and 4:45-5:45 PM. Traffic
Figure 4 shows the existing AM and PM peak hour volumes. While the Park SFO facility peak
hours were 7:00-8:00 AM and 4:00-5:00 PM, volumes on the local system were significantly
lower during these hours. The highest overall combined hours of ambient plus Park SFO
traffic, 8:00-9:00 AM and 4:45-5:45 PM, were used for analysis purposes in this study.
C. Intersection Level of Service
1. Methodology
Transportation engineers and planners commonly use a grading system called level of service
(LOS) to measure and describe the operational status of the local roadway network. LOS is a
description of the quality of a roadway facility’s operation, ranging from LOS A (indicating
free-flow traffic conditions with little or no delay) to LOS F (representing oversaturated
conditions where traffic flows exceed design capacity, resulting in long queues and delays).
Intersections, rather than roadway segments between intersections, are almost always the
capacity controlling locations for any circulation system.
Signalized Intersections. The 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board,
National Research Council) methodology was utilized for signalized intersections. Operations
are defined by the level of service and average control delay per vehicle (measured in seconds)
for the entire intersection with this methodology. Control delay is the portion of the total delay
attributed to traffic signal operation for a signalized intersection. This includes delay associated
with deceleration, acceleration, stopping, and moving up in the queue. Traffic Table 1
summarizes the relationship between delay and LOS for signalized intersections.
2. Minimum Acceptable Operation
The City of South San Francisco uses Level of Service D (LOS D) as the minimum acceptable
operation for signalized intersections.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-89
TRAFFIC TABLE 1
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS CRITERIA
Level of
Service Description Average Control Delay
(Seconds Per Vehicle)
A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression
and/or short cycle lengths. ≤ 10.0
B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or
short cycle lengths. 10.1 to 20.0
C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or
longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. 20.1 to 35.0
D
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable
progression, long cycle lengths, and/or high volume-to-capacity (V/C)
ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.
35.1 to 55.0
E
Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long
cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent
occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay.
55.1 to 80.0
F Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to
oversaturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. > 80.0
Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board).
3. Existing Operation
Traffic Table 2 shows that all three signalized intersections in close proximity to the Project site
are operating acceptably during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours (LOS B or better).
TRAFFIC TABLE 2
EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
South Airport Blvd./North Access
Road/I-380 WB On-Ramp (Signal)
B-10.3(1) B-19.4
South Airport Blvd./I-380 EB Off-
Ramp (Signal)
B-16.8(1) A-6.1
North Access Rd./I-380 End of
Freeway (Signal)
B-10.0(1) A-9.4
(1) Signalized level of service – vehicle control delay in seconds. Source: Crane Transportation Group
FUTURE CIRCULATION SYSTEM OPERATION WITHOUT 2013 PROJECT
A. Year 2015
1. Volumes
Year 2015 “without Project” AM and PM peak hour volumes were developed utilizing the City’s
East of 101 traffic model, which was updated in 2012 to reflect revised land uses in the 328
Roebling Road and 475 Eccles Avenue projects. Resultant year 2015 without Project weekday
AM and PM peak hour volumes are presented in Traffic Figure 5.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-90 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
2. Intersection Level of Service
Traffic Table 3 shows that all three signalized intersections in close proximity to the Project site
would be operating acceptably in 2015during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours (LOS B or
better). A small increase in traffic to/from Park SFO has been assumed for this horizon year
even without any garage expansion.
TRAFFIC TABLE 3
YEAR 2015 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
(WITHOUT & WITH PROJECT)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection
W/O Project
With Project
W/O Project
With Project
South Airport Blvd./
North Access Rd./I-380 WB
On-Ramp (Signal)
B-12.5(1) B-13.2 C-23.8 C-24.3
South Airport Blvd./
I-380 EB Off-Ramp
(Signal)
B-16.8(1) B-16.8 B-10.1 B-10.1
North Access Rd./I-380 End
of Freeway (Signal)
B-10.2(1) B-10.4 A-9.6 B-10.3
(1) Signalized level of service – vehicle control delay in seconds.
Source: Crane Transportation Group
B. Year 2035
1. Volumes
Year 2035 “without Project” AM and PM peak hour volumes were developed utilizing the City’s
East of 101 traffic model. Resultant year 2035 “without Project” weekday AM and PM peak
hour volumes are presented in Traffic Figure 6.
2. Intersection Level of Service
Traffic Table 4 shows that all three signalized intersections in close proximity to the Project site
would be operating acceptably during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours (LOS D or
better). A small increase in traffic to/from Park SFO has been assumed for this horizon year
even without any garage expansion. All locations would be operating at either LOS A or B, with
the exception of the South Airport Boulevard/I-380 westbound on-ramp/North Access Road
intersection, which would have LOS D operation during the PM peak hour.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-91
TRAFFIC TABLE 4
YEAR 2035 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
(WITHOUT & WITH PROJECT)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection
Existing
Existing
With Project
Existing
Existing
With Project
South Airport Blvd./
North Access Rd./I-380 WB
On-Ramp (Signal)
C-20.6(1) C-21.0 D-38.0 D-38.4
South Airport Blvd./
I-380 EB Off-Ramp
(Signal)
C-21.9(1) C-21.9 B-12.8 B-12.9
North Access Rd./I-380 End
of Freeway (Signal)
B-10.5(1) B-10.9 A-10.0 B-10.6
(1) Signalized level of service – vehicle control delay in seconds. Source: Crane Transportation Group
IMPACTS
a and b) Increase in Traffic in Relation to Existing Traffic Load and Street System
Capacity
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to cause
an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of
the street system. Standards of Significance have been measured based on CEQA, City of South
San Francisco and C/CAG Guideline thresholds. Therefore, project impacts would be
significant if they result in any of the following conditions.
a. The Project would exceed 100 net new peak hour trips on the local roadway system
(C/CAG criteria only).
b. Signalized intersection operation would change from Level of Service (LOS) A, B, C or
D to LOS E or F and total volumes passing through the intersection would be increased
by at least two percent.
c. The Project would increase total volumes passing through an intersection by two percent
or more with signalized operation already at a Base Case LOS E or F.
2013 Project Trip Generation and Characteristics
The Project would add approximately 1,293 parking spaces to the existing Park SFO facility,
with parking increased from 1,901 up to 3,194 spaces. Trip generation associated with the 2013
Project was projected utilizing trip rates per parking space developed from the existing operation
on Wednesday, August 27, 2012; the week preceding the Labor Day holiday weekend.
Traffic Table 5 shows the trip rates for the existing Park SFO facility counted in August, 2012.
The 2013 Project would be expected to generate 21 inbound and 15 outbound trips during the
AM peak hour of commute traffic on the local circulation system, with 15 inbound and 32
outbound trips during the PM peak hour of commute traffic on the local circulation system (see
Traffic Table 6).
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-92 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
The existing Park SFO operation peak traffic hours during the AM and PM commute peak
periods are offset by about an hour from times of peak traffic on the local circulation system.
The times of peak traffic on the local circulation system produce the overall poorest operation at
all analysis intersections and have therefore been used for evaluation purposes, although Park
SFO is not at its maximum generation during these hours. Additionally, in order to evaluate a
conservative worst case analysis and to allow for daily and seasonal variations in activity the
expected number of new customer vehicles has been increased by 100 percent for the Project.
Using this 100 percent safety factor increase in customer vehicles, the 2013 Project increase in
parking spaces would be expected to generate 35 inbound and 21 outbound trips during the AM
peak hour of commute traffic on the local circulation system, with 22 inbound and 55 outbound
trips during the PM peak hour of commute traffic on the local circulation system (see Traffic
Table 7). These volumes have been used for the analysis.
TRAFFIC TABLE 5
EXISTING PARK SFO WEEKDAY TRIP RATES
AM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic
(8:00-9:00)
PM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic
(4:45-5:45)
Existing
Volume
Rate/100 Total
Spaces
Volume
Rate/100 Total
Spaces
Totals In Out In Out In Out In Out
Auto
20
Auto
8
1.052 0.421 Auto
9
Auto
33
9.473 1.736
Shuttle
10
Shuttle
12
0.526 0.631 Shuttle
11
Shuttle
13
0.579 0.684
Trip Rate Source: Crane Transportation Group based upon existing Park SFO operations
TRAFFIC TABLE 6
PARK SFO PROPOSED PROJECT WEEKDAY TRIP GENERATION INCREMENT
DURINGPEAK HOURS OF ADJACENT STREET TRAFFIC
(1,293 NET NEW SPACES)
AM Peak Hour (8:00-9:00) PM Peak Hour (4:45-5:45)
In Out In Out
Rate/100
New Spaces
Volume
Rate/100
New Spaces
Volume
Rate/100
New Spaces
Volume
Rate/100
New Spaces
Volume
Auto 1.052 14 0.421 6 0.473 7 1.736 23
Shuttle 0.526 7 0.631 9 0.579 8 0.684 9
Total 21 15 15 32
Trip Rate Source: Crane Transportation Group based upon existing Park SFO operations
TRAFFIC TABLE 7
PARK SFO PROPOSED PROJECT WEEKDAY TRIP GENERATION INCREMENT
WITH 100 % AUTO TRIP GENERATION INCREASE SAFETY FACTOR
(1,293 NET NEW SPACES)
AM Peak Hour
(8:00-9:00)
PM Peak Hour
(4:45-5:45)
In Volume Out Volume In Volume Out Volume
Auto 28 12 14 46
Shuttle 7 9 8 9
Total 35 21 22 55
Trip Rate Source: Crane Transportation Group based upon existing Park SFO operations
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-93
2013 Project Trip Distribution
The increment of traffic from the 2013 Project was distributed to the local roadway system in
the same pattern as existing Park SFO traffic (see Traffic Figure 7). The vast majority of
customer and employee traffic accesses the site from the I-380 connection to North Access
Road, just south of the garage. All inbound shuttles use this route, while the majority of
outbound shuttles travel to the west to South Airport Boulevard. Overall, the 2013 Project
would be expected to result in less new traffic accessing South Airport Boulevard than I-380 just
south of the site based upon extrapolation of existing conditions.
The AM and PM peak hour Project traffic increment is presented in Traffic Figure 8, while
2015 and 2035 “with Project” AM and PM peak hour volumes are presented in Traffic
Figures 9 and 10.
Year 2015 Project Intersection Impacts
The addition of Project traffic would result in no significant impacts at any signalized
intersection near the Project site in the year 2015. Operation of the South Airport Boulevard
intersections with the I-380 ramps would remain LOS A or B during the AM and PM peak
hours, while the North Access Road/I-380 end of freeway intersection just south of the garage
would be operating at LOS B during both commute peak traffic hours. Project traffic would
produce only a 0.7 second or less increase in delay at the three analysis intersections.
Year 2035 Project Intersection Impacts
The addition of Project traffic would result in no significant impacts at any signalized
intersection near the Project site in the year 2035. Operation of the South Airport Boulevard
intersections with the I-380 ramps would remain LOS A or B during the AM and PM peak
hours, with the exception of South Airport Boulevard at the I-380 westbound on-ramp which
would be operating at an acceptable LOS D during the PM peak hour (with or without the
Project). The North Access Road/I-380 end of freeway intersection just south of the garage
would be operating at LOS B during both commute peak traffic hours. Project traffic would
produce a 0.6 second or less increase in delay at the three analysis intersections.
The 2013 Project would result in a less than significant impact at the three intersections
closest to the Project. The Project would not degrade an intersection identified in a
Congestion Management Plan. The Project would not result in a project-or cumulative -
level impact to the closest intersections to the site. The analysis accounted for a
doubling of traffic volumes measured at the existing Park SFO facility and represents a
conservative worst case analysis accounting for daily and seasonal variations. The East
of 101 Traffic Impact fee is a condition or 2013 Project approval (as with all projects in
the East of 101 Area). The fee is used to improve circulation conditions and
infrastructure in the East of 101 Area.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-94 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
c) Alter Air Traffic Patterns
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to result in a change in
air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results
in substantial safety risks
Air Navigation Hazards are discussed in Section 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The
Project site is located 200 feet from SFO property and approximately 1,300 feet from SFO
operations. The Project site is within the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission’s
(ALUC) jurisdiction. The ALUC allows development within ALUC boundaries, provided that
development is below a prescribed height limit. The City, in concert with the ALUC and in
coordination with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), established height limits in the South
San Francisco General Plan in compliance with the ALUC and FAA. The South San Francisco General
Plan indicates the maximum height for the Project is below the 160.9 contour. SFO has a
website that provides additional height information. The Project site is between the 150 and 175
foot height contour airport-related height limit restriction as noted on SFO’s website
(Http://ialp.airplanonline.com).
The Project would be 100 feet in height including the light poles at the roof top parking level.
The building itself would be 80 to 90 feet including the stairwells and elevator. The Project
would be 50 feet below the maximum permitted height, measured from ground level. The
Project would not alter any air traffic patterns that are already in place and, consistent
with the previous discussion, the Project would have no impact.
d) Hazards Due to Design Features or Incompatible Uses
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to increase traffic
hazards due to its design or the introduction of incompatible traffic.
The two project access intersections along North Access Road would remain in their existing
locations along the outside of a 90-degree curve. Sight lines are good from either driveway to
both the west (almost 500 feet) and to the south (from 180 to 270 feet depending on the
driveway, to the I-380 end of freeway signalized intersection). Vehicles making left turns from
either site driveway are infrequently delayed during PM commute conditions due to northbound
North Access Road backups extending past the site frontage from a red signal at the I-380 end
of freeway intersection. However, these backups clear quickly and would be expected to
continue to clear relatively quickly as area traffic increases.30 The 2013 Project would result in
a less than significant impact at the access driveway intersection and roadways.
30 It should be noted, however, that should northbound PM peak hour backups from the I-380 freeway signalized
intersection extending in front of the garage driveways ever become a problem, signal timing adjustments could be
made to significantly reduce these queues. The North Access Road/I-380 end of freeway intersection will be
operating at good levels of service during both commute peak traffic hours in 2035, and Caltrans and the City
would be able to easily adjust timing without significantly degrading level of service.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-95
e) Emergency Access
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to have inadequate
emergency access.
There are no emergency response or evacuation plans in effect in the Project vicinity. The
Project is required to have Emergency Responder Radio Coverage throughout in compliance
with Section 510 of the California Fire Code (Fire Marshal, Luis DaSilva letter to Planning
Department, June 25, 2012). The Project would keep the existing site access patterns, has
been reviewed by South San Francisco Police and Fire Departments and with the
required conditions of approval would have a less than significant impact on emergency
access.
f) Alternative Transportation
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to conflict with adopted
policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks).
The Project supports alternative transportation modes by offering a shuttle service to and from
the airport and long term parking. The Project would have no impact on alternative
transportation use and provides shuttle bus service an alternative to privately owned
vehicle single-occupancy travel.
Finding: The 2013 Project would not result in a significant impact to the three intersections
closest to the Project. The Project would not degrade an intersection identified in a Congestion
Management Plan. The Project would not result in a project-or cumulative-level impact to the
closest intersections to the site and as such would not impact intersections further from the site.
The analysis accounted for a doubling of traffic volumes measured at the existing Park SFO
facility and represents a conservative worst case analysis accounting for daily and seasonal
variations. The Project would not alter any air traffic patterns that are already in place and the
Project would have no impact with respect to air traffic hazards. The Project would have no
impact on alternative transportation use and provides shuttle bus service as an alternative to
privately owned vehicle single-occupancy travel. The Project would keep the existing site access
patterns, has been reviewed by South San Francisco Police and Fire Departments and with the
required conditions of approval would have a less than significant impact on emergency access.
The 2013 Project would result in a less than significant impact at the access driveway
intersection and roadways.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-96 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
Source: Crane Transportation Group
FIGURE 1
AREA MAP
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-97
Source: Crane Transportation Group
FIGURE 2
PROJECT VICINITY ROADWAYS
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-98 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
Source: Crane Transportation Group
FIGURE 3
LANE GEOMETRICS AND INTERSECTION CONTROL
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-99
Source: Crane Transportation Group
FIGURE 4
EXISTING AM AND PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-100 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
Source: Crane Transportation Group
FIGURE 5
2015 AM AND PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-101
Source: Crane Transportation Group
FIGURE 6
2035 AM AND PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-102 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
Source: Crane Transportation Group
FIGURE 7
2015 OR 2035 AM AND PM PEAK HOUR PROJECT DISTRIBUTION
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-103
Source: Crane Transportation Group
FIGURE 8
AM AND PM PEAK HOUR PROJECT INCREMENT
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-104 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
Source: Crane Transportation Group
FIGURE 9
2015 AM AND PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH PROJECT
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-105
Source: Crane Transportation Group
FIGURE 10
2035 AM AND PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH PROJECT
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-106 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
3.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the
Project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
X
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
X
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
X
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the Project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
X
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve
the Project that it has adequate capacity to
serve the Project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
X
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid
waste disposal needs?
X
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste? X
1997 IS/MND
Mitigation Measure 13 requiring a hydrologic study represents as-built conditions. The
conditions of approval identified in Chapter 1.2.4 and 5 are required as a matter of law by the
City and therefore replace Mitigation Measure 13 with updated requirements for the 2013
Project.
SETTING
The Project site is a 1.25 acre parcel currently developed with a paved parking lot which was
constructed in 2007. The Project site is adjacent to and will become an extension of the 5.96-
acre Park SFO parking garage constructed in 2001, if approved. The whole of these actions are
the 2013 Project.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-107
IMPACTS
a) Regional Wastewater Treatment Standards
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to
exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB).
The City’s storm drain outfalls operate under NPDES permits granted by the RWQCB. The
South San Francisco Municipal Code (Title 14) contains regulations related to stormwater
management. As identified in Chapter 1.2.4 and 5 and in Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water
Quality as a matter of law, projects are required to implement BMPs and LID measures and
comply with SWPPP regulations. Mr. Lecel, Senior Environmental Compliance Coordinator for
the City reviewed the Project, identified conditions of approval, and did not identify and
extraordinary measures or significant impacts with respect to wastewater. The City is in
compliance with their RWQCB permit. Therefore, the Project would not exceed
wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB, resulting in a less than significant
impact.
b) and e) Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result
in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which may serve the Project that it has
inadequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments.
All wastewater produced within the City of South San Francisco is treated at the City’s Water
Quality Control Plant (WQCP), which is located at the end of Belle Air Road, near the edge of
San Francisco Bay, just north of the Project site. The WQCP is jointly owned by the Cities of
South San Francisco and San Bruno, and it treats all wastewater generated within the two cities.
The WQCP also has contracts to treat most of the wastewater produced by the Town of Colma
and a portion of the wastewater produced by the City of Daly City. The City’s wastewater
treatment plant was upgraded in 2000-01. The Project as a matter of law would be required to
pay wastewater improvement fees.
The City of South San Francisco has a current allocation of 8.74 million gallon per day (MGD),
is currently generating 5.6 MGD and projects 6.2 MGD upon build-out of recent plan
amendments that increase permitted density along the south El Camino Corridor. The capacity
allocated to the City of South San Francisco is based upon the growth projections identified in
the City’s general plan and the South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment (2009). The
2013 Project is not requesting a variance to floor area or density regulations, and is within the
development assumptions and designations identified in the City’s general plan. As a result, the
amount of wastewater generated by the Project is within the general plan growth projections and
associated wastewater treatment capacity allocations. The wastewater treatment plant has
capacity to treat Project and cumulative projected wastewater. Therefore, the Project
would have a less than significant impact with res pect to wastewater treatment.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-108 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
c) Storm Water Drainage Facilities
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to
require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or in the expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
The Project is connected into the stormwater facilities, and required by law to improve the
existing hydrologic conditions on the entire seven acre site including installing and implementing
BMP and LID measures, as identified in the Introduction Chapter 1.5.4 and Section 3.9
Hydrology and Water Quality (verified by Mr. Rob Lecel, e-mail May 10, 2013. As a result of
these design features and measures, the 2013 Project would not increase water runoff.
Therefore, the Project would not require the construction of new or expanded storm
drainage facilities, resulting in a less than significant impact.
b) and d) Water Treatment Facilities and Supply
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to
require additional water supply beyond that available from existing entitlements and resources.
Senate Bill 610 (SB 610) was adopted in 2001 and became effective January 1, 2002. SB 610
requires cities to consider water supply assessments to determine whether projected water
supplies can meet a project’s water demand. SB 610 and the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15083.5)
identify residential projects generally exceeding 500 units and commercial or industrial projects
employing more than 1,000 persons as potential impact thresholds.
Potable water is provided for the City of South San Francisco by the California Water Service
Company (CWSC) and the Westborough County Water District (WCWD). CWSC provides
water to the area east of Interstate 280 (I-280) in South San Francisco, including the Project site,
and its service areas includes the Town of Colma and the Broadmoor area. WCWD serves the
portion of South San Francisco west of I-280. CWCS receives water from the City and County
of San Francisco, through the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission.
CWSC drafted and adopted an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) in 2006. The UWMP
was established in accordance with the California Urban Water Management Planning Act,
(Division 6 Part 2.6 of the Water Code, Section 10610-10656). Water Code Section 10910 subd.
(c)(2), Government Code, Section 66473.7, subd. (c)(1) notes that it is acceptable to use the most
recently adopted UWMP to assess water supply in accordance with the California Urban Water
Management Planning Act and SB 610. Between sources guaranteed by a settlement agreement
and the purchase of the Los Trancos County Water District CWSC has a total Supply Assurance
Allocation of 35.5 million gallons a day (MGD) of water indefinitely.31 The UWMP projected
that the South San Francisco District population would increase from 55,024 in 2000 to 64,050
in 2020; an increase of approximately 0.8 percent per year.
The population of the CWSC service area is projected to be 64,050 by 2020. South San
Francisco’s total population is anticipated to be approximately 69,810 in 2020. The service area
population projections for CWSC are approximately 82 percent of the entire population of
31 CWSC, 2006 Urban Water Management Plan for South San Francisco, December 15, 2006.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-109
South San Francisco. Therefore, in 2020 it is anticipated that the CWSC service population area
will be 57,678 providing adequate water supply for existing and projected development.32 The
significance threshold set by Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations, Section
15083.5 identifies the addition of 1000 employees as the threshold for additional assessment of
potential water impacts. The Project currently employs nine people per shift. There are three
shifts, for 24 employees associated with the 24 hour/365 day operation. The Project is also
converting to a walk-and-pay method that is not likely to require the addition of many
employees to service the expansion. Even a doubling of the existing staff (to 50 employees) the
2013 Project would not represent a significant increase in water consumption on both Project
and cumulative levels.
The 2013 Project is consistent with the development and employee assumptions identified in the
general plan, including the South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment and the UWMP
which builds upon the development and growth assumptions in planning documents in the
entire service area. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact with
respect to water supply and would not result in a cumulatively considerable or Project
related impacts. The Project would not result in a need to obtain new water allocations
to serve existing, Project or the development projections contained in the South San
Francisco General Plan.
f) and g) Solid Waste
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to be
served by a landfill with inadequate permitted capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste
disposal needs, or if it were to fail to fully comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste.
The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) manages the waste generation
and disposal data for South San Francisco. Non-recyclable or non-compostable waste is
disposed at Ox Mountain landfill near Half Moon Bay. The closure date of Ox Mountain is
2023.
CIWMB notes South San Francisco’s solid waste generation is 7.76 pounds per resident per day.
Solid waste projected at build-out (year 2020) is anticipated to be 276 tons per day. The Ox
Mountain landfill has a maximum permitted disposal rate of 3,598 tons per day for South San
Francisco. The total projected solid waste disposal needs for South San Francisco, based upon
cumulative projections, is 7.7 percent of the daily permitted waste intake.33 Construction and
operation of the 2013 Project would generate a less than significant amount of solid
waste, and operation of the Project would be in full compliance with all federal, state and
32 UWMP, 2006 and South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment and EIR, City of South San Francisco, Dyatt
and Bhatia, November, 2009, updated by Knapp Consulting October, 2012 in the 475 Eccles EIR and initial study.
33 South San Francisco’s existing and projected waste stream generation include an approximate 50 percent
demonstrated diversion rate (South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment and EIR, City of South San
Francisco, Dyatt and Bhatia, November, 2009, updated by Knapp Consulting, October, 2012 in the 475 Eccles EIR
and initial study).
.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-110 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
local statutes and regula tions related to solid waste. The Project is within the
development assumptions contained in the South San Francisco General Plan and
adequate waste capacity has been planned for and acquired.
Finding: The City’s wastewater treatment plant was upgraded in 2000-01. The Project as a
matter of law would be required to pay wastewater improvement fees. The wastewater
treatment plant has capacity to treat Project and cumulative projected wastewater. The UWMP,
adopted in 2006, shows adequate water is available for the Project and projected cumulative
development. There is adequate capacity at Ox Mountain landfill for Project and cumulative
solid waste and the City is meeting its 50 percent solid waste diversion mandate. Demolition,
construction and operations of the Project would be required to incorporated LIDs and BMPs
for stormwater treatment; an improvement over existing conditions. Stormwater is required to
be treated on-site. The Project would not contribute individually or cumulatively to water,
wastewater, solid waste, stormwater, or utility impacts.
3.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE —
a) Does the Project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
X
b) Does the Project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a Project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past Projects, the effects of
other current Projects, and the effects of
probable future Projects.)
X
c) Does the Project have environmental effects,
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
X
a) Quality of the Environment
All environmental impacts associated with aesthetics, agriculture and forest resources, air quality,
greenhouse gas emissions, health risks, cultural resources including important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory, hydrology and water quality, land use and
planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, traffic and
circulation with the payment of the East of 101 Traffic Impact fee required by ordinance, and
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-111
utilities and service systems are considered less than significant without additional mitigation
measures.
The Project would have a less than significant impact with implementation of the identified
mitigation measures to 1) biological resources including the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal; 3)
geology and soils with respect to the quality of undocumented fill; 3) the release of hazardous
and hazardous materials during construction; and, 4) noise during construction.
b) Cumulative Impacts
The Project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable
with the implementation of the biology mitigation measures.
c) Adverse Effects on Human Beings
The Project would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly with the implementation of the hazards and
hazardous materials and noise mitigation measures.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS:
NOTE: All referenced mitigation measures follow in Section 3.19 Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program.
AESTHETICS: The Project would not have an impact on the aesthetics or scenic quality on the
site or in the area. There would be no individual or cumulative impacts with respect to aesthetic,
visual quality or light and glare associated with the Project with implementation of Biology
Mitigations 2 and 3. No mitigations from the 1997 IS/MND carry over to the 2013 Project.
AGRICULTURAL AND TIMBER RESOURCES: Prior to 2001, the 1.25 acre Project site supported
industrial land uses, ship repair, warehouse and freight forwarding, and from 2001-2003 was
used as a composting area for the City’s Water Quality Control Plant. The Project site has been
paved and used for surface parking as part of the Park SFO facility since 2007. The Project
would not adversely affect any existing agricultural operations as none exist on the site. The
Project would not impact agricultural resources individually or cumulatively and is not in any
Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), or in Williamson
Act Contract. 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 section51104(g)). No mitigations
from the 1997 IS/MND carry over to the 2013 Project.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-112 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
AIR QUALITY/HAZARD RISKS: The Project would not result in a significant impact to air
quality and would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria nonattainment
pollutants (ozone precursors, PM10, and PM2.5). The annual PM2.5 concentration due to
implementation of the Project would be 0.02 µg/m3 below the BAAQMD threshold of 0.3
µg/m3, and hence is considered less than significant. The City’s building permit procedure
captures the BAAQMD permitting regulations, as well as BAAQMD’s recommended emission
control measures. The Project would be below the daily and annual operational criteria pollutant
thresholds and would not result in significant or cumulative impacts. Odor impacts associated
with construction and operation of the Project would be less than significant.
The Project would be below the thresholds of significance for health risks. The chronic HI
would be 0.01 well below the BAAQMD threshold of 1 and the impact of the Project would
therefore be less than significant. The acute HI would be 0.01. The acute HI would be below
the BAAQMD threshold of 1 and the impact of the Project would therefore be less than
significant.
The cumulative impacts are below the BAAQMD significance thresholds. Given that the
Project would not result in increased health impacts exceeding the Project-level thresholds, the
Project would also not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to localized health risk
and hazard impacts, resulting in a less than significant cumulative air quality impact. No
mitigations from the 1997 IS/MND carry over to the 2013 Project.
GREENHOUSE GAS: The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative
impact with respect to GHG emissions. No mitigations from the 1997 IS/MND carry over to
the 2013 Project.
BIOLOGY: The Project would expand the existing parking structure over an existing surface
parking lot that does not serve as an important movement corridor for native wildlife. The new
structure is not expected to interfere substantially with native wildlife corridors or impede the
use of native wildlife nursery sites. Species common in the vicinity would continue to forage in
the open water habitat of the former drydocks and the basin area of San Bruno Canal. No
approved Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan encompasses,
governs or regulates the site. Therefore the Project would not conflict with any approved
Habitat Conservation Plans and as such would have no impact.
Implementation of the Biology Mitigation 1 would reduce potential Project impacts to nesting
birds to less-than-significant. The Project would have no impact on any sensitive natural
communities or jurisdictional wetlands as it would be completely located in uplands, and would
not directly affect any sensitive natural communities, jurisdictional wetlands or open waters of
the former drydocks and the basin area of San Bruno Canal. Implementation of Biology
Mitigation 2 would reduce Project impacts to less-than-significant with respect to habitat
quality and policy compliance. Implementation of Biology Mitigation 3 would reduce the
lighting impact to less-than-significant. Implementation of Biology Mitigation 4 would reduce
the permitting and policy impact to less-than-significant. The Project would have a less-than-
significant impact with implementation of Biology Mitigations 1-4. 1997 Mitigation 10 is not
applicable to the 2013 Project and has been redefined and replaced by Biology Mitigations 1 and
3.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-113
CULTURAL RESOURCES: Prior to 2001, the 1.25 acre Project site supported industrial land uses,
ship repair, warehouse and freight forwarding, and from 2001-2003 was used as a composting
area for the City’s Water Quality Control Plant. There is no evidence of archaeological or
paleontological resources on the site as witnessed during previous grading and construction
activities in 1999 and 2007 and in the boring logs. In light of Title 14 California Code of
Regulations, Public Resources Code Section 4852.1, there are no historic resources on the
entirety of the Project site. The Project would have no impact on cultural resources. Mitigation
measure 15 from the 1997 IS/MND is not carried forward to the 2013 Project as it is
unnecessary.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS: There are no active faults underlying the site and the nearest one is the
San Andreas Fault, located about three miles northeast. The hazard from fault rupturing on the
site is considered to be low (Furgo West, 2003). Therefore, the Project would have a less than
significant impact on exposing people or structures to danger from surface rupture of a known
earthquake fault. Conformance with the latest CBC would ensure that the impact of seismic
ground-shaking is reduced to a level of less than significant. The Geotechnical Report concludes
that the liquefaction potential necessary for liquefaction of materials under the Project site is
low. The Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to liquefaction of
subsurface materials. There is no threat of landslides on the Project site; therefore the Project
would have no impact with respect to landslides. Erosion control measures are required as a
matter of law and as a result this impact is considered to be less than significant. The Project
would have no impact on soils due to septic systems as the project is connected to the City’s
sanitary system. The Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to expansive
soils because it would be located on soils with a low potential of expansion (PI 16).
The Project would have less than significant impacts with respect to a geologic unit becoming
unstable with implementation of Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure 1. No mitigations
from the 1997 IS/MND carry over to the 2013 Project.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: The Project would have no impact from the
emission or handling of hazardous materials or wastes on schools or from any environmental
contamination posed by the sites listed on the Cortese List. The impact of the Project with
regards to hazardous materials would be less than significant with respect to operational
activities. The Project would have a less than significant impact on the potential to emit
hazardous materials during construction with implementation of Hazards Mitigation 1. No
mitigations from the 1997 IS/MND carry over to the 2013 Project.
There are no existing or proposed schools or day care centers or facilities within a quarter mile
of the Project site. The maximum height of the Project, including the light poles on the roof
level would be 100 feet. The building itself would be 80 to 90 feet in height including the
stairwells and elevator. The Project would not encroach in the 150 -175 foot zone. There are
no emergency response or evacuation plans in effect in the Project vicinity. Therefore the
Project would have no impact on the implementation of any adopted emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan. The South San Francisco Fire Department is in the process of
initiating a study to identify offensive capabilities in the Project area. The Project would be
required through conditions of approval to provide a fair share financial contribution to the
department’s study and improvements. There is no wildland in the vicinity of the Project site or
area. The Project would have no impact with respect to wildland fires.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-114 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: The City’s standard conditions of approval which
implement state, federal and local regulations are required by law and are adequate to address
any potential water quality impacts as a result of Project construction or occupation. The site is
not within a flood zone or an area subject to seiche or tsunami inundation or run-up zones. No
mitigation measures, above those required by the City as a matter of law, are identified in this
initial study. The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact to
hydrology or water quality resources. No mitigations from the 1997 IS/MND carry over to the
2013 Project.
LAND USE AND PLANNING: The Project would not physically divide an established
community. The site is planned for light industrial uses and the Project is consistent with the
planned uses. There are no conservation or natural community conservation plans that govern
the Project site or area. The Project would not result in any individually or cumulatively
considerable impacts. No mitigations from the 1997 IS/MND carry over to the 2013 Project.
MINERAL RESOURCES: The Project site does not contain any local or regionally significant
mineral resources. The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative
impact to mineral resources. No mitigations from the 1997 IS/MND carry over to the 2013
Project.
NOISE: Demolition and construction related noise impacts would be considered a less than
significant with implementation of the Noise Mitigation Measures 1-3. No mitigations from
the 1997 IS/MND carry over to the 2013 Project.
The Project would not individually increase noise levels in the area related to traffic nor would
the Project contribute to a cumulative impact with respect to noise and as such noise impacts
associated with the Project would result in no impact. The site is located the 65 dB contour
interval and is an airport related use which is long-term parking. The Project would have no
impact with respect to excessive aircraft noise exposure as it is an airport-related use consisting of
long term parking and contains no sensitive receptors or land uses.
POPULATION AND HOUSING: The Project is consistent with the development and growth
assumptions contained in the South San Francisco General Plan in that it would be an expansion of
the existing airport-related facility, and not a significant contributor to the job market. The
Project site does not include housing and would not displace housing units or residents. No
mitigations from the 1997 IS/MND carry over to the 2013 Project.
PUBLIC SERVICES: The Project would not exceed the development and growth assumptions
contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. Redevelopment of the Project site would not
increase the demand for public services individually or cumulatively. No mitigations from the
1997 IS/MND carry over to the 2013 Project.
RECREATION: Parks and recreational needs within the City are derived from the development
assumptions contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. The Project is consistent with
planning projections and needs assessments based upon the projections contained in the South
San Francisco General Plan and is not a population or employment generator. The Project would
not result in an individual or cumulatively considerable impact on parks and recreation. No
mitigations from the 1997 IS/MND carry over to the 2013 Project.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-115
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION: The 2013 Project would not result in a significant
impact to the three intersections closest to the Project. The Project would not degrade an
intersection identified in a Congestion Management Plan. The Project would not result in a
project-or cumulative-level impact to the closest intersections to the site and as such would not
impact intersections further from the site. The analysis accounted for a doubling of traffic
volumes measured at the existing Park SFO facility (2001 and 2007 Projects) and represents a
conservative worst case analysis accounting for daily and seasonal variations. The Project would
not alter any air traffic patterns that are already in place and the Project would have no impact
with respect to air traffic hazards. The Project would have no impact on alternative
transportation use and provides shuttle bus service an alternative to privately owned vehicle
single-occupancy travel. The Project would keep the existing site access patterns, has been
reviewed by South San Francisco Police and Fire Departments and with the required conditions
of approval would have a less than significant impact on emergency access. The 2013 Project
would result in a less than significant impact at the access driveway intersection and roadways.
No mitigations from the 1997 IS/MND carry over to the 2013 Project.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: The City’s wastewater treatment plant was upgraded in
2000-01. The Project as a matter of law would be required to pay wastewater improvement fees.
The wastewater treatment plant has capacity to treat Project and cumulative projected
wastewater. The UWMP, adopted in 2006, shows adequate water is available for the Project and
projected cumulative development. There is adequate capacity at Ox Mountain landfill for
Project and cumulative solid waste and the City is meeting its 50 percent solid waste diversion
mandate. Demolition, construction and operation of the Project would be required to
incorporated LIDs and BMPs for stormwater treatment; an improvement over existing
conditions. Stormwater is required to be treated on-site. The Project would not contribute
individually or cumulatively to water, wastewater, solid waste, stormwater, or utility impacts.
No mitigations from the 1997 IS/MND carry over to the 2013 Project.
3.19 MITIGATION MONITORING/REPORTING PROGRAM
DEFINITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS
“Applicant” shall mean the applicant, proponent, agent or otherwise representative for the
Project. A “cost pass-through agreement” shall mean a legally executed agreement between
Applicant and City to reimburse the City for costs associated with implementing and monitoring
the mitigation measures contained herein.
All mitigation measures required herein shall be noted by the Applicant, or its
designated representative, on the set of plans submitted to the City for demolition,
grading and/or construction permits, however phased. The Planning Division shall
review the plans for compliance to these requirements prior to any demolition, grading
and/or construction permits, being issued by the Building and/or Engineering
Divisions of the City. The requirements shall be on the approved set of plans for the
City and the job site. The General Contractor shall sign the sheet of plans noting the
mitigation measures and attesting to understanding the measures and enforcing the
measures.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-116 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
No mitigation measures carry forward from the 1997 IS/MND. The mitigations are either
implemented or redefined significantly in the following MMRP.
MITIGATION IMPLEMENTATION
BIOLOGY IMPACT 1: POTENTIAL PRESENCE OF ACTIVE BIRD NESTS IN
PROXIMITY TO CONSTRUCTION COULD RESULT IN
A TAKE OF A PROTECTED SPECIES
There is a remote potential for presence of active nests in close proximity to the construction
site. Construction activities could disturb or result in a take if nesting birds are present.
BIOLOGY MITIGATION 1.A: Outside of Nesting Season: Vegetation and tree removal
shall be scheduled to take place outside of the nesting season (which occurs from February 1 to
August 31) to avoid impacts to nesting birds; or,
BIOLOGY MITIGATION 1.B: During Nesting Season: A qualified biologist (Biologist)
shall conduct a pre-construction nesting bird (both passerine and raptor) survey within seven
days prior to the commencement of construction if construction is unavoidable during the
nesting season. The survey shall be within 300 feet of the limits of proposed construction and
shall be performed by a Biologist. If no nesting birds are observed no further action is required
and grading and ground breaking activities shall occur within one week of the survey to prevent
take of individual birds that could begin nesting after the survey.
Another nesting survey shall be conducted if more than seven days elapse between the initial
nest search and the beginning of tree removal and construction activities. The Biologist shall
determine the disturbance-free buffer zone to be established around the nest tree(s) until the
young have fledged, as determined by the Biologist if active bird nests (either passerine and/or
raptor) are observed during the pre-construction survey.
A qualified biologist shall determine the radius of the required buffer zone. Buffer zones vary
depending on the species, (i.e., 75-100 feet for passerines and 300 feet for raptors). The
dimensions of the zone shall be determined by a qualified biologist in consultation with the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Orange construction fencing, flagging, or other marking system shall be installed to delineate the
buffer area at the specified radius from nest location(s) within which no cranes or other
equipment associated with the parking structure construction shall intrude. Continued use of
the surface parking areas for parking and parking lot maintenance may continue within this
setback zone.
There would be no restrictions on grading or construction activities outside the prescribed
buffer zone after the no-construction zone has been identified.
A survey report of findings verifying that any young have fledged shall be submitted for review
and approval by the Chief Planner at the City of South San Francisco Planning Division prior to
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-117
initiation of any grading or other construction activities within the buffer zone. Following
approval by the Chief Planner, grading and construction in the nest-buffer zone may proceed.
Implementation/Timing: Applicant, at City’s review and approval, shall PRIOR to issuance
of demolition, grading or building permits retain the services of a biologist to conduct the survey
if tree removal is conducted during nesting season. The cost of services shall be borne by the
Applicant. A cost pass-through agreement, if necessary, shall be executed between the City and
the Applicant prior to issuance of building and/or grading permit issuance.
Responsible Party(ies): City Planning Division, consulting biologist and Applicant.
BIOLOGY IMPACT 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS ON THE SITE ARE NOT IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN
FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN AND THE EAST OF 101
AREA PLAN POLICIES THAT DIRECT THE
PROTECTION OF HABITAT, REMOVAL OF INVASIVE
EXOTIC PLANTS AND PLANTING AND
MAINTENANCE OF NATIVE VEGETATION TO
PROVIDE ADEQUATE CONTROL OF INVASIVE PLANT
SPECIES AND SUCCESSFUL ESTABLISHMENT OF
NATIVE ENHANCEMENT PLANTINGS.
BIOLOGY MITIGATION MEASURE 2: The landscape plan for the Project shall be
revised to include an “Invasive Species Removal Program”, eliminating pampas grass, French
broom, and other invasive species listed as having a “high” or “moderate” rating for “Invasive
Non-Native Plants that Threaten Wildlands in California” according to the electronic Inventory
of the California Invasive Species Council (Cal IPC). All invasive species shall be removed from
the site and the adjacent segment of the Bay Trail along the north side of the San Bruno Canal
on the south side of the existing parking structure.
The landscape plan shall also be revised to include a “Native Species Enhancement Program”; a
plan to provide for installation of additional native species in areas where existing landscape
plantings are absent or performing poorly. Of particular concern is the area south of the
existing parking structure, between the concrete Bay Trail and top of bank to San Bruno Creek;
an area planted with non-native species that are performing poorly or dead. Concrete rubble
and non-organic fills shall be removed from the ground surface and a layer of top soil installed
to a minimum depth of six inches to provide a growing substrate for new plantings. The entire
area shall be planted with native creeping wildrye (Leymus triticoides) installed from plugs on
approximately one-foot centers to provide a continuous groundcover. Any shrubs or trees
planted in this location shall be restricted to native species indigenous to the South San
Francisco area. All new native plantings shall be provided short-term irrigation for a minimum
of three years during the dry season to ensure successful establishment, and any plantings that
die shall be replaced during this establishment period.
All native plantings installed as part of the Native Species Enhancement Program shall be
monitored annually, for a period of three years, by a qualified landscape architect or biologist.
The annual monitoring report shall summarize the condition of the native enhancement
plantings, status of invasive species removal, and include recommendations for any corrective
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-118 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
work necessary. Copies of the annual monitoring reports shall be provided to the Chief Planner
at City of South San Francisco Planning Division by December 31 of each reporting year. If
native enhancement plantings have not become successfully established or target invasive
species are still present on the site and adjacent corridor of the Bay Trail, the applicant shall be
required to submit a remedial enhancement plan and extend the monitoring period and annual
reporting until successful establishment has been achieved.
A report of successful completion of the Native Species Enhancement Program shall be
provided for review and approval by the Chief Planner of the City of South San Francisco at the
end of the three year monitoring period. The row of non-native Lombardy poplar proposed as
part of the Landscape Plan along the east side of the new parking structure is appropriate to
screen the building in views from the east; however, the area between the row of poplar
plantings and shoreline of the drydock shall be planted exclusively with native species to
enhance this area as part of the Native Species Enhancement Program.
Future landscape maintenance of the site shall include the routine monitoring and annual
removal of any target invasive species identified in the Invasive Species Removal Program. The
maintenance and monitoring shall include the native species enhancement area on the south side
of the existing parking structure.
Implementation/Timing: Applicant shall implement this mitigation by providing the
landscape plans in conformance with this mitigation. The plans shall be reviewed (modified if
necessary) and approved by the City. The plans shall be provided, reviewed and approved
PRIOR to issuance of any demolition, grading or building permits for the Project. A consulting
biologist (retained by the City and paid for by the Applicant) shall monitor the landscape
improvements on the site annually for a period of three years and provide the report to the
Chief Planner. Corrections and modifications to the landscape and an extension to the
monitoring period may occur if the performance objectives are not being met. The cost of
services shall be borne by the Applicant. A cost pass-through agreement, if necessary, shall be
executed between the City and the Applicant prior to issuance of building and/or grading permit
issuance.
Responsible Party(ies): City Planning Division, consulting biologist and Applicant.
BIOLOGY IMPACT 3: SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN LIGHT ONTO BAY LANDS
MAY REDUCE THE HABITAT VALUE OF THE TIDAL
AREA (WETLAND HABITAT) AND WOULD CONFLICT
WITH EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN POLICY CON-7.
BIOLOGY MITIGATION 3: All lighting in the new parking structure and any modifications
to existing lighting shall be shielded and oriented onto the site to prevent off-site illumination
and glare into the adjacent wetland habitat along San Bruno Canal and the former drydocks.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-119
Implementation/Timing: Applicant shall provide the City with a lighting plan to be reviewed
by the Chief Planner and Police Department. The lighting plan shall conform to and implement
this mitigation measure. The plans shall be provided, reviewed and approved PRIOR to
issuance of any demolition, grading or building permits for the Project.
Responsible Party(ies): City Planning Division, Police Department, Applicant.
BIOLOGY IMPACT 4: PROJECT COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION
PRIOR TO APPROVAL OR CONDITIONAL APPROVAL
FROM THE BAY CONSERVATION AND
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AND THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
LAW AND EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN POLICY CON:-7.
BIOLOGY MITIGATION 4: No building, grading or construction permit shall be issued by
the City in absence of written approvals/conditional approvals for the development analyzed in
this Initial Study by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the California
Department of Fish and Game. Written approvals from the Bay Conservation and
Development Commission and the California Department of Fish and Game shall be provided
to the Chief Planner and Building Official PRIOR to issuance of any demolition, grading or
construction permits for the Project. Any plan modifications required by the permitting
agencies shall be incorporated into the Project plans and reviewed by the Chief Planner, prior to
issuance of any demolition, grading on construction permits for the Project.
Implementation/Timing: Applicant shall contact the identified permitting agencies and
secure Project approval. Written approvals shall be provided to the City PRIOR to issuance of
any demolition, grading or building permits for the Project.
Responsible Party(ies): Applicant, City Planning, and Building Divisions.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS IMPACT 1: REUSE OF IMPROPERLY COMPACTED
OR INCOMPETENT SOIL ON THE SITE
COULD RESULT IN UNSTABLE
CONDITIONS.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS MITIGATION 1: A state licensed registered engineering geologist
and principal geotechnical engineer shall be on site during grading and site preparation to
supervise and inspect conditions and shall certify to the City that the soil has been properly
compacted and emplaced to the City’s Standards or that all undocumented fill was removed
from the site prior to construction commencing.
Implementation/Timing: Applicant shall contact retain the services of the state licensed
registered engineering geologist and principal geotechnical engineer and a grading plan shall be
prepared in conformance with Geology and Soils Mitigation 1. The grading plan shall be
reviewed by the City’s consulting geotechnical engineers and modified and approved as
necessary PRIOR to a demolition or grading permit being issued by the City. The certification
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-120 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
of as-built compaction shall be provided PRIOR to issuance of construction permits by the
Building Division.
Responsible Party(ies): Applicant, Public Works, and Building Divisions.
HAZARDS IMPACT 1: PROJECT PLANS DO NOT INCLUDE CIVIL DRAWINGS
THAT INDICATE THE LOCTION OF POTENTIAL ON-
AND OFF-SITE MONITORING WELLS, GAS AND FUEL
PIPELINES, UTILITY EASEMENTS, OTHER
EASEMENTS AND ACCURATE PROPERTY LINES.
CONSTRUCTING OVER THESE TYPES OF FACILITIES
WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER ACCESSS FOR
MAINTENANCE WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.
MOREOVER, GRADING AND FOUNDATION
EMPLACEMENT COULD RUPTURE PIPELINES
RESULTING IN A LEAK OR OTHER HAZARDOUS
CONDITION.
HAZARDS MITIGATION 1: The Applicant, contractor or Project sponsor shall provide
civil engineering (wet stamped by a California licensed civil engineer) drawings identifying all
utility and access easements as well as the location of all underground facilities, including
monitoring wells and fuel lines and property lines, prior to issuance of any grading, demolition
or building permits by the City. Project construction plans shall comply with the access
requirements for underground utility maintenance. Santa Fe Pipeline and Shell Oil
representatives shall be contacted and provided an opportunity to review the 2013 Project plans
to assure adequate access is provided for their facilities. Written confirmation of their review,
approval and/or modifications shall be provided to the City prior to issuance of any grading,
demolition or construction permits. The construction drawings shall be altered as necessary to
provide adequate access and depending upon the magnitude of alteration may require the
Project to undergo subsequent design and entitlement review.
Implementation/Timing: Applicant and Applicant’s Civil Engineer shall provide the civil
drawings PRIOR to City issuance of demolition or grading permits for the Project. Written
confirmation of Santa Fe Pipeline and Shell Oil review, approval and/or modifications shall be
provided to the City PRIOR to issuance of any grading, demolition or construction permits.
Responsible Party(ies): Applicant, and City Planning and Building Divisions.
NOISE IMPACT 1: NOISE LEVELS MAY EXCEED 90 DB AT THE PROPERTY
LINE IN VIOLATION OF THE CITY’S NOISE
ORDINANCE.
NOISE MITIGATION 1.A: At the discretion of the Building Official a waiver may be
applied for and secured given that the Project is not located in a noise sensitive area and there
are no sensitive receptors within 0.65 miles of the site,
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-121
or,
NOISE MITIGATION 1.B: Erect temporary sound barriers, select quieter equipment and
locate the noisiest equipment further from the property lines whenever possible to increase
noise attenuation.
Implementation/Timing: PRIOR to the City issuance of demolition and grading permits
compliance with Noise Mitigation 1.A or 1.B shall be secured by an approved waiver or the
types of quieter equipment and/or temporary sound walls shall be noted on the plans submitted
to the Building Division for grading and demolition permits.
Responsible Party(ies): Applicant and Building Division.
NOISE IMPACT 2: PROJECT PROPOSES SATURDAY CONSTRUCTION TO
BEGIN AT 8:30 AM IN VIOLATION OF THE CITY’S NOISE
ORDINANCE START TIME OF 9 AM.
NOISE MITIGATION 2.A: The Project sponsor shall note on the approved building and job
copy plans that Saturday operations shall not begin prior to 9 AM.
NOISE MITIGATION 2.B: At the discretion of the Building Official: The Project Sponsor
or contractor shall apply for and secure a waiver to the Saturday start time.
Implementation/Timing: PRIOR to the City issuance of demolition and grading permits
compliance with Noise Mitigation 2.A or 2.B shall be secured by an approved waiver or the
types of quieter equipment and/or temporary sound walls shall be noted on the plans submitted
to the Building Division for grading and demolition permits.
Responsible Party(ies): Applicant and Building Division.
NOISE IMPACT 3: Noise exposure to the cashiers during the day and early evening shifts
could be annoying, disruptive and distracting at levels around 84 dB
with periodic Lmax levels that could reach 106 dB.
NOISE MITIGATION 3: The Applicant shall install the pay-on-foot program prior to the
City issuing and grading, demolition or construction permits for the 2013 Project. The kiosks
and office shall be designed and constructed to attenuate noise by at least 25 dB.
Implementation/Timing: PRIOR to the City issuance of demolition and grading permits
Noise Mitigation 3 shall be constructed and operational.
Responsible Party(ies): Applicant and Building Division.
EXCERPT MINUTES
March 6, 2014
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION
3. Park SFO Expansion
Robert Simms /Owner/Applicant
195 N Access Rd
P12-0048: UPM12-0003, DR12-0022 & ND12-0003
Use Permit Modification, Design Review, Mitigated Negative Declaration and request for a Waiver
and Modification related to garage rooftop landscaping for an expansion of an existing seven-level
parking structure, adding approximately 501,000 square feet (1,529 spaces), to the SFO Parking
Facility at 195 North Access Road in the Mixed Industrial (MI) Zone District in accordance with
SSFMC Chapters 20 .100,20.330,20.480,20.490 & 20.510.
Chairperson Martin opened the public hearing and called for the staff report.
Senior Planner Barber presented a brief staff report recommending approval.
Robert Simm, owner/applicant, gave a brief history of ParkSFO, noting it opened in 2000 and is a very
successful off-airport parking operation with emphasis on providing quality customer service. He noted
the business stresses hospitality, with its focus on ensuring that the parking public gets value for their
parking dollars with the most effective discount program in the parking industry. As a result, the company
has grown to the point of overflowing with customers, so his expectation is that over time the second
phase will be just as successful as the first. He noted his acceptance of most recommended Conditions
of Approval, but wanted to go on record objecting to the traffic impact fee being assessed. He further
noted hi~ intent to appeal to the City Council asking for a waiver of the impact fee that he feels is over-
burdensome and unfair due to the fact that an 8% parking tax is already being paid, and this new phase
will provide the City with more than $1.5 million in tax revenue annually.
There being no speakers the public hearing was closed .
Commission comments/questions:
• Commission noted concern with the cluster of shuttle bus es outside the garage and asked if they
will be housed in the new phase. Mr. Simms responded that but the expanded garage will have
room for shuttle bus parking.
• Commission inquired about the anticipate length of construction. Mr. Simms responded
construction would take approximately 16-18 months.
• Commission expressed appreciation over the applicant's inclusion of many sustainable design
features including natural gas shuttles, solar panels and electric vehicle plug-in outlets.
• Commission inquired whether there will be more shuttles with the expansion. Mr. Simms stated
that currently they have 12 shuttles and will probably add 5 more with the new facility.
• Commission questioned the landscaping timeline. Senior Planner Barber responded they are
proposing to install 15-24" box trees as shown on the project plans. The landscaping will be
planted around the perimeter of the building once the shell is complete.
• Commission requested clarification on when the solar panels and electric vehicle charging
stations would be installed. Mr. Simms stated that both currently are installed, though more may
be included to meet future demand.
•
• Commission inquired about problems on the first phase relative to water issues with the planters
on the roof. Mr. Simms stated that it turned into a disaster but was not sure exactly what the
cause was. Commission further discussed that the rooftop landscaping was not practical since it
would tend to conflict with the solar panels.
-58-
• Commission asked for clarification from Allison Knapp, Environmental Consultant, regarding the
correspondence received from the Department of Transportation in October regarding signal
operations location analysis. Allison Knapp responded that the intersections closest to the project
were analyzed and found there would be no impact. so analyzing intersections further away was
not warranted. Ms. Knapp also wanted to clarify that this project started in late 2011 and some of
the measures mentioned in the document as things they were going to do have now already been
done.( i.e. the kiosk for cashier which is a mitigation measure, charging stations.)
• Commission questioned whether there was an inconsistency with the requirement for perimeter
planting vs. solar panels on the rooftop. Senior Planner Barber stated it is a unique situation in
that with the addition of the solar panels there still needs to be adequate space for parking
circulation, which has restricted the ability to accommodate both the panels and the
plantings. Commissioner Ochsenhirt mentioned about a similar concern about the recent
installation of solar panels at the schools and the concern parents noted with the removal of
landscaping. He mentioned sometimes this cannot be avoided.
Motion-Vice Chairperson Wong/Second-Commissioner Ochsenhirt to adopt a resolution
including findings, adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND12-0003). Approved by
unanimous voice vote.
Motion--Vice Chairperson Wong/Second-Commissioner Ochsenhirt to approve P12-0048:
UPM12-0003 and DR12-0022 including the Waiver and Modification based on the draft Findings
and subject to draft Conditions of Approval attached to the staff report. Approved by unanimous
voice vote.
-59-
ATTACHMENT D
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT FOR EAST OF 101 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE-JULY 25,2007
-60-
Staff Report
Subject: AMENDED EAST OF 101 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
Page 2 of6
Adopted Traffic lmpact Fee (2005)
The following table shows the traffic facilities impact fee based on the cost per trip calculated in the
Traffic Fee Study and the trip rates used to model development impacts. The cost per trip is converted
to ~ fee per unIt of development based on building square feet or hotel rooms. . ',' . .
Land Use PM Trip Cost Per Trip . Traffic Admin Total
Rate l Feel Feel Fee
Commercial 3.74 $2,288 $8.56 0.21 $8.77
OfficeIR&D 3 0.90 $2,288 $2.06 0.05 $2.11
Hotel 0.21 $2,288 $480.52 12.01 $492.54
I Trips per 1,000 square feet of building area or per room (for. botels).
2 Fee per square foot, or per hotel room
3 Based on an estimate of2.5 percent of traffic fee .
4 Based on weighted average of PM trip rate for office and R&D land uses of 0.96 and 0.60, respectively.
Traffic Impact Fee Update Project (2007)
The need for additional projects to be added to the TIP was identified in the Environmental Impact
RepQrt (EIR) completed for the Genentech Corporate Facilities Research & Development Overlap
District Expansion in 2006. This resulted in four additional traffic mitigation proj ects. In addition, two
studies were included.
Additional Intersections/Street Improvements and Studies (2007)
Project
23. Oyster Point Blvd & US 101 .
Northbound On-Ramp
24. East Grand AvelHarbonnaster
RdlForbes Blvd
Description
Add a lane on NB Dubuque Ave, between the Route 101
off ramp intersection and Oyster Point Blvd.
ReconfigUre the NB approach to OYster Point Blvd to
provide two exclusive left tum lanes, an exclusive
through lane and two exclusive right tum lanes.
As part of this widening. eliminate the left tum lane on
the SB Dubuque approach to the Route 101 intersection
(which serves the mini warehouse facilities) and allow
SB left turns from the SB through lane. This will allow
for provision of five full NB travel lanes on Dubuque
Ave between the NB off ramp intersection and Oyster
Point Blvd.
Adjust signal timing.
Create an additional through lane on WB Oyster Point
Blvd approach from Veterans Blvd to NB Route 101 on
ramp.
Widen EB approach to this intersection to allow the
existing shared through/right tum lane to be reconfigured
ir:.~2..-eparate through and right turn lanes and SB right I tuni overlap.
Staff Report
Subject: AMENDED EAST OF 101 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
Page 3 of6
25. Oyster Point Blvd/Dubuque Ave Restripe the. Route 101 off ramp approach to Dubuque
Ave from an existing exclusive left, share through/left
turn a."ld exclusive right turn lane to provide exclusive
left turn lanes and a shared through/left turn lane. .
. 26. US 101 northbound off-ramplEast Grand Widen off Tamp to provide an additional lane .
A v~lExecutive Drive Restripe Route 101 through lane to allow optional exit to
E. Grand A velExecutive Drive
. Replace overhead sign on 101 to provide for two lane
exit from freeway.
27. Utah Ave Over Crossing Project Study Prepare a study to determine feasibility of an over
Report crossing ofUtab Avenue over Highway 101.
28. Prepare'new East oflOl Area Traffic Prepare a comprehensive update of the traffic
Study engineering analysis originally prepared for the TIP and
TDM, which has not been revised since 200] ..
Revised Traffic Impact Fee (2007)
The fol1owing table lists the 2007 cost estimates for the previously approved and new traffic
improvements to accommodate new development.
Total Construction Cost
Project (2006 Dollars)
1. Bayshore/Airport Blvd. & Sister·Cities/Oyster Point Blvd. $591,000
2. Dubuque Ave.& Oyster Point Blvd. $1,461,240
3. Eccles Ave. & Oyster Point Blvd. $435,920
4. Gul] Dr. & Oyster Point Blvd. , $685,400
5. Airport Blvd. & Miller Ave.IUS 101 SB off-ramp $2,048,100
6. Airport Blvd. & Grand Ave. $154,000
7. Dubuque Ave. & East Grand Ave. $3,719,400
8. Gateway Blvd. & East Grand Ave. $162,000
9. Forbes BJvd..lEast Grand Ave. & Harbor Blvd. $2,490,600
10.' Grandview Dr. & East Grand Ave. $704,800
11.' Airport Blvd. & San Mateo Ave. -63-$1,066,800
12. South Airport Blvd.lMitchell Ave. & Gatewav 'Rlvil ~ A fiJI 1 fIfIfI I
Staff Report
Subject: AMENDED EAST OF 101 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
Page 4 of6
.
Total Construction Cost
Project (2006 Dollars)
. 13. South Airport Blvd. & Utah Ave. $440,800 ..
14. Harbor Way ! $5,281,787
15~ Mitchel1 Ave $2,362,600
16. Higbway 101 northbound off-ramps/So Ahport Boulevard $2,841,000
17. Highway 101 northbound off-rampiEast Grand Avenue $305,000
18. Forbes Avenue & Eccles Avenue $2,491,980
19. Forbes Avenue & GuU Road $210,400
· 20. East Grand Avenue & Littlefield A venue $1,183,200
· 2 L East Grand Avenue & Allerton $643,000
22. Utah Avenue and Harbor Way $1,162,000
· 23. New-Oyster Point Blvd & US 101 northbound On-Ramp $2,520,840
24. New-East Grand AvelHarbormaster RdlForbes Blvd $188,000
25. New-Oyster Point BlvdlDubuque Ave $39,500
26. New-US 101 northbound off-ramplE.Grand AvelExecutive
$1,292,000 Dr.
27. New-Utah Ave Over Crossing Project Study Report $250,000
28. New-Prepare new East of 101 Area Traffic Study $500,000
· Subtotal (Road Improvements and Studies) $39,272,367
Less: Existing· Fund Balance ($6,908,987)
Total $32,363,380
-64-
Staff Report
Subject: AMENDED EAST OF 101 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
Pag(: 6 of 6
customer~. Land acquisition costs should be adjusted in ~ccordance with the percentage change in land
cost per acre within the City, based on a comparison of the most recent appraisals. The fee. adjustment
will occur beginning on July 1,2008, and again each July thereafter. .
.cONCLUSION
It is recommended that the City -Council adopt the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Update.
By: ~ ___ ~..::.:...:~.=:=:~.!:::::.!~~ __ --~ Approved: 1+..,tJ!.J!~~~~*..!:Q!L..........,-
Marty Van Duyn Barry M. Nagel
Assistant City Manager City Manager
Attachment: Resolution with Attachments
RRlts/dc
988765.1
-66-
ATTACHMENT E
TRAFFIC STUDY FEE IMPACT UPDATE FOR EAST OF 101 AREA,
MUNIFINANCIAL-JULY 19,2007
-67-
TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE STUDY UPDATE
EAST O,F 101 AREA
CITY OF SOU T H SAN FRANCISCO
FINAL REPORT
JULY 19, 2007
II Mun iFinancial
A WlllDAN COMPANY
Oakland Office
1700 Broadway Anaheim , CA
6th Floor Industry, CA
Oakland, California Lancaster, CA
Tel: (510) 832-0899 Memphis, TN
Fax: (510) 832-0898 Oakland, CA
www.muni.com
-68-
Orlando, FL
Phoenix, AZ.
Sacramento, CA
Seattle, WA
Temecula, CA
This page intentionally left blank:.
-69-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Purpose of Study
Mitigation Fee Act Findings
Traffic Demand from New Development
Implementation
Appendix A: Transportation Improvement Plan Items
1
3
6
15
16
nus page intentionally left blank.
-71-
TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE STUDY UPDATE
lJ
PURPOSE OF STUDY
This report updates the Traffic Impact Fee Study Update dated May 6, 2005 (2005 Update Study).
The 2005 Update Study was incorporated into a Resolution by the City Council, dated August
24,2005 revising the Traffic Development Impact Fee for future development within the East
of 101 area. The original Ct!J' oj South San Francisco East ojl0l Traffic Impact Fee Study was prepared
in 2001. The first update study was completed in 2003.
The City of South San Francisco's (City's) Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) and
Transportation Demand Management (!DIY!) program are designed to reduce future traffic
congestion during peak hours in the East of 101 Area, establish a fee structure that would help
pay for future physical improvements, and comply with State of California and San Mateo
County requirements . The initial Traffic Impact Fee Study was conducted in 2001 to implement
the TIP and TDM program.
A comprehensive update of the traffic engineering analysis originally prepared for the TIP and
IDM programs was not deemed necessary at this time. However, since the most recent update
study, a need for additional projects to be added to the TIP was identified in an environmental
impact report (EIR) completed in 2006 for the Genentech Corporate Facilities Research &
Development Overlay District Expansion. The new Genentech facilities will be developed in
the East of 101 Area. The Genentech EIR incorporates new traffic modeling and identifies
additional traffic mitigation measures that will be necessary. Consequently, some additional
traffic analysis conducted for the Genentech EIR is incorporated into this study and four
additional traffic mitigation projects identified in the Genentech EIR have been added to the
East of 101 Area TIP.
Analysis conducted for the Genentech EIR of intersection Level of Service (LOS), combined
with a separate assessment by the City of South San Francisco City Engineering staff of those
intersections not included in the Genentech EIR analysis, is also used to update the current LOS
data. Based on these assessments current intersection LOS conditions remain at or above the
acceptable level based on adopted City of San Francisco standards. The purpose of continued
impact fee collection is to fund traffic improvement projects to maintain intersection LOS
within the accepted standards.
1bis report presents an updated analysis of the need for roadway and intersection improvements
in the East of 101 Area. It incorporates the additional capital projects to be funded by the fee
and uses new cost estimates for all projects in the fee program. The new cost estimates reflect
the significant increases in road construction costs that have occurred over the last several years.
The report documents a reasonable relationship between new development in the East of 101
Area and an impact fee for funding traffic facilities to serve that new development. Estimates of
new development that will occur in the East of 101 Area are based on the amount of new
development remaining to reach buildout of the East of 101 Area, as specified in the City of
South San Francisco General Plan. It is assumed that General Plan buildout will occur by 2020.
MuniFinandal 1
-72-
South San Francisco Final &port -East oj 101 Area TraJftc Impact Fee Update
TRAFFIC FEE PLANNING AREA
The planning area includes all land located east of US 101, south of San Bruno :Mountain and
the City of Brisbane, west of the San Francisco Bay, and north of the San Francisco
International Airport.
The traditional core of South San Francisco's industry, the East of 101 Area was originally
developed with meatpacking and heavy manufacturing activities . Bethlehem. Steel, U.S. Steel, and
the Edwards Wire Rope Facto.ry were some of the Citis major establishments whose products
helped build California's modern transportation and communications infrastructure. In the
1930s, shipping also emerged as a major industry, as South San Francisco became an adjunct
facility to the Port of San Francisco. Easy rail access made South San Francisco even more
attractive as a shipping terminal, and the City became the central distribution point for the entire
peninsula.
In the post-war years the City converted previously unused marshlands into areas usable for
industrial development, drastically reshaping the shoreline and attracting light industry to the
City for the first time. Plans were announced in 1963 for a 600-acre industrial park adjacent to
the newly developed Oyster Point Marina. This industrial park was South San Francisco's first
industrial development to incorporate comprehensive planning, integrated design, and
performance provisions, and featured a 0.5 floor area ratio (FAR), ample parking and consistent
landscaping and building design. The industrial park heralded South San Francisco's industrial
future.
In some ways a microcosm of American industry, South San Francisco has been making a slow
industrial transformation for the past 30 years. Warehousing, research and development and
biotechnology, in part spurred by the success of the 114-acre Genentech campus, employing
over 4,500 people, have largely replaced steel production and other heavy industries. While the
East of 101 Area is almost completely built out, redevelopment and intensification of land uses
and employment density remains extremely active . The City's industrial base has continued to
evolve in response to market trends and conditions and will continue to play an important role
in South San Francisco's future.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
In October 1999, the South San Francisco City Council adopted the South San Francisco
General Plan, which contains a Transportation Element with specific policies that provide for
improving circulation in the East of 101 Area. A traffic impact fee for the planning area is called
for in the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment. Policy 4.2-1-7 of the Amendment
directs the City to:
Continue to require that new development pays a fair share of the costs of street and
other traffic and transportation improvements, based on traffic generated and impacts
on service levels. .. . Establish a traffic improvement fee to fund transportation
improvements in the East of 101 area .
Therefore, the objective of the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment is to implement
the General Plan Transportation Element policy by: 1) updating traffic projections for the East
of 101 Area and identifying specific street improvements; 2) identifying transportation and
circulation needs for a long-range planning horizon that will help the City manage anticipated
. MuniFinancial 2
-73-
South San Francisco Final Report -East of 101 Area Traffic Impact Fee Update
growth in the East of 101 Area; 3) enhancing street capacity; and 4) providing new linkages to
integrate a multi-modal transportation system.
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND DeVELDPMENT ASSUMPTIDNS
The 1999 General Plan and General Plan EIR established a 20-year projection for future
development in the East of 101 Area, based on new F ARs of up to 1.0 and an estimate of how
much land would convert from older industrial uses to higher-density research and development
facilities. In 2001, the City Council amended the estimated General Plan buildout by adopting
the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment an~ Transportation Demand M anagement
Ordinance Supplemental EIR. The Supplemental EIR incorporated the following assumptions
into the TIP analysis:
• Total buildout will more than double from existing development: 12.82 million
square feet to 26.79 million square feet due mainly to the increase in office and R&D
development.
• Approximately six million square feet more of development will be constructed than
was projected in the General Plan.
• Employment will increase by a factor of 2.4 from 21,654 to 52,880. This increase is
due to both increases in floor space in the East of 101 Area and due to office and
R&D uses having much higher employment intensity than industrial development.
• Total build out will increase to 23.3 million square feet with a 0 .9 FAR, compared
21. 7 million square feet with a 0.5 FAR.
These assumptions remain unchanged and are used in this impact fee update study .
MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS
Traffic facilities fees are a subset of public facility fees, which are fees to be used to construct
facilities or infrastructure improvements required to accommodate new development. They are
one-time fees typically paid when a building permit is issued and imposed on development
projects by local agencies responsible for regulating land use (cities and counties). To guide the
widespread imposition of public facilities fees, the State Legislature adopted the Mitigation Fee Act
(the Ad) with Assembly Bill 1600 in 1987 and subsequent amendments. The Act, contained in
California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66025, establishes requirements on local
agencies for the imposition and administration of fee programs. The A ct requires local agencies
to document five findings when adopting a fee.
The five statutory fIDdings required for adoption of the maximum justified public facilities fees
are presented in this chapter and supported in detail by the report that follows. All statutory
references are to the Act.
PURPOSE OF FEE
For the first finding the City must:
Identify the purpose of the fee. (§66001 (a) (1))
MuniFinancial 3
-74-
South San Francisco Final Report -East oj101 Area Traffic Impact Fcc Update
The policy of the City of South San Francisco (City) is that new de,,-elopment will not burden
existing development with the cost of public facilities, including traffic facilities, required to
accommodate growth. The purpose of the public facilities fee is to implement this policy by
providing a funding source from new deyelopment for capital improvements to serve that
development. The fee advances a legitimate interest of the City by enabling the City to prodde
municipal services to new development.
USE DF FEE REVENUES
For the second finding the City must:
Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. If the use is financing public facilities, the
facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference
to a capital improvement plan as specified in Section 65403 or 66002, may be made in
applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public
documents that identify the public facilities for which the fee is charged. (§66001 (a) (2»
The traffic facilities fee will fund expanded ' facilities to serve new development. All planned
facilities will be located 'within the City of South San Francisco. These facilities included in the
findings presented here include:
• Roadway widening;
• Intersection signalization;
• Other roadway improvements in the City of South San Francisco East of 1 01 Area,
and;
• Public transportation and related facilities.
'PlalUled traffic facilities are identified in this report. The City may change the list of planned
traffic facilities to meet changing circumstances and needs, as it deems necessary. The fee
program should be updated if these changes result in a significant change in the fair share cost
allocated to new development.
Planned facilities to be funded by the fee are described in the "Facility Costs to Accommodate
Growth" section of this report.
BENEFIT RELA TICINSHIP
For the third finding the City must:
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of
development project on which the fee is imposed. (§66001 (a)(3»
New commerciaL R&D, and hotel development in the East of 101 Area will generate increased
amounts of vehicle traffic. More individuals will be employed in the area, and many of these new
employees will drive to work. In addition, customers and hotel guests will be drawn to the area
by the new development, creating additional vehicle trips. Without improvements in the traffic
facilities in the East of 101 Area, the new vehicle trips will cause more congestion and will
decreas e intersection levels of service.
MuniFinancial 4
-75-
South San Francisco Final Report -East of 101 Area Traffic Impact Fee Update
The City will use fee revenues for the acquisition of right of ways; construction of traffic
improvements including roadway widening, signal installation and retitning, and intersection
restriping; and completion of traffic studies to serve new development. Transportation facilities
funded by the fee will allow vehicles to move more efficiently, maintaining an acceptable level of
service or preventing further deterioration in the level of service at intersections impacted by
development in the East of 101 Area. Thus, there is a reasonable relationship between the use of
fee revenues and the residential and nonresidential types of new development that will pay the
fee.
The planned facilities that will b e funded by the fee are described in the follo"\\.-ing chapter.
BURDEN RELATlDNS'HIP
For the fourth finding the City must:
Deterinine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility
and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. (§66001(a)(4))
The need for the fee is based on traffic engineering reports prepared by the City that quantify
the expected traffic impacts of new commercial, office, R&D, and hotel development in the East
of 1 01 Area based on analyses of existing and future roadway and intersection Level of Service
(LOS). According to the engineering reports, without improvements in the traffic facilities in the
East of 101 Area, the new vehicle trips would cause more congestion and would decrease
current intersection levels of service. Based on the City of South San Francisco General Plan,
commercial, office, R&D, and hotel development are the only types of development anticipated
in the East of 101 Area. These types of development will generate additional employment, which
will cause an increase in vehicle trips as new employees drive to work. In addition, customers,
guests, and visitors to the new commercial, office, R&D, and hotel facilities will generate new
vehicle trips. Therefo:re, there is a reasonable relationship, between the need for new traffic
facilities and the new commercial, office, R&D, and hotel development on which the impact fee
will be imposed. Building square footage by land use category is an indicator of the demand for
traffic facilities needed to accommodate growth.
LOS pteasutements were based on projected "PM trip rates" (those trips associated with new
de,relopment anticipated during the evening commute hours). Different land uses were assigned
different amounts of projected PM trips based on data collected in the East of 101 Area for the
traffic engineering study prepared for the City by CCS Planning & Engineering in 2001. (See
page 13 for more information.) LOS standards are based on City of South San Francisco policy
to maintain a LOS of ''D'' or to accept a LOS "E" or "F" if there is no feasible way to achieve a
better LOS and the land uses creating the impact are deemed to be of significant public benefit.
(please also see Facility Standards discussion on page 7.)
PROPORTIONALITY
For the fifth finding the City must:
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the
cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development
on which the fee is imposed. (§66001 (b))
MuniFinancial 5
-76-
South San Francisco Final Report -East 0/ 101 Area Traffic Impact Fee Update
1bis reasonable relationship between the traffic impact fee for a specific development project
and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project is based on the estimated vehicle trips the
project will add to public roadways. The total fee for a specific project is based on building
square feet for commercial, office, and R&D development, and hotel rooms for hotel
development. The fee schedule converts the estimated square footage of a development project
or the number of hotel rooms to be built into a fee based on the size of the project and the
estimated number of trips associated with the project's land use category. On average, larger
projects of a certain land use type will generate more trips because they employ more workers
who drive to their jobs and generate more trips from visitors; therefore, larger projects pay a
higher fee than smaller projects of the same land use type. Thus, the fee schedule ensures a
reasonable relationship between the traffic impact fee for a specific development project and the
cost of the facilities attributable to that project.
CCS Planning & Engineering conducted trip counts at selected points in the East of 101 Area
for the original East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Study in 2001. Based on development data
prm;1.ded by the City of South San Francisco Planning staff, CCS Planning & Engineering
calculated actual a.m. and p.m. trip rates associated with different land uses in the East of 101
Area. Traffic demand from new development and impact fees are based on the rates calculated
by CCS Planning and Engineering. Evening peak hour trip generation rates are used because this
period is more congested than the morning and therefore has a greater impact on the need for
traffic improvements.
TRAFFIC DEMAND FROM NEW DEVELOPMENT
The 2005 Traffic Impact Fee Study Update estimated the number of trips that will b e generated
by new development in the East of 101 Area from that date forward. 'This estimate was based on
average trip rates in the area and the amount of development identified in the General Plan
Amendment.1 Using the number of anticipated trips and cost ~stimates for projects in the TIP,
the 2005 study calculated a traffic impact fee based on a cost per trip of $2,288 plus a 2.5 percent
administrative fee.
The total number of trips estimated to be generated by new development upon completion of
the General Plan Amendment is unchanged from the 2005 study. The number of trips that will
be generated from the date of this study to completion of General Plan Amendment build out is
estimated by subtracting trips generated between the 2005 study and the time of this report from
the total number of trips estimated in the 2005 report. The number of trips generated between
the 2005 study and this report is based on impact fee revenue collected between the 2005 report
and the present time.
Table 1 shows building permits approved and fees paid from March 2005, when remaining trips
were estimated in the 2005 study, until the time of this report.
1 In the 2005 study, the total square footage of commercial, office/R&D, hotel, and industrial development
anticipated upon General Plan buildout was estimated. The square footage of development which was already
existing or approved at the time of the 2005 study was subtracted from the anticipated buildout development, to
estimate the square footage of remaining future development in each land use category. Finally, the amount of
remaining development was multiplied by the P.M. peak hour trip generation rates observed in the East of 101 Area
to estimate the number of new P.M. peak hour trips that would be generated by future development (see page 13
for more information on trip generation rates).
MuniFinancial 6
-77-
South San Francisco Final Report -East of 101 Area Traffic Impact Fce Update
Table 1: Office/R&D Projects Approved and
Fees Paid 2005-2007
Project Name
Gateway
Slough
Bayside
Unknown
Unknown
Genentech
Slough
Unknown
Genentech
Slough
Slough
Slough
Haskins
Slough
Slough
Lowes Home Improvement
Haskins
Wells
Total
Source: City of South San Francisco.
Fee Paid
$ 191,726
737,810
54,234
171,156
606,731
74,346
219,848
49,365
51,828
243,179
169,076
189,827
152,749
495,727
110,714
1,307,774
179,956
112,775
$ 5,118,822
Table 2 calculates the trips generated from March 2005 to May 2007, based on the fee collection
data shown in Table 1.
Table 2: East of 101 PM Peak Hour Trips 2005-2007
Fees Collected 2005-2007 A $ 5,118,822
Less 2.5% Admin. Fee B {127!971)
Net Fees Collected 2005-2007 C =A -B $ 4,990,851
Cost per Trip 0 2!288
Trips Generated 2005-2007 E= C/O 2,181
Sources: Table 1; City of South San Francisco; Traffic Impact Fee Study Update East of
101 Area, May e, 2005, Table 5; MuniFinancial.
MuniFinancial
-78-
7
South San Francisco Final Report-East of 101 Area Traffic Impact Fee Update
Based on the estimated trips generated from 2005 until build out of the General Plan
Amendment and fee revenue collected since the adoption of the 2005 fee update, trips
remaining from May 2007 to General Plan Amendment build out are calculated in Table 3.
Table 3: East of 101 PM Peak Hour Trips Generated , by Growth
Trips Remaining to General Plan Buildout, 2005
Trips Generated 2005-2007
Trips Remaining to General Plan Buildout, 2007
8,719
2,181
6,538
Sources: Table 2; City of South San Francisco; Traffic Impact Fee Study Update East of 101 Area,
May 6, 2005, Table 5; MuniFinancial.
FACILITY STANDARDS
The City's traffic facility standards are based on a measure of congestion commonly used in
traffic planning and known as ''level of service" (LOS). LOS is calculated based on the volume
of traffic on a roadway or at an intersection compared to the capacity of the roadway or
intersection. LOS "A," "B," and "C" suggest that delays are insignificant to acceptable. LOS
''D'' suggests tolerable delays though traffic is high and some short-term back-ups occur. LOS
"E" and "F" suggest significant to excessive delays as traffic volumes meet or exceed the
capacity of the facility.
The following policies present the performance standards acceptable to the City o f South San
Francisco:
• Strive to maintain level of service (LOS) "D" or better on arterial and collector
streets, at all intersections, and on principal arterials in the eMP during peak hours.
• Accept LOS "E" or "F" after finding that there is no practical and feasible way to
mitigate the lower level of service; and the uses resulting in the lower level of service
are of clear, overall public benefit.
Traffic impacts from growth were measured using computer traffic modeling. The models were
calibrated to existing conditions using traffic counts and land use data. Based on planned
improvements and anticipated future development, the models produce estimates. of future LOS
at intersections in the East of 101 Area. The East of 101 Area model was last run prior to the
2003 Traffic Impact Fee Stutfy Update. Additional traffic modeling was conducted in 2006 for the
Genentech Corporate Facilities Research & Development Overlqy District Expansion EIR. This modeling
includes the impacts of the four projects newly added to the TIP.
Table 4 presents the LOS in the studied intersections based on existing conditions with no
traffic improvements, and future conditions with planned improvements that minimize the
decline in LOS caused by growth. Existing LOS data shown in Table 4 is from the Genentech
Expansion EIR modeling for intersections where data from this study were available. The
Genentech ErR did not provide LOS data for five of the intersections with planned
improvements in the TIP, and LOS data from the East of 101 Area model run in 2003 are
MuniFinancial 8
South San Francisco Final Report -East 01'0' Area TraificImpact Fee Update
shown. The City of South San Francisco City Engineer has examined these five intersections and
determined that they currently provide an acceptable level of service.
Table 4 shows future LOS estimates from both models. The results shown from the 2003 run of
the East of 101 Area are for LOS in 2020. The model incorporates the itnprovement projects in
the TIP at the time the model was run and assumes that intensiYe traffic demand management
measures will be implemented. Where available, 2015 LOS estimates from the Genentech EIR
modeling are also shown in Table 4. The results shown are for 2015 development including the
Genentech project and assuming implementation of the traffic improvements in the East of 101
Area TIP.
The results of the traffic modeling shown in Table 4 indicate that new development is
responsible for the total cost of planned improvements. Per the City of South San Francisco, all
intersections currently operate at an LOS deemed acceptable by the city. Thus there are no
existing deficiencies attributable to current development. Without improvements in traffic
facilities, new development would cause the LOS to deteriorate to unacceptable levels. Although
the LOS in some intersections is still expected to decline, the planned improvements are
necessary to minimize the amount of congestion caused by new development. For all
intersections except one, the planned improvements either maintain existing LOS or minimize
the decline in LOS caused by the increased traffic generated by new development.2 Because new
development generates the traffic which creates the need for the planned itnprovements, it is has
been allocated the responsibility for the funding of these improvements.
2 According to the traffic modeling, the planned improvements are expected to raise the level of service at the
intersection of East Grand Avenue and Allerton Avenue from the current LOS C to LOS B. The City of South San
Francisco City Engineer has detennined that there is no less expensive way to mitigate the increased traffic from
future development than the planned signalization, signal interconnection, and lane re-striping.
MuniFinancial
-80-9
South San Francisco Final Report -East of101 Area Traiftc Impact Fee Update
Table 4: PM Peak Hour Intersection Operations
East of 101 Area Genentech
Study (2003) EIR (2006)
Existing Future1 Future2
Intersection Control L.OS 3 Dela;t L.OS~ Dela:l~ L.OS 3 Delal
/ntersectiQns rtith TIP iCIll2rovements
Airport Blvd/Bayshore Blvd & Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point
Blvd Signal C 31 0 31 N/A N/A
Dubuque Ave/US 101 ramps & Oyster Point Blvd Signal B 17 F 85 F >80
Eccles Ave & Oyster Point Blvd Signal B' 13 B 13 N/A N/A
Gull Dr & Oyster Point Blvd Signal C 30 C 17 C 34
Airport Blvd & Miller Ave/US 101 SB off-ramp Signal C 25 B 15 N/A NfA
Airport Blvd & Grand Ave Signal C 35 0 26 N/A N/A
Dubuque Ave & East Grand Ave Signal A 7 A 4 NfA N/A
Gateway Blvd & East Grand Ave Signal B 19 C 22 NfA NfA
Forbes BlvdfEast Grand Ave & Harbor Wy Signal C 30 0 26 E 58
HarborWy5
Grandview Dr & Grand Ave6 Stop (Signal) C 18 C 19 F .>80
Airport Blvd & San Mateo Ave Signal C 3D C 22 0 38
South Airport BlvdfMitchell Ave & Gateway Blvd Signal C 33 0 25 0 35
Mitchell Ave 7
South Airport Blvd & Utah Ave Signal C* 16 C 17 N/A NfA
Hwy 101 northbound hook ramps/S o Airport Blvd Signal C 31 C 19 NfA N/A
Hwy 101 northboud off-ramp/GrandlE. Grand Ave overcrossing Signal e 16 B 9 NfA NfA
Forbes Ave & Eccles Ave Stop B" 11 F 831 N/A NfA
Forbes Ave & Gull Rd Signal B 14 0 29 NfA NfA
East Grand Ave & Littlefield Ave Signal B* 10 C 15 NfA NfA
East Grand Ave & Allerton AveS Stop C 15 F(F) OVR B 17
Utah Ave & Harbor Way Stop 0' 29 F OVR NfA NfA
US 101 NB off-ramplE Grand Ave/Executive OrB Stop A 0 A (A) 0 NfA N/A
Qth~EBst of 101 dt;!B /ntersf},ctioas
Dubuque Ave & US 101 Ramps Signal C 28 C 22 N/A NfA
Oyster Point Blvd & Gateway Blvd Signal C 28 F 63 NlA NfA
Forbes BlvdfAlierton AveS Stop B 10 A (C) 2 NfA N/A
Bayshore Blvd & US-101 SB Ramp(s)~ Stop (Signal) C 11' F 82 N/A N/A
Gateway Blvd & Oyster Point Blvd Signal C 24' F 63 N/A N/A
Veterans Rd & Oyster Point Blvd Signal A 3" B 13 NfA N/A
Bay West Cove Driveway & Oyster Point Blvd B Stop A (A) O· A(C) 1 NlA N/A
Marina Blvd & Oyster Point Blvd Signal B 7' B 13 N/A N/A
Forbes Ave & Allerton AveS Stop A (B) 2' A (C) 2 N/A NfA
South Airport Blvd & 1-380 EB Ramp Signal A 5' B 6 NfA NfA
South Airport Blvd & 1-380 WB Ramp/North A ccess Rd Signal B 14' B 14 N/A N/A
South Airport Blvd & North Access Rd B Stop A (A) l' A(A) 1 N/A NfA
• LOS data from 2003 East of 101 Area Model run (ces ptaming & Engineering) used Where Genentech EJR data were unavailable. All other existing LOS data are
frOm GetJentech Corporate Facilities Master EtR Paftial Revision.
1 2020 LOS assuming Intensive TOM with AddlUonallmprovementa.
2 LOS fOr2015 FU1ure Baseline Plus Genentech Project, with East of 101 MRigalions.
3 LOS = Level of service
• Delay = Average delay for all vehicles passing through Intersection, in seconds . OVR = Overflow Conditions
• Improvements on Harnor Way support capacity at Fortes Blvd/East Grand Ave & Hertler Blvd Intersection.
S Grandview Ave. and East Grand Ave. intersection is analyzed as a signalized intersection In the 'Wrth Additionsllmprovements" scenarios only.
71mprovaments on Mitchell Aveooe support capacity at South Airport Blvd/Mitchell Ave & Gateway intersection.
• A (0) = For unsignalized intersections: average LOS fOr all vehicles passing through intersecUon (LOS for most difficult movement)
• Bayshora Blvd. and US-101 SB Ramp intersection is currenUy stop Sign controlled. It Is evaluated with Hook Ramps and signalized intersection for fUture scenarios.
Sources: CCS Planning & Engineering, Addendum to Traffic Impact Fee, July 2,2003; Tables 4.7..2 and 4.7-15, Genentech Corporate Facilities
Mastsr EIR Prlrlial Rellision; MuniFinancial.
MuniFinancial
-81-
10
South San Francisco Final Report -East of 101 Area TrcifftcImpact Fee Update
FACILITY COSTS TO ACCOMMODATE GROWTH
}\.s a result of the traffic engmeering study conducted for the Genentech Corporate Facilities
Research & Development Overlay District Expansion EIR, the need for additional traffic
improvements to accommodate new development was identified. Four road improvement
projects and one project study were added to the East of 101 Area TIP. These improvements are
deemed necessary to either maintain existing LOS or minimize the decline in LOS. These
projects are shown in Table 5.
Table 5: Items Added to TIP 2007
Location
Oyster Point Blvd & US 101 NB
on-ramp
East Grand Ave/Harbormaster
Rd/Forbes Blvd
Oyster Point Blvd/Dubuque Ave
US 101 NB off-ramp/E Grand
Ave/Executive Dr
Source: City of South San Francisco.
Improvement Items
Widen and reconfigure Dubuque Ave approach, create an additional $
through lane on WB Oyster Point, adjust signal timing .
$
Widen and reconfigure EB approach.
Re-stripe US-101 off-ramp approach to Dubuque Ave from an $
existing exclusive left, shared throughlleft tum and exclusive right
tum lane to provide exclusive left turn lanes and a shared
through/right turn lane .
Widen off-ramp to provide additional lane, re-stripe US-101 to allow $
optional exit to East Grand Ave/Executive Dr., Replace overhead
sign on US-101 to provide for two-lane exit from freeway.
Utah Ave overcrossing project study report $
Cost
2,520,840
188,000
39 ,500
1,292,000
250,000
Cost estimates for all of the traffic improvements to accommodate new development included in
the fee program, including the new improvements listed in Table 5 above, are shown in Table 6.
All cost estimates were newly computed in 2007. Estimated costs include the cost of
construction materials and labor, construction contingency, mobilization costs, design costs,
environmental review and clearance, and construction engineering and management. The costs
shown here do not include the costs to administer the fee program, which are accounted for
separately (see page 14). A detailed list of improvement items is shown in Appendix A . East of
101 Area impact fees collected to date will be used to fund a portion of the cost of the traffic
improvements needed to accommodate new development. The current impact fee fund balance
is shown in Table 6. The fund balance is reduced by 2.5 percent, which was collected with
current fees to cover administrative costs.
MuniFinancial 11
-82-
South San Francisco Final &port -East 0]101 Area Traffic Impact Fee Update
Table 6: Net Cost of Planned Traffic Projects
Project Cost
Road Improvements
Bayshore/Airport Blvd & Sister Cities/Oyster Point Blvd $ 591,000
Dubuque Ave & Oyster Point Blvd 1,461,240
Eccles Ave & Oyster Point Blvd 435,920
Gull Dr & Oyster Point Blvd 685,400
Airport Blvd & Miller Ave/US 101 SB off-ramp 2,048,100
Airport Blvd & Grand Ave 154,000
Dubuque Ave & East Grand Ave 3,719,400
Gateway Blvd & East Grand Ave 162,000
Forbes Blvd/East Grand Ave & Harbor Blvd 2,490,600
Grandview Dr & Grand Ave 704,800
Airport Blvd & San Mateo Ave 1,066,800
South Airport Blvd/Mitchell Ave & Gateway Blvd 4,041,000
South Airport Blvd & Utah Ave 440,800
HarborWy 5,281,787
Mitchell Ave 2,362,600
Hwy 101 northbound hook ramps/So Airport Blvd 2,841,000
Hwy 101 northboud off-ramp/Grand/E. Grand Ave overcrossing 305,000
Forbes Ave & Eccles Ave 2,491,980
Forbes Ave & Gull Rd 210,400
East Grand Ave & Littlefield Ave 1,183,200
East Grand Ave & Allerton Ave 643,000
Utah Ave & Harbor Way 1,162,000
Oyster Point Blvd & US 101 NB on-ramp 2,520,840
East Grand Ave/Harbormaster Rd/Forbes Blvd 188,000
Oyster Point Blvd/Dubuque Ave 39,500
US 101 NB. off-ramp/E Grand Ave/Executive Dr 1,292,000
Subtotal $ 38,522,367
Other Projects
Utah Ave overcrossing project study report $ 250,000
Prepare new East of 101 Area traffic study 5001000
Subtotal $ 750,000
Less: Existing Fund Balance
Fees Collected 2001-2004 $ 1,967,319
Fees Collected 2005-2007 5,1181822
Subtotal -Fees Collected $ 7,086,141
Administrative Cost (2.5%) {1771154)
EXisting Fund Balance Available for Projects $ 6,908,987
Net Cost -Project Cost Less Existing Fund Balance $ 32,363,380
Sources: TY Un International; City of South San Francisco; MuniFinancial.
MuniFinancial -83-12
S ollth San Francisco Final Report -East of 101 Area T rciffic Impact Fee Update
Development projects impact the transportation network at different rates depending on the
number of trips generated. ~\ cost per trip factor is used to calculate each project's fair share of
planned improvement costs. The cost per trip is calculated by dividing the planned facility costs
(net of already-collected impact fees) by the total trips generated by new development from 2007
to General Plan build out. The resulting cost per trip is shown in Table 7.
Table 7: Cost per Trip to Accommodate Growth
Fee Program Share of Planned Facilities Costs
Peak Hour Trips (PM)
Cost per Trip
Sources: Tables 3 and 6; MuniFinancial.
TRIP GENERATION RATES
$ 32,363,380
6,538
$ 4,950
CCS Planning & Engineering conducted trip counts at selected points in the East of 101 Area
for the original East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Study in 2001. Intersection operations were
evaluated for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours at 32 study intersections. Based on development data
provided by the City of South San Francisco Planning 'staff, CCS Planning & Engineering
calculated actual a.m. and p.m. trip rates associated with different land uses in the East of 101
Area. Traffic demand from new derelopment and impact fees are based on evening peak hour
trip generation rates because this period is more congested than the morning and therefore has a
greater impact on the need for traffic improvements.
Table 8 shows the trips generated by new development (per 1,000 square feet for commercial
office/R&D, and industrial uses, and per room for hotels). These trip generation rates are
unchanged from the previous two impact fee studies.
Table 8: Trip Generation Rate by New Development
PM
Land Use Trip Rate
Commercial 3,74 per 1,000 sf
Office/R&D 1 0.90 per 1,000 sf
Hotel 0.21 per room
Industrial 0.54 per 1,000 sf
, Based on weighted average of PM trip rate for office and R&D land uses of 0.96 and
0.60, respectively.
Sources: CCS Planning and Engineering, MuniFinancial.
MuniFinancial -84-13
S ollth San Francisco Final Report -East 0]101 Area Traffic Impact Fee Update
FEE SCHEDULE
Table 9 shows the traffic facilities impact fee based on the cost per trip calculated in Table 7
and the trip rates associated with the land uses in the East of 101 Area. The cost per trip is
converted to a fee per unit of development based on building square feet or hotel r ooms. The
administration fee is based on an estimated cost of 2.5 percent of the traffic fee.
Table 9: Traffic Facilities Impact Fee
Cost per PM
Land Use Trie Trip Rate1
Commercial $ 4,950 3.74
Office/R&03 4,950 0.90
Hotel 4,950 0.21
i Trips per 1,000 building square feet or per room (for hotels).
~ Based on an estimate of 2.5 percent of traffic fee.
Cost per 1000 . Traffic
SF or hotel Fee per SF or
room hotel room
$ 18,513.00 $ 18.51 $
4,455.00 4.46
1,039.50 1,039.50
3 Based on weighted average of PM trip rate for office and R&D land uses of 0.96 and 0.60, respectively .
Sources: Tables 7 and 8; CCS Planning and Engineering; MuniFinancial.
Admin Total
Fee2 Fee
0.46 $ 18.97
0.11 4.57
25.99 1,065.49
For comparison, Table 10 shows a compru:ison of the newly calculated fee necessary to fund
projects in the TIP with the fee calculated in the 2005 Traffic Impact Fee Study Update. As
Table 10 illustrates, the fee necessary to fund construction of projects in the TIP has increased
considerably. This is primarily a result of an increase in the cost of projects in the TIP, as road
construction costs have risen considerably. In addition, five new projects have been added to the
TIP since the 2005 fee was calculated.
Table 10: 2005/2007 Fee Comparison
2005 2007
Net Cost of TIP Projects 1 $ 19,950,681 $ 32,363,380
Remaining Trip Generation 8,719 6,538
Cost per Trip $ 2,288 $ 4,950
Traffic Facilities Im12act Fees 2
Commercial $ 8.77 $ 18.98
Office/R&D 2.11 4.57
Hotel 492.54 1,065.49
i Total project costs less fee revenue already collected.
2 Fee per square foot for Commercial and Office/R&D and per room for Hotel.
Sources: Table 3 and 6; Traffic Impact Fee Study Update, East of 101 AlBa, May 6,
2005.
MuniFinancial -85-14
S ollth Son Frondsco Final Report -East of 101 Area TroiJic Impact Fee Update
IMPLEMENTATION
This section identifies tasks that the City of South San Francisco should complete when
implementing the fee programs.
PRDGRAMMING REVENUES AND PROJECTS WITH THE CIP
The City should update its Transportation Imprm.-ement Plan (TIP) on an annual basis to show
the programming of fee revenues to the traffic facilities. Use of the TIP in this manner provides
ongoing and up to date documentation of a reasonable relationship between new de,Telopment
and the use of fee revenues.
The City may alter the scope of the planned projects listed in Table 6, or substitute new projects,
as long as the project list continues to represent improvements needed to accommodate new
development in the East of 101 Area. If the total cost of all planned projects net of non-fee
funding sources, if any, varies from the total cost used as a basis for the fee, the City should
revise the fee accordingly.
For the five-year planning period of the TIP, the City should allocate all existing fund balances
and projected fee revenue to traffic projects. The City can hold funds in a project account for
planned improvements longer than five years if necessary to collect sufficient funds to complete
the project.
I NFLATION ADJUSTMENT
The City should identify appropriate inflation indexes in the fee ordinance and adopt an
automatic inflation adjustment to the fee annually. If right-of-way acquisition is planned the City
should use separate indexes for land and construction costs. Calculating the land cost index may
require use of a property appraiser every several years . The construction cost index can be based
on the City's recent capital project experience or taken from any reputable source, such as the
Engineering NeJvs Record. However, care should be taken to assure that the index chosen
appropriately captures fluctuations in key road construction materials (e.g. steel). To calculate the
fee increases each index should be weighted by the share of total planned facility costs
represented by land or construction, as appropriate.
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
The City should comply with the annual and five-year reporting requirements of Government Code
66000 et seq. For facilities to be funded with a combination of impact fees and other revenues,
the City must identify the source and amount of the other revenues. The City must also identify
when the other revenues are anticipated to be available to fund the project.
MuniFinancial 15
-86-
J
QC
-..I
J
ApPENDIX A: TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN ITEMS
No. Location Improvement Items Impact from the Additional
Improvements
1 Bayshore Blvd & Committed ImproYements (PSR) • None. The restriping can be
Route 101 SB Hook • Build bottom hook ramps to provide 1 right and 1 left tum incorporated into the
Ramp(s) lanes for off-ramp; 1 through and 1 shared through-right lanes committed projects without
for NB, and 2 through and I left turn lanes for SB of Bay shore additional cost.
Blvd.
Additional Improvements
• Re-stripe the off-ramp right turn lane to be an optional left/
right turn lane.
2 Bayshore / Airport Committed Imptovement (Ba~ West CQve) None
Blvd & Sister • Change existing \VB 2nd left turn lane on Oyster Point Blvd to
Cities/Oyster Point a through lane.
Blvd • Restripe WB through/right lane to right turn lane.
Additional Improvements
• Widen EB Sister Cities Blvd to add 1 additional left turn lane.
• Existing signal modification
3 Dubuque Ave & Additional Improvements • Additional R/W required from
Oyster Point Blvd • Re-stripe and shift median ofWB Oyster Point Blvd to add 1 north side.
right tum lane making it a total of two 650' right-turn lanes
lane to NB 101 on-ramp
• Existing signal modification
4 Dubuque Ave. & None None
Route 101 Ramps
5 Gateway Blvd & CQmmitted ImprovWJ,ent (part of fb:over ptoject) None
Oyster Point Blvd • A new five-legged intersection as part of the SB 101 to EB
Oyster Point Blvd. flyover project
Additional Improvement
• None
.------
MuniFinancial
Additional
Improvement
Cost *
$0
$591,000
I
$1,461,240
$0
$0
------
16
I
QC
QC
I
South San Francisco
I No. Location
6 Veterans Rd &
Oyster Point Blvd
7 Bay West Driveway
& Oyster Point Blvd
8 Eccles Ave &
Oyster Point Blvd
9 Gull Dr & Oyster
Point Blvd
10 Marina Blvd &
Oyster Point Blvd
11 **
12 Airport Blvd &
Miller Ave/ Route
101 SB off-ramp
MuniFinancial
Improvement Items
CQmmitted Im12rQvem~nt (]l!¥ \X'~st Cove)
• Widen the SB Veterans Road to add 1 right turn lane
• Re-stripe existing SB Veterans Road optional through/left
tum lane into a optional right/ through/left lane.
Additional Improvement
• None
None
Additional Improvements
• Remove median and widen east side of Eccles Avenue to add
an additional left turn lane making it a total of two left-turn
lanes for the NB approach.
• Existing signal modification
Additional Improyement
• Widen NB Gull Drive to provide two left-turn lanes and one
right lane.
• Existing signal modification
None
N/A
Addition& Im12rQvement (REVISED)
• Widen SB 101 off-ramp and remove existing / construct new
retaining wall to provide a 2nd left turn lane.
• Re-stripe to change the existing 101 SB off-ramp optional
through/left lane into a through only lane.
• Remove 5 parking spaces (metered) to provide approx. 100'
right turn lane on southbound Airport Blvd.; re-striping and
signing as necessary.
• Existing signal modification.
East of 101 Area Traffic Impact Fee Update
Impact from the Additional Additional
Improvements Improvement
Cost *
None $0
None n/a
• Minor additional R/W $435,920
required from the east side of
Eccles Avenue.
• Removal of median I
landscaping and monument
would be required to avoid
transmission towers adjacent
to the east of Eccles Avenue.
• Additional R/W required from $685,400
the east side of Gull Drive.
• Slope excavation and grading
about 3' high along east side of
Gull Drive.
None n/a
N/A n/a
• Will require excavation and $2,048,100
removal of the retaining wall
adjacent to the off-ramp; with
new retaining wall and
concrete barrier at shoulder of
101. Additional R/W would
be required as the widening is
within the existing State R/W.
17
I
QC
I.e
I
I
South San Francisco
No. Location
13 Airport Blvd &
Grand Ave
14 Dubuque Ave &
East Grand Ave
MuniFinancial
Improvement Items
Additionallmpro:£:ement QlE:YISED) •
• Re-stripe existing SB Airport Blvd. right turn lane to a shared
through-right lane and SB shared through/left lane to a left
tum lane.
• Existing signal modification
Additional Improvements •
• Widen Grand Ave structure to improve the turning radius
from WB Grand Avenue to NB Dubuque Avenue to
accommodate trucks.
• Reconstruct / correct pavement cross slope and remove pork
chop island. •
•
•
•
----
East ojl01 Area Traffic Impact Fee Update
--------~-----------
Impact from the Additional Additional
Improvements Improvement
Cost *
Improvements should be able $154,000
to fit within existing roadway
without impacting existing on-
street parking.
Widening of Grand Avenue $3,719,400
will require widening the
existing structure which will I
span the Caltrain parking lot
access road.
A ne'-V pedestrian stairway
from the intersection to the
Caltrain station will be
required.
Shoring will be required when
the MSE wall (portion) is
removed for the abutment
cons truction.
The entry to the parking lot
will have to be temporarily
relocated during construction.
The new structure pier and
footing will require R/~l from
the existing Caltrain station.
18
South San Francisco East 0f'01 Area Traffic Impact Fee Update
-----
No. Location Improvement Items Impact from the Additional Additional
Improvements Improvement
Cost *
15 Gateway Blvd & CQmmitted ImllIovements Wa:)!: We§t CQv~ None $162,000
East Grand Ave • Re-stripe existing NB through/right shared lane to a right tum
lane.
• Re-stripe existing EB approach to provide a separate right
tum lane.
Additional Imllrovements
I • Re-stripe existing WB Grand Ave to add an additional left
turn lane making it a total of two left-tum lanes
• Existing signal modification
• Signal interconnection installation (to Harbor way)
16 Forbes Blvd/East Additional Improvements • Requires additional R/W on $2,490,600
Grand Ave & • Widen WB Grand Ave to add 1 additional through lane and 1 the east side of Harbor Way
Harbor Blvd. additional left turn lane. south of the intersection. This
• Widen SB Forbes Blvd to add 1 through lane and change the will affect the existing sidewalk
I
\l'; =
existing shared through-right lane to a right tum only lane. and landscaping.
• Widen NB Harbor Way to add 1 through lane, 1 right turn • Requires additional R/W in
I lane and change the existing shared through-right tum lane to the northeast and northwest
a through lane. comers of the intersection.
• New signal installation. • Require reconstruction of the
• Signal interconnection installation. existing railroad track crossing
in the northeast and southeast
corners of the intersection.
• Requires retaining wall on
northwest side of Forbes.
• Relocation of utility poles.
17 Grandview Dr & Additional Improvements • Removal of median on $704,800
Grand Ave • New signal installation Grandview Ave.
• Add 1 SB Grandview Ave. right tum lane; add 1 NB
Grandview Ave. thru lane (merging back to one lane after
110'); re-stripe EB East Grand Ave. to provide 1 left tum lane
and 1 shared left/ through lane.
• Signal interconnection installation
MuniFinancial 19
I
ID
10""
I
South San Francisco
No. Location
18 Airport Blvd & San
Mateo Ave
19 South Airport
Blvd/Mitchell
Avenue & Gateway
Blvd
20 South Airport Blvd
& Utah Ave
21 Forbes Blvd &
Eccles Ave
22 Forbes Blvd &
Allerton Ave
MuniFinancial
Improvement Items
Additional Improvements
• Widen WB Airport Blvd to add one additional left-tum lane
and restripe the existing through/left shared lane to a left-turn
lane to make it a total of three left-tum lanes .
• Modify NB Produce Ave to bring the SB 101 to EB Airport
Blvd traffic to stop at the intersection to eliminate the merging
and weaving conflicts on EB Airport Blvd.
• New signal installation
Additional Improvements
• Widen EB Airport Blvd to add one additional right-tum lane;
res tripe the existing through/left shared lane to a through lane
• Widen Mitchell Ave to add two additional through lanes and a
right-tum lane.
• Widen SB Gateway to add one right tum lane and change the
existing shared through-right lane to another right-turn lane.
• New signal installation
Additional Improvements
• Widen Airport Blvd to add one SB left tum lane; res tripe one
of the existing NB Airport Blvd through lanes to a shared
through/right lane.
• Existing signal modification
Additional Improvements
• Widen Forbes Blvd to extend EB left tum lane and add WB
left turn lane
• Widen Forbes Blvd and Eccles Ave to add one SB free right
tum lane.
• New signal installation.
N/A
East of 101 Area Traffic Impact Fee Update
---.-----
Impact from the Additional Additional
Improvements Improvement
Cost *
• Requires additional R/W in $1,066,800
the northeast comer.
• Elimination of landscaping in
the Northeast comer.
• Requires additional R/W in $4,041,000
the northwest and southeast
corner.
• Require widening and
additional R/W on the south
side of Airport Blvd. East of
the 101 structure.
• Requires additional R/W on
the north side of Mitchell
Avenue adjacent to the
transmission tower.
• Requires additional R/W on $440,800
So. 4'lliport Blvd.
• Requires additional R/W
along north side of Forbes $2,491,980
m\'d and west side of Eccles
Ave.
N/A
-----~-'-----~-~--
20
I
\C)
N
I
South San Francisco
No. Location
23 Forbes Blvd & Gull
Road
24 Route 101 NB
Hook Ramps &
South Airport Blvd.
25 Route 101 NB Off-
ramp and East
Grand Ave
26 Route 101 NB Off-
ramp and E. Grand
Ave/ E. Grand Ave
Overcrossing
27 East Grand Ave &
Littlefield Ave
MuniFinancial
Improvement Items
Additional Improvements
• Widen Gull Road to extend the left tum lane.
Additional ImpIOvements
• Widen Route 101 SB off-ramp to add one lane at the exit and
one right tum lane at the intersection.
• Relocate Route 101 NB Hook on-ramp toward north.
• Widen SB South Airport Blvd between Hook Ramps and
Utah Ave to add left turn lane.
• Re-configure NB South Airport Blvd between Hook Ramps
and Utah Ave to one thru lanes and one left tutn lanes.
• Existing signal modification
NA
Additional Improvements
• Re-build channelizing island and re-configure NB E. Grand
Ave to two right tum lanes and one left tum lane.
• Re-stripe southeast comer to avoid trapping E. Grand Aye
NB right tum traffic into EB right tum lane at intersection
with Gateway Blvd.
• Existing signal modification
Additional Improvements
• Widen and prohibit roadside parking on E . Grand Ave to add
one EB thru lane and one EB left tutn lane; re-stripe WB E.
Grand Ave to line-up the widened lanes.
• Widen Littlefield Ave to add one NB right turn lanc.
• Existing signal modification
• Signal interconnection installation
East of 101 Area T rqffic Impact Fee Update
Impact from the Additional Additional
Improvements Improvement
Cost *
• Requires additional R/W $210,400
along dle west side of Gull
Road.
• Requires additional R/W on $2,841,000
both sides of So. Airport Blvd.
N/A
None $ 305,000
• Requires additional R/\X' along $ 1,183,200
eastside of Litdefield Ave.
• Remove median of E. Grand
Ave.
• Requires relocation of utility
poles .
• Coordination ~ith UPRR will
be required.
21
I
I,C
~
I
South San Francisco
No. Location
28 East G.rand Ave &
Allerton Ave
29 Utah Ave & Harbor
Way
30 South Airport Blvd
& 1-380 EB Off-
ramp
31 South Airport Blvd
& 1-380 WB On-
ramp
32 South Airport Blvd
N. Access Road
33 Harbor Way
MuniFinancial
Improvement Items
Additional Improvements
• Re-stripe EB E. Grand .\ve to add one thtu lane
• New signal installation
• Install dedicated left tum lane from EB Grand Ave to Allerton
Ave
• Signal iriterconnection installation
Additional Improvements
• Widen and prohibit roadside parking on Harbor Way to add a
SB right turn lane and a NB thru lane.
• Re-stripe and prohibit roadside parking on Utah Ave to add
one EB left turn, change EB inside thru lane as shared thru-
left tum lane, and add one ~'B left turn lane
• New signal installation
N/A
N/A
N/A
Additional Improvements
• Widen Harbor Way to a 4-lane roadway with parking
prohibition between Grand Aye and Mitchell Ave.
• New signal installation
-----------------
East of 101 Area T rcifftc Impact Fee Update
Impact from the Additional Additional
Improvements Improvement
Cost *
None $ 643,000
None $1,162,000
N/A
N/A
N/A
• Requires realignment (shifting) $5,281,787
of roadway to avoid impacting
buildings. Assumes both sides
of roadway to be widened,
with additional R/W required
on both sides. IU{ crossing
modifications required.
Impacted landscaping may not
be able to be replaced because
of impacts to parking lots on
_ _ a~jaceEtpro~erties. _ ---~ --
22
I
\C
"" I
I
I
South San Francisco
No. Location
34 Mitchell Avenue
35 Oyster Point
Boulevard / Route
101 NB On-ramp
36 East Grand Ave /
Harbor Master Road
/ Forbes Blvd
37 Oyster Point Blvd /
Dubuque Ave
MuniFinancial
Improvement Items
Additional Improvements
• Widen Mitchell_\venue to a 4 -lane roadway with parking
prohibition between Gateway Blvd and Harbor Way.
Additional Improvements
• Add an additional lane on NB Dubuque Ave between the
Route 101 ramps intersection and Oyster Point Blvd .
Reconfigure the NB approach to Oyster Point Blvd to provide
two exclusive left turn lanes, an exclusive through lane and
two exclusive right turn lanes. As part of this widening,
eliminate the left turn lane on the SB Dubuque approach to
the Route 101 ramps intersection (which ser~;es the mini
warehouse facilities) and allow SB left turns from the SB
through lane. This will allow provision of five full NB travel
lanes on Dubuque Ave between the NB off-ramp intersection
and Oyster Point Blvd.
• Adjust signal timing,
• Create an additional through lane on ""'B Oyster Pont Blvd
~roach from Veterans to NB Route 101 on ramp.
Additional Improvements
• Widen BB approach to this intersection to allow the existing
shared through/right turn lane to be reconfigured into
separate through and right turn lanes and SB right turn
overlap.
Additional Improvements
• Re-stripe the Route 101 off-ramp approach to Dubuque Ave
from an existing exclusive left, shared through/left turn and
exclusive right turn lane to provide exclusive left turn lanes
and a shared through/right turn lane.
East of 1 0 1 Area Traific Impact Fee Update
Impact from the Additional Additional
Improvements Improvement
Cost *
• Requires additional R/W $2,362,600
(approx. 8') along both sides of
roadway that will affect the
existing sidewalk and
landscaping.
• Additional R/\x' required $2,520,840
from Caltrans and railroad (to
be determined during
preliminary design).
None. $188,000
None. $39,500
23
I
I.C
!.II
I
South San Francisco
No. Location
38 Route 101 NB Off-
ramp to East Grand
Ave/Executive Dr
39 Utah Avenue OC
40 East of 101 Area
MuniFinancial
Improvement Items
Additional Improvements
• Widen off-ramp to provide additional lane:
• Re-stripe Route 101 through lane to allow optional exit to East
Grand Ave / Executive Dr.
• Replace overhead sign on Route 101 to provide for 2 lane exit
from freeway.
Prepare Project Study Report
Prepare a new East of 101 Area Traffic Study
East of 101 Area Trqffic Impact Fee trpdate
Impact from the Additional Additional
Improvements Improvement
Cost *
• R/W required from railroad to $1,292,000
widen road near intersection.
:
N/A $250,000
N/A $500,000
• TOTAL $39,272,367
24
ATTACHMENT F
RESOLUTION 84-2007-ADOPTINGEAST OF 101 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE UPDATE
-96-
RESOLUTION NO. 84-2007
CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN
FRANCISCO 2007 EAST OF 101 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
STUDY UPDATE AND REVISING THE CITY'S TRAFFIC
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FOR FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE EAST OF 101 AREA
RECITALS
WHEREAS, on October 13 t 1999t the City Council of the City of South San
Francisco adopted the South San Francisco General Plan ("General Plan"); and
WHEREAS, the General Plan, as adopted, applies to the East of 101 Area, which
is a Planning Area that includes the land within the jurisdictional limits of the City; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan area is included on the Land Use Map contained in
the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City's adopted General Plan includes policies requiring that new
development within the East of 101 Area should be required to pay its fair share toward
upgrades to existing transportation facilities and construction of new transportation
facilities as those upgrades and facilities are necessitated by new development in the East
of 101 Area (see Policies 4.2-G-7, 4.2-1-7 and 4.2-1-6); that the potential impacts of new
growth will be mitigated through development fees and other exactions (see Policies 4.2-
G-land 4.2-1-8); that development of all urban uses shall be coordinated with provision
of essential community services or facilities, including but not limited to transportation
improvements (see Policies 4.2-G-6 and 4.2-1-4); that the location, timing and extent of
growth shall be guided through capital improvements programming and financing,
including through the use of impact fees and developer contributions, to prevent
increased congestion and level of service deficiencies (see Policy 4.2-1-1); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (pub.
Resources Code, §§ 21000, et seq. ["CEQA'j), on October 13, 1999, the City Council of
the South San Francisco approved and certified an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR'')
analyzing the environmental impacts of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the EIR identified certain significant and potentially significant
environmental impacts which could be mitigated to a level of less than significance; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA requirements, the City adopted mitigation
findings and a specific mitigation monitoring and reporting program to track compliance
with the mitigation measures; and
-97 -
WHEREAS, the transportation improvements identified in the General Plan and
the traffic impact fee study update, attached to this Resolution as Exhi bit A, will undergo
separate environmental review once the improvements have been sufficiently engineered
to identify their scope and potential impacts; and
WHEREAS, in 2001, 2005, and 2007, the City of South San Francisco retained
MuniFinancial to assist the City in reviewing the needs of residents, businesses, and
employees through build-out under the adopted General Plan, and in preparing a traffic
impact fee study to determine the amount of fees necessary to generate funds to pay for
the transportation improvements necessitated through build-out under the adopted
General Plan; and
WHEREAS, on September 26,2001, the City Council adopted the Traffic Impact
Fee Study for the East of 101 Area, prepared by MuniFinancial; and
WHEREAS, on August 24, 2005 the City Council adopted the 2005 Traffic
Impact Fee Study Update for the East of 101 Area, prepared by MuniFinancial; and
WHEREAS, MuniFinancial has now prepared and presented to the City Council a
second Traffic Impact Fee Study Update for the East of 101 Area ('~2007 Traffic Fee
Study Update"), which is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, and incorporated
herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the 2007 Traffic Fee Study Update identifies additional
transportation improvements that are necessary to accommodate future development
within the East of 101 Area, and estimates the cost of all improvements, including
previously identified improvements; and
WHEREAS, cost estimates for each transportation improvement are based on
calculations perfonned by TY Lin, as described in Exhibit B, incorporated herein by
reference; and
WHEREAS, TY Lin estimates that $6,708,780 of the total cost of the
transportation improvements is attributable to land acquisition expenses; and
WHEREAS, the 2007 Traffic Fee Study Update calculates the fee necessary to
fully fund all identified traffic improvements, per square foot of each specific type of
land use; and
WHEREAS, the 2007 Traffic Fee Study Update demonstrates the appropriateness
of the amount of the traffic impact fee proposed for adoption, based on current estimates
of the cost of transportation improvements needed to accommodate new development;
and
-98-
WHEREAS, the specific transportation improvements needed have been
identified based on several factors, including (1) anticipated future development in the
East of 101 Area; (2) the number of new vehicle trips generated by anticipated future
development in the East of 101 Area; and (3) means of minimizing traffic congestion and
maintaining acceptable levels of service throughout the East of 101 Area; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code § 66016(a), at least 14 days
prior to the public hearing at which this Resolution was adopted, notice of the time and
place of the hearing was mailed to eligible interested parties who filed written requests
with the City for mailed notice of meetings on new or increased fees or service charges;
and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code § 66016(a), the 2007 Traffic
Fee Study Update, containing the data upon which the traffic impact fee is based
(attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A), was available for public review and comment
for ten days prior to the public hearing at which this Resolution was adopted; and
WHEREAS, ten days advance notice of the public hearing at which this
Resolution was adopted was given by publication in accordance with Government Code
§ 6062(a).
FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows:
A. The 2007 Traffic Fee Study Update complies with California Government
Code §§ 66000, et seq., by establishing the basis for imposition of the fee on new
development in the East of 101 Area. The purpose of the traffic impact fee set forth in
this Resolution is to finance transportation improvements necessary to reduce the impacts
caused by future development in the East of 101 Area, as further identified and explained
in Exhibit A. Additionally, the 20.07 Traffic Fee Study Update:
1. identifies the purpose of the fee;
2. identifies the use to which the fee will be put;
3. demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type
of development project upon which the fee will be imposed;
4. demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the need for the public
facilities and the type of development project upon which the fee will be
imposed;
5. demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and
the cost of the public facilities or portions of facilities attributable to the .
development upon which the fee will be imposed.
B. The traffic impact fee collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used to
finance the transportation improvements described in Exhibit A, subject to the City'S
authority to make reasonable modifications or replacements to the improvements, as
further described in Section 13 of this Resolution.
-99-
C. Based on the entirety of the Record, which includes without limitation, the
2007 Traffic Fee Study Update (contained in Exhibit A), cost estimates and breakdowns
from TY Lin (as described in Exhibit B), all reports, including staff reports received for
the public hearing on this matter, the testimony received at this noticed public hearing,
the agenda statements, the General Plan, and all correspondence received (colIectively,
"Record"), the City Council approves and adopts Exhibit A and incorporates such report
herein. The City Council further finds that future development in the City will generate
the need for the transportation improvements described in Exhibit A, and that such
improvements are consistent with the General Plan.
D. Adoption of the traffic impact fee set forth in this Resolution, as it relates
to development within the East of 101 Area, is intended to obtain funds for transportation
facility improvements necessary to reduce congestion and improve . levels · of service
within the East of 101 Area. While the fee may contribute sufficient funds for the
improvements, it will not, by and of itself, ensure the improvements are constructed.
Moreover, any improvements intended to be funded by the fee will be fully analyzed
under CEQA when the improvements are sufficiently engineered and the precise location
and scope of the improvements identified. As such, the fee, as it relates to development
within the City, is not a "project" within the meaning of CEQA because it is not a
necessary causal link in the provision of the improvements identified in the 2007 Traffic
Fee Study Update. (Pub. Resources Code §21080(b)(8)(D».
E. In adopting the traffic impact fee set forth in this Resolution, the City
Council is exercIsmg its powers under Article XI, Section 7 of the California
Constitution.
F. The Record establishes:
I. That there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the
traffic impact fee set forth in this Resolution (payment for certain listed transportation
improvements) and the type of development projects on which such fee will be imposed,
specifically, commercial, office/research and development, and hotel, because such new
development in the East of 101 Area generates new vehicle trips, increasing congestion
and decreasing levels of service, thereby contributing to the need for the transportation
improvements listed in Exhibit A; and
2. That there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the·
transportation improvements listed in Exhibit A and the type of development projects on
which the traffic impact fee set forth in this Resolution is imposed because new
development in the East of 101 Area-office/research and development, commercial and
hotel-will increase the number of people who work in the East of 101 Area, generate
more vehicle trips in the Area,· and contribute to the need for the transportation
improvements listed in Exhibit A; and
3. That there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the
traffic impact fee set forth in this Resolution and the cost of the transportation
improvements listed in Exhibit A or that portion of such improvements attributable to the
development on which such fee is imposed because such fee is calculated based on the
-100-
number of residents or employees generated by specific types of land uses, the total cost
of construction of such facilities, and the percentage by which development within the
City contributes to the need for such facilities; and
4. That the cost estimates set forth in Exhibit A are reasonable
estimates for the cost of the transportation improvements listed therein, and the fees
expected to be generated by future development will not exceed the projected cost of
such improvements; and .
5. That the method of allocating of the fee set forth in this Resolution
to a particular development bears a fair relationship and is roughly proportional to each
development's burden on and benefits from the improvements to be funded by such fee,
because such fee is calculated based on the number of trips each particular development
will generate.
ADOPTION OF FEE
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does
resolve as follows:
1. The 2007 Traffic Impact Fee Study Update, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit
A, is hereby adopted.
2. Definitions.
(a) "Applicant" shall mean any person or legal entity that applies for a permit or other
entitlement for a new development project.
(b) "Child Care Facility" shall mean any child care facility, as that term is dermed by
section 1596.750 of the California Health and Safety Code, including but not
limited to facilities providing non-medical care to children under eighteen years
of age in need of personal services, supervision, or assistance essential for
sustaining the activities of daily living or for the protection and supervision of an
individual on less than a 24-hour basis. Such facilities shall include day care
centers, employer-sponsored child care centers, and family day care homes.
( c) "City" shall mean the City of South San Francisco.
(d) "Commercial" shall mean any deVelopment constructed or to be constructed on
land having a General Plan land use designation or zoning designation for
facilities for the purchase or sale of commodities or services and/or the sales,
servicing, installation, or repair of such commodities or services and other space '
uses incidental to these activities. Commercial land uses include, but are not
limited to: apparel and clothing stores; auto dealers and malls, auto accessories
stores; banks and savings and loans; beauty salons; book stores, discount stores
and centers; dry cleaners; drug stores; eating and drinking establishments;
furniture stores and outlets; general merchandise stores; hardware stores; home
furnishings and improvement centers; hotels and motels; laundromats; liquor
-101-
stores; restaurants; service stations; shopping centers; supermarkets; and theaters.
"Commercial" includes the Commercial land use designation in the General Plan.
(e) "Commercial, OfficelResearch & Development and Hotel Development Project"
shall mean the construction of new Floor Area on a lot in the Community
Commercial, Business Commercial, Coastal Commercial, Mixed Industrial, and
Business and Technology Park land use classifications, identified in th e General
Plan, and located in the East of 101 Area.
(f) "Commercial, Employee-Serving Amenities" shall mean ancillary commercial
establishments and services, and other uses incidental to business park or campus
activities, as identified in the South San Francisco General Plan Policy 3.5-1-8.
Uses may include small restaurants and cafes, and services such as dry cleaners
that are intended to support and to meet the needs of employees from a larger
office or research and development park or technology campus in the East of 101
Area.
(g) "Development" shall mean the construction, alteration, or addition, other than by
the City, of any building or structure within the area within the City of South San
Francisco.
(h) "Development Project" means any Commercial, OfficelResearch and
Development and Hotel Development Project.
(i) "East of 101 Area Traffic Impact Fee" "Traffic Impact Fee" and "Fee" shall all
mean the charge or charges imposed on development to fund the transportation
improvements to ensure that · such development . pays its fair share of
improvements generated by such development pursuant to this Resolution and
applicable law.
(j) "Floor Area" shall mean the area of all floors and levels as defined in the City of
South San Francisco Building Code.
(k) "Hotel" shall mean a commercial facility containing guestrooms for the temporary
use of transients where access to individual units is predominantly by means of
common interior or exterior hallways.
(l) "Industrial" shall mean any development constructed or to be constructed on land
having a General Plan land use or zoning designation for · the manufacture,
production, assembly, or processing of consumer goods and/or other space uses
incidental to these activities. Industrial land uses include but are not limited to:
assembly; concrete and asphalt batching plants; contractors' storage yards;
fabrication; lumber yards; manufacturing; outdoor stockyards and service yards;
printing; processing; warehouse and distribution; and wholesale and heavy
commercial uses. "Industrial" includes the following General Plan land use
designations: light industry and heavy industry.
(m) "Land Use Category" shall mean any of the specific land uses that have been
-102-
listed in this Resolution and are used to provide the basis for future traffic
projections.
(n) "New Development Project" shall mean any construction, addition, alteration or
other change of use of a building orland that requires the City to issue a grading,
building, plumbing, mechanical, or electrical permit, or any other form of
entitlement.
(0) "Office/Research and Development" and "Office/R&D" shall both mean any
development constructed or to be constructed on land having a General Plan land
use or zoning designation for general business offices, medical or professional
offices, administrative or headquarters offices, offices for large wholesaling· or
manufacturing operations, research and/or development, research and
development campus development with ancillary retail and services, and other
space uses incidental to these activities. Office land uses include, but are not
limited to: administrative headquarters; business parks; finance offices; insurance
offices; legal offices; medical and health services offices and office bUildings;
professional and administrative offices; professional associations; real estate
offices; research and/or development offices and travel agencies.
(P) "Public Works Director" shall mean the Director ofPubIic Works or the Director's
designee.
(q) "Transportation Improvements" shall includ e those improvements that are
described in the 2007 Traffic Fee Study Updated, attached as Exhibit A to this
Resolution.
(r) "Vehicle Trips" shall mean the number of average, daily trips generated by uses
of land, as specified in the "South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and
Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report," April 2001 .
3. Revised and Adjusted Traffic Impact Fee Imposed.
Pursuant the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code §§ 66000, et seq.) the
updated Traffic Impact Fee identified in this Resolution, and in the documentation
provided in Exhibit A, shall be imposed, paid, and otherwise apply as prescribed in this
Resolution for each non-residential development (including commercial, hotel, and
office/research and development).
4. Time for Fee Payment.
The Traffic Impact Fee shall be charged and paid for each non-residential
development, including commercial, hotel, and office/research and development, upon
issuance of the building permit, or if no building permit is required, upon approval of a
use pennit for the development project, or, if no use permit or amendment thereto is
required, at the earliest of any other pennit required for the project.
-103-
5. Amount of Fee.
As calculated in the 2007 Traffic Fee Study Update, attached hereto as Exhibit A,
the Traffic Impact Fee to be imposed and paid pursuant to this Resolution shall be in the
amount identified in the following table, based on the land use classification for the
particular project for which the Traffic Impact Fee is being imposed:
Land Use Cost PM Cost per Traffic Admin Total Fee
per Trip 1000 SF or Fee per Fee 2 per SF or
Trip Rate l hotel room SF or hotel
hotel room ·
room
Commercial $4,950 3.74 $18,513.00 $18.51 $0.46 $18.97
OfficelR&D"' $4,950 0.90 $4.455.00 $4.46 $0.11 $4.57
Hotel $4,950 0.21 $1,039.50 $1,039.50 $25.99 $1,065.49
ITrips per 1,000 building square feet (for commercial and office/R&D) or per room (for hotels).
2Based on an estimate of2.5 percent of traffic fee.
3Based on a weighted average of PM trip rate and R&D land uses of 0.96 and 0.60, respectively
6. Exemptions and Reductions of Fee.
Certain development in the East of 101 Area may be constructed to serve the
existing and new commercial and office/R&D uses in the Area. Such development,
including smal] restaurants, dry cleaners, and Child Care Facilities, will not generate new
vehicle trips, or will only generate very few new vehicle trips, because these development
will be used exclusively, or nearly exclusively, by employees working in the East of 10 1
Area. Therefore, if in the judgment of the City's Chief Planner, in consultation with the
City Engineer, the development of any of the land uses identified in this section of the
Resolution will not generate any new vehicle trips, but rather only contribute to "linked-
in" trips, the Chief Planner may exempt the particular development from paying the Fee.
Alternatively, ifin the judgment of the City'S Chief Planner, in consultation with the City
Engineer, the development of any of the land uses identified in this section of the
Resolution will only generate minimal new vehicle trips, the Chief Planner may reduce
the Fee to be paid by the particular development, proportional to the new vehicle trips
generated by the development. The types of developments to which such an exemption or
reduction may be applied are limited to the following:
a. Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing non-residential
structure that has been destroyed or demolished; provided that, the
building permit for reconstruction is obtained within one year after the
building was destroyed or demolished, unless the replacement or
reconstruction increase the square footage of the structure by 50
percent or more.
b. Any "Child Care Facility" as that tenn is defined in this Resolution.
-104-
c. Any "Commercial, Employee-Serving Amenities" as that tenn IS
defined in this Resolution.
7. Credit for Existing Uses.
Applicants whose projects involve the rehabilitation, remodeling or replacement
of existing buildings with warehouse, industrial or light industrial uses shaH be entitled to
fee credits that discount the overall Fee by the number of trips already· generated by
existing uses. Thus, credit shall be awarded to existing uses based on a net increase in trip
generation. The amount of any such discount shall be determined by the City Engineer in
his or her sole discretion.
8. Use of Fee Revenue.
The revenues raised by payment of the Fee shall be placed in a separate, interest
bearing account to permit accounting for such revenues and the interest that they
generate. Such revenues and interest shall be used only for the facilities and the pwposes
for which the Fee was collected, which are the following:
a. To pay for acquisition of the right-of-way;
b. To pay for design, engineering, constructi0I1, maintenance of and property
acquisition for, and reasonable costs of outside consultant studies related to, the
Transportation Improvements;
c. To reimburse the City for the Transportation Improvements constructed by
the City with funds from other sources including funds from other public entities, unless
such funds were obtained from grants or gifts intended by the grantor to be used for the
Transportation Improvements.
d. To reimburse developers that have designed and constructed any of the
Transportation Improvements with prior City approval and have entered into an
agreement, as provided in Section 14, below; and
e. To pay for and/or reimburse costs of program development and ongoing
administration of the Fee program, including, but not limited to, the cost of studies, legal
costs, and other costs of updating the Fee.
9. Standards.
The standards upon which the need for the Transportation Improvements are
based are the standards of the City, including the standards contained in the General Plan
and those City standards reflected in this Resolution, including the 2007 Traffic Fee
Study Update.
-105-
10. Periodic Review.
a. During each fiscal year, the Public Works Director shall prepare a report
for the City Council, pursuant to Government Code § 66006, identifying the balance of
Fee revenues in the Fee account.
b. Pursuant to Government Code § 66002, the City Council shall also review,
as part of any adopted City Capital Improvement Plan each year, the approximate
location, size, time of availability and estimates of cost for all Transportation
Improvements to be financed with the Fee. The estimated costs shall be adjusted in
accordance with appropriate indices of inflation. The City Council shall make findings
identifying the purpose to which the existing Fee revenue balances are to be put and
demonstrating a reasonable relationship between the Fee and the purpose for which it is
charged.
II. Subsequent Analysis and Revision of the Fee.
The Fee set forth herein is adopted and implemented by the City Council in
reliance on the Record identified above. The City may continue to conduct further study
and analysis to determine whether the Fee should be revised. When additional
information is available, the City Council may review the Fee to detennine that the Fee
amounts are reasonably related to the impact of Development within the City. In addition
to the inflation adjustments pursuant to Section 12, below, the City Council may revise
the Fee to incorporate the findings and conclusions of further studies and any standards in
the General Plan, as from time to time amended by the City.
12. Fee Adjustments.
Beginning July 1, 2008 and each July thereafter, the Fee shall be automatically
adjusted to account for inflation. The City Manager or his designee shall be responsible
for performing the calculations described in this Section. The adjustments described in
this Section shall be applied administratively. The Fee shall be adjusted as follows:
a. Land Adjustment. The adjustment for the land acquisition costs shall be
equal to the percentage change in land cost per acre within the City, based on a
comparison of a current appraisal (prepared for the City for the purpose of adjusting the
Fee) and the immediately preceding appraisal (prepared for the City for the purpose of
adjusting the Fee and using the same methodology). This calculation shall be known as
the "Land Adjustment."
(1) For the purposes of calculating the Land Adjustment, the City
should conduct annual appraisals; however, in the event that the City has not conducted
appraisals on an annual basis, in any year in which the Land Adjustment is applied to the
Fee, the Land Adjustment shall be based on the percentage change between a current
appraisal (prepared for the City for the purpose of adjusting the Fee) and the last
available appraisal (prepared for the City for the purpose of adjusting the Fee and using
the same methodology).
-106-
(2) If in any year, for any reason, the City Manager or his designee
does not calculate the Land Adjustment, the Fee shall still be automatically adjusted
using only the Construction Adjustment.
b. Construction Ad.iustment. The adjustment for construction costs shall be
equal to the percentage change in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index
(20-city average) between the prior April, and the April of the preceding year. This
calculation shall be known as the "Construction Adjustment."
c. Fee Adjustment. Once calculated, the Construction Adjustment and the
Land Adjustment shall be applied to the respective portions of the total cost of the
Transportation Improvements, to detennine a new, adjusted total cost. (The portions of
the 2007 total cost attributable to each factor are described in Exhibit B: $6,708,780 of
the total fee is attributable to land acquisition costs; the remainder of the total fee is
attributable to construction costs). This adjusted total cost shall be used to calculate the
Cost Per Trip (Table 7 of the 2007 Traffic Fee Study Update) and the Total Fee (Table 9
of the 2007 Traffic Fee Study Update) in the same manner as in the 2007 Traffic Fee
Study Update.
13. Replacement or Modification of Transportation Improvements.
At the discretion of the City Engineer, specific Transportation Improvements may
be reasonably modified or replaced with comparable improvements, provided that the
modifications or replacements achieve the same or greater mitigation of traffic impacts,
and maintain the reasonable relationship requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act, as
identified in Government Code § 66001.
14. Credits and Reimbursement for Developer Constructed Facilities.
The City and a developer may enter into an improvement agreement to allow the
developer to construct certain of the Transportation Improvements. The City shall retain
total discretion as to whether to execute such an agreement. Such agreement shall provide
for security for the developer's commitment to construct the Transportation
Improvements and shall refer to this Resolution for credit and reimbursement. If the City
enters into such an agreement with a developer prior to construction of one or more of the
Transportation Improvements, the City shall provide the developer a credit in accordance
with the following:
a. Credit Amount. The credit shall be in the amount of the lowest bid
received for construction of the facility, as approved by the Director of Public Works.
However, in no event shall a credit pursuant to this provision exceed the current cost of
the Transportation Improvement. For the purposes of this section, such current
Transportation Improvement cost shall be the amount listed in the 2007 Traffic Fee Study
Update for that particular Transportation Improvement, as subsequently adjusted pursuant
to Sections 11 and 12 of this resolution prior to issuance of the building permit for that
Transportation Improvement. Once issued, credit pursuant to this section shall not be
adjusted for inflation or any other factor. Credit provided pursuant to this section is not
transferable.
-107-
b. Application of Credit. Developers may apply credit pursuant to this
section against the Fee applicable to a particular project, until the credit is exhausted or
an excess credit results. The total credit shall be divided by the number of units to
detennine the amount of credit that can be applied against the Fee for each unit, and if the
credit per unit is less than the Fee per unit, the deVeloper shall pay the difference for each
unit.
c. Reimbursement for Excess Credit. Reimburseinerit for excess credit shall
only be from remaining unspent Fee revenues. Once all the Facilities have been
constructed or .acquired, and to the extent Fee revenues are sufficient to cover all claims
for reimbursement of Fee revenues, including reimbursement for excess credit,
developers with excess credit shall be entitled to reimbursement, subject to such
developers certifying in writing to the City that the cost of constructing the facility that
resulted in an excess credit was not passed on to tenants of the development, and
indemnifying the City from land-owner claims for reimbursement under Government
Code § 66000 et seq., and § 66001 in particular. If remaining Fee revenues after all of the
Transportation Improvements have been constructed or acquired are insufficient to cover
all claims for reimbursement of Fee revenues, such claims, including claims for
reimbursement of excess credit, shall be reimbursed on a pro rata basis in accordance
with applicable law.
15. Effective Date.
This resolution shall become effective immediately. In accordance with
Government Code § 66017, the Fee shall be effective 60 days from the effective date of
this Resolution.
16. Severability.
Each component of the Fee and all portions of this Resolution are severable.
Should any individual component of the Fee or any portion of this Resolution be
adjudged to be invalid and unenforceable by a body of competent jurisdiction, then the
remaining Fee components and/or resolution portions shall be and continue in full force
and effect, except as to those Fee components and/or resolution portions that have been
adjudged invalid. The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby declares
that it would have adopted this resolution and each section, subsection, clause, sentence,
phrase and other portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more section,
subsection, clause sentence, phrase or other portion may be held invalid or
unconstitutional.
* * * *
-108-
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by
the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 25th day
of July, 2007 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Mark N. Addiego, Joseph A. Femekes and Kary} Matsumoto,
Vice Mayor Pedro Gonza]ez and Mayor Richard A. Garbarino
NOES:N ~~o~ne~ ____________________________________________ __
ABSTAUN: N~o~ne~ ____________________________________________ __
ABSENT: ~N~o=ne~ ____________________________________________ __
AITEST: _-=~~L-' --=/J~'.bLL,~'~~ __ =-____
InterimC~
-109-
ATTACHMENT G
EAST OF 101 MAP
-110-
ATTACHMENT H
PROJECT PLANS, DATED MAY 14,2014
-112-