HomeMy WebLinkAbout249 E Grand Draft Focused EIR
DRAFT
FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
State Clearinghouse Number: 2005042121
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
249 EAST GRANO AVENUE PROJECT
PREPARED BY LAMPHIER - GREGORY
OCTOBER 2005
CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION .......... ............ ......... ..................... ............... ..................... ..................... ..... 1-1
1.1 Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report ............................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 EIR Review Process... ........ ................. ................ ......... ..... ....... ......... ............ ............ ....... .................. ... ........ ........ ...... ...... ... 1-1
1.3 Content and Organization of the EIR..............................................................................................................................1-2
2. EXECUTIVE SUM1\1ARY ...... ............. ............. ......... ................ ................... ................ ............ 2-1
2.1 Proposed Project .... ......... .... ......................... ....... ............ ........... .............................. ......... .., ....... .............. ...... ........... .......... 2-1
2.2 Impacts and 11itigation Measures...... ...... ..... ........ ......... .... ..................... ......... .... ................... ................ ........ ................... 2-1
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION...... '" .......... ... ....... ..... ........ ........................... ... ........... .... ...... .......... 3-1
3.1 Project Location and Site Conditions ............................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Project Description ..... .......... ........ ...................... ...... ..... ........... .......... .... ... .... ........... ......... ............ .......... ........ ........ ............ 3-1
3.3 Required Approvals ........ .... ................ ....... .............. ............ .......... .......... ............ ...................... .... ......... ...... ........ ............ .... 3-3
4. AESTHETICS......... ................ ............ ........... ............ .............. ....... ..... .......... ........................ 4-1
4.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................. ..................................... ........... ......... 4-1
4.2 Setting.... ...... ....... ..... ..... .................... ................... .............. ........... ....... ........... .......... .... ........ ........... ........... ....... .... ....... ....... '" 4-1
4.3 Impact Analysis .......... '" ...... ........ .............. .............. ......... ....... .......... ...... ...... .... ................. .... ............ '" .............. ....... .., ... ..... 4-8
5. AIR QUALITY........ ......... ................. ....... ...... ...... ............. ...... .......... ............ ........ ......... ........ 5-1
5.1 Introduction....... .............. ......... ............. ........ ................... ........... ........ .................. ............ ........ ......... ....5-1
5.2 Regulatory Setting.. .................. .... ......... .......... ........... ..... ............ ............... ...... ..... ...... .......... ............ ............. ..... .................. 5-1
5.3 Air Quality Data.......... ............ ............... ..... ....... .... .............. ............. ...... .......... .................... ...... ........ ....... ........ ................... 5-2
5.4 Impact Analysis. ..... ..................................... ......... ............ ............. ................................ ............. ........ ...... ......... ................ .... 5-3
6. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. ....... ........... ...... .............. ....... ..... ...... ....... ......... ........... .......... ...... 6-1
6.1 Setting.............. ........... ..... .... ..................... .... .............. .... .... ...... ....... ......... .......... ......... ................. ........ ...... ... ... ....... ................ 6-1
6.2 Impact Analysis.... ............ ..... ......... ....... ........... ......... ....... ........ .............. ....... ......... ................. .............. ............... ..... ............ 6-1
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS .......................................................................................................... 7-1
7.1 Introduction.................. ....................... .... ................. .......... ............... ................... ..... ............................. ....... ......... ............... 7-1
7.2 Setting................... ................. ........ ........ ............ .......... ............ ..... .................. ..... ...................... ......... ................ ......... ........... 7-1
7.3 Impact Analysis... ........ ....... ... ........................... ....... ........... ... ............... '" ................... ........ .......... .......... ........ ............... .... .... 7-6
8. HAzARDOUS MATERIALS .............. .......................... ................. .............. ....... .............. ........ 8-1
8.1 Introduction............ .... ............ ... ........................ ..... ....... ..... .................... ..... ..... .......... ............. ...... .............. .................. ........ 8-1
8.2 Setting. .... ......... ..... ................. ........... .... ............. .......... ................ ............. ...... ................... ........ .......... ...... ......... .......... .......... 8-1
8.3 Regulatory Setting.............. ..... ... ................. .......... .......... ......................... ........ ............. ................. ............. .... .............. ........ 8-6
8.4 Impact Analysis ...... ...... ....... ...................... ........ ...... ..... ..... ........... ............ .................. ................ '" ........ ...... ...... ........ ......... ... 8-7
9. HYDROLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 9-1
9.1 Introduction............ ... ....... ........ .......... ..... ................. ........... .... ..... ..... ...................... .................. ...... ............. ........ ........... ...... 9-1
9.2 Setting. ........... .... ...... ............. ................... ......... .............. ........... .............. ............. ................. ............ ......... .... .............. .......... 9-1
9.3 Regulatory Setting................ ......... ....... ......... ........... .... .... ........................ ..... ............ ................. ........................ ... ..... ........ ... 9-3
9.4 Impact Analysis ................... ......................... ................. ......... ............. .............. ........................ .................... ...... ........... ....... 9-6
10. LAND USE ...................... .......... ..................... ............... ..................... ....................... ........ .10-1
10.1 Introduction. ............ .................... ........................... ..................... ......................... ........................... ........... .............. ........ 10-1
10.2 Impact Analysis ........ ........................ .... ................ ............... ........ ........ ................. ........ .......... ....... ................. .... ............... 10-2
11. NOISE.. .................. ............ ........... ................ ...... ................. ......... ................... ............ .....11-1
11.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 11-1
11.2 Setting................... ................ ....................... ............. ......... ........... ................... ........... ............... .................. ................ ....... 11-4
11.3 Impact Analysis............ .............. ........... .......... ......... ......... ......... ....... ..... ......... ....... ..................... ...... ...... .................. ........ 11-5
12. PUBLIC SERVICES ........... ................ ..................... ............ ................ ..................... ........ ....12-1
12.1 Setting... ................................... ....... ... ......................... ................... ........ ....... ................................ ..... ....................... .......... 12-1
12.2 Impact Analysis............................... ............. ................... ............. ...... ....... .......... .... ............. ......................... ................ .... 12-2
13. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION... ....... ........ ............. ........ ...................... ............ ....13-1
13.1 Introduction. .............. ........................... ................... ........ ...... .................. ......... ...... ......... ..................... ....... ............ ......... 13-1
13.2 Setting. ............................... ....... ........................... ..... ........ ......... ........... .......... ............. ....... ................... ....... ....... .... ........... 13-1
13.3 Impact Analysis........................... ..... .................. ............... ...... ....................... .............. .... ............................. ..... ............. 13-38
14. UTILITIES ....... ......... ............. ......................... ................. ......... ........... ....... ............ ....... ....14-1
14.1 Setting. ................... ..... ............................... ........................................ ............... .................. ....... ................... ....... .......... ..... 14-1
14.2 Impact Analysis ................... .................................. ...... ......................... .............. .... ..................................... ...... .......... ...... 14-7
15 . ALTERNATIVES................................................................................................................ .15-1
15.1 Introduction ...... ..... ..................... ................. ...... ............... ....... ....... .......... .............. ...... .......... ................. ......... ......... ....... 15-1
15.2 Alternatives Analysis ...................... ..................... ......... .......... .................. ............. .............. ........... ............................ ...... 15-1
15.3 Alternatives Evaluation ....................... ....... ............................. ..................... ............ ....... ...................................... .......... 15-2
16. IMPACT OVERVIEW............... ............ ........ ........... ............................ ............... ....... ...... .....16-1
16.1 Significant & Unavoidable Impacts that Cannot be 11itigated to a Level of Less than Significant .................. 16-1
16.2 Impacts Determined not to be Significant...................................................................................................................16-2
16.3 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes ........................................................................................................ 16-2
16.4 Growth Inducing Impacts .............................................................................................................................................. 16-3
16. 5 Cumulative Impacts ......... .... ............................. .... ........ ............... ...... ..... .......... ................. ....... ................ ....... ............ .... 16-3
17. REFERENCES.. .............. ............... .............. ............ .............. ........... ..... ............ .......... .......17-1
17.1 Report Preparers............................................................................................................................................................... 17-1
17.2 Bibliography ...................................................................................................................................................................... 17-1
18. APPENDICES....... ........ ................... ....................... ........... .................................... ........ .....18-1
A: Notice of Preparation, Comments on Notice of Preparation, Initial Study............................................................... A-l
B : Traffic Tables ................... ................................. ....... ............ ............... ............... .... ...................... .................... ................ ....... B-1
FIGURES
3-1 Project Site and Vicinity ................... ........... ......... ................... ........ ............... ........ ........................ ..... ......... ......... ................ 3-2
3-2 Project Site Plan ........ ............................ ....... ......... ........ ............ ........ ........ ................... ............. ......... ... ....... .......... ......... ....... 3-4
3-3 Project Building Perspectives.......... ....................... ..... ..... ....................... .......... .... .... ..... ...... .... ........ ... ....... .................. ........ 3-5
4-1 Site Views..... ...... ......................... ......................... ............... ........... ............ .... ........ .................. ........ ........ ......... ....... ...... ...... ... 4-3
4- 2 Site Views.... ....... .......................... ...................... ......... ...................... ..... ........... ............... ........................................ ............... 4-4
4-3 Site Views .............. ...... ...................... .................... ............................. ....... ............. ................. .... ........... ......... ...... ..... ........ ..... 4- 5
4-4 Site Views ............................................................. ....... .......... ............... ..... ..................... ...... ...... ............ ................. .......... ......4--6
4-5 Site Views............ ............ ............ ......................... ............ ............... ........ ....... ................ .......... ........................... ................ .... 4- 7
13-1 Existing Lane Geometrics and Intersection Control.....................................................................................................13-2
13-2 Existing AM Peak Hour Volumes ....................................................................................................................................13-7
13-3 Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes .....................................................................................................................................13-8
13-4 Bus and Shuttle Routes .....................................................................................................................................................13-13
13-5 Year 2008 Lane Geometrics and Intersection Control...............................................................................................13-20
13-6 2008 Base Case (Without Project) AM Peak Hour Volumes.....................................................................................13-26
13-7 2008 Base Case (Without Project) PM Peak Hour Volumes .....................................................................................13-27
13-8 Year 2020 Lane Geometrics and Intersection Control...............................................................................................13-31
13-9 Year 2020 Base Case (Without Project) AM Peak Hour Volumes ...........................................................................13-36
13-10 Year 2020 Base Case (Without Project) PM Peak Hour Volumes............................................................................13-37
13-11 AM Peak Hour Project Increment.................................................................................................................................13-42
13-12 PM Peak Hour Project Increment .................................................................................................................................13-43
13-13 2008 Base Case + Project AM Peak Hour Volumes ..................................................................................................13-44
13-14 2008 Base Case + Project PM Peak Hour Volumes...................................................................................................13-45
13-15 Year 2020 (With Project) AM Peak Hour Volumes ...................................................................................................13-46
13-16 Year 2020 (With Project) PM Peak Hour V olumes....................................................................................................13-47
14-1 Project Area Sanitary Sewer System ................................................................................................................................14-4
TABLES
2-1 Executive Summary Table.. ............. ...... .............. ..... ............ ............ ...... ......... ............ ..... ........................ ...... .......... ... ......... 2- 2
5-1 Air Quality Data Summary for San Francisco and Redwood City, 2001-2003 ........................................................... 5-2
5-2 Localized Carbon Monoxide Concentrations ................................................................................................................... 5-7
9-1 Potential Pollutants from Industrial Activities ........................................_........................................................................ 9-8
9-2 Impervious vs. Pervious Surface Areas............................................................................................................................9-13
11-1 Definition of Acoustical Terms .........................................................................................................................................11-2
11-2 Typical Sound Levels Measured in the Environment and Industry............................................................................11-3
13-1 Intersection Level of Service AM Peak Hour ...............................................................................................................13-10
13-2 Intersection Level of service PM Peak Hour................................................................................................................13-11
13-3 Freeway Operation AM Peak Hour................................................................................................................................13-17
13-4 Freeway Operation PM Peak Hour ................................................................................................................................13-18
13-5 Trip Generation of Approved Development within South San Francisco East of 101 Area.............................. 13-21
13-6 Home Depot/Lowe's Trip Generation .........................................................................................................................13-23
13-7 Traffic Distribution.... ...... ............... ...... ............... ....... ............. ........ ...... ......... ....... .......... ..................,.. ........ ....... ..............13-25
13-8 South San Francisco Proposed and Potential Development Traffic Generation East of 101,2000-2020........13-34
13-9 Brisbane Potential Development Traffic Generation..................................................................................................13-35
13-10 Proposed Project Trip Generation w/ 9.5% Peak Hour Trip Generation Reduction due to roM Program 13-40
13-11 Previous 249 East Grand Avenue Site Development Trip Generation without IDM.........................................13-40
13-12 Net Difference in Trip Generation Office/R&D Versus Manufacturing ...............................................................13-40
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, requires EIRs to be
prepared for all projects which may have a significant impact on the environment. An EIR is an
informational document, the purposes of which, according to CEQA Guidelines, are "... to
identify the significant effects of a project on the environment, to identify alternatives to a
project, and to indicate the manner in which such significant effects can be mitigated or
avoided." The information contained in this Focused EIR is intended to be objective and
impartial, and to enable the reader to arrive at an independent judgement regarding the
significance of the impacts resulting from the proposed 249 East Grand Avenue Project.
1.2 EIR REVIEW PROCESS
This EIR is intended to enable City decision makers, public agencies and interested citizens to
evaluate the broad environmental issues associated with the overall character and concept of the
proposed Project. In accordance with California law, the EIR on the Project must be certified
before any action on the Project can be taken by the South San Francisco City Council. During
the review period for this Draft EIR, interested individuals, organizations and agencies may offer
their comments on its evaluation of project impacts and alternatives. The comments received
during this public review period will be compiled and presented together with responses to these
comments. The Draft EIR and the Final EIR (including the response to comments) together will
constitute the EIR for the Project. The South San Francisco City Council will review the EIR
documents, and will detetmine whether or not the EIR provides a full and adequate appraisal of
the Project and its alternatives.
In reviewing the Draft EIR, readers should focus on the sufficiency of the document in
identifying and analyzing the possible impacts associated with property acquisition, as well as the
potential future impacts associated with the 249 East Grand Avenue Project. Readers are also
encouraged to review and comment on ways in which significant impacts associated with this
Project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional
specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate
significant environmental impacts. Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments and,
whenever possible, should submit data or references in support of their comments.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 1-1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
The 45 day review period for the Draft EIR is from October ~ 2005 to November T
2005. Comments should be submitted in writing during this review period to:
Susy Kalkin, Principal Planner
City of South San Francisco
Planning Division
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, Ca. 94083
Please contact Susy Kalkin at 650-877-8535 if you have any questions. After reviewing the Draft
EIR and the Final EIR, and following action to certify the EIR as adequate and complete, the
South San Francisco City Council will be in a position to approve the Project as currendy
proposed, revised, or rejected. This determination will be based upon information presented on
the entirety of the Project, its impacts and probable consequences, and the possible alternatives
and mitigation measures available.
1.3 CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION OF THE EIR
Following this brief description of the 249 East Grand Avenue Project Focused EIR, the
document's ensuing chapters include the following:
· Chapter 2: Executive Summary
· Chapter 3: Project Description
· Chapter 4: Aesthetics
· Chapter 5: Air Quality
· Chapter 6: Biological Resources
· Chapter 7: Geology and Soils
. Chapter 8: Hazardous Materials
· Chapter 9: Hydrology
· Chapter 10: Land Use
. Chapter 11: Noise
· Chapter 12: Public Services
· Chapter 13: Transportation and Circulation
. Chapter 14: Utilities
· Chapter 15: Alternatives
· Chapter 16: Impact Overview
PAGE 1-2
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EJR
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
. Chapter 17: References
. Chapter 18: Appendices
In Chapters 4 through 14 existing conditions are discussed in the Setting, followed by an
evaluation of potentially significant impacts that may be associated with the Project.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 1-3
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 PROPOSED PROJECT
The objective of the Project is the development of four Class-A office/laboratory buildings,
three to five stories in height, totaling about 534,500 square feet, 5,500 square feet of
commercial space, and a four level parking structure providing 1,529 parking spaces.
2.2 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The analyses in Chapters 4 through 14 of this document provide a description of the existing
setting, potential impacts of Project implementation, and recommended mitigation measures to
reduce or avoid potentially significant impacts that could occur as a result of Project
implementation. The following table lists a summary statement of each impact and
corresponding mitigation measures, as well as the level of significance after mitigation.
Significant impacts require the implementation of mitigation measures, or alternatives, or a
finding by the Lead Agency that the measures are infeasible for specific reasons. For some of
the significant impacts, mitigation measures may not be effective in reducing the impacts to a
less than significant level. These impacts are designated significant and unavoidable.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 2-1
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TABLE 2-1
SUM1\1ARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Potential Environmental Impacts
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Impact 4-1: Light and Glare. Project
implementation would involve construction of four
three to four story office buildings. The many
windows and outdoor lights associated with these
builclings would potentially be substantial sources
of day and nighttime glare, which would be
considered a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 4-1: Glare Minimization
Design Standards. Lighting designs should employ
fixtures that would cast light in a downward direction,
and building materials should not be sources of
substantial glare.
Less than
Significant
Impact 5-1: Construction Dust. Construction
activity involves a high potential for the emission
of air pollutants. Construction activities would
generate exhaust emissions from vehicles and
equipment and fugitive particulate matter emissions
that would affect local air quality. This would be a
potentia/fy significant impact.
Construction activities would temporarily affect
local air quality, causing a temporary increase in
particulate dust and other pollutants. Dust
emission during periods of construction would
increase particulate concentrations at neighboring
properties. This impact is potentially significant,
but normally mitigatible.
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines provide thresholds of
significance for air quality impacts. The BAAQMD
significance thresholds for construction dust
impacts are based on the appropriateness of
construction dust controls. The BAAQMD
guidelines provide feasible control measures for
construction emission of PMIO. If the appropriate
construction controls are to be implemented, then
air pollutant emissions for construction activities
would be considered less than significant.
Mitigation Measure 5-1: Dust Suppression
Procedures. The following basic, enhanced and
optional measures are recommended for inclusion in
construction contracts to control fugitive dust
emissions during construction.
Basic Measures
.
Water all active construction areas at least twice
daily.
Less than
significant
PAGE 2-2 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
.
Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply
(non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access
roads, parking areas and staging areas at
conStruction site.
.
Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or
other materials that can be blown by the wind.
.
Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other
loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at
least two feet of freeboard.
.
Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all
paved access road, parking areas and staging areas
at construction sites.
· Sweep streets daily (preferably with water
sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto
adjacent public streets.
· Limit construction equipment idling time.
· Properly tune construction equipment engines,
and install particulate traps on cliesel equipment.
Potential Environmental Impacts
Impact 5-2: Cumulative Air Quality Impacts.
The proposed Project would exceed emissions
standards for NO" by producing 112 lbs./ day, as
well as producing 742 lbs./ day of CO. This would
be a significant impact.
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Enhanced Measures
. Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to
inactive construction areas (previously graded
areas inactive for ten days or more).
. Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-
toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt,
sand, etc.).
. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.
. Install sandbags or other erosion control
measures to prevent silt runoff to public
roadways.
. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly
as possible.
Optional Measures
· Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or
wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks and
equipment leaving the site.
. Suspend excavation and grading activity when
winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph.
Mitigation Measure 5-2: Transportation Demand
Management Program. Implementation of a roM
Program, as described in Mitigation Measure 13-1 of
the Transportation and Circulation chapter, would
reduce the number of vehicle trips to and from the
Project site, but not to the extent that NOx and CO
emissions would be reduced to acceptable levels.
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impact 6-1: Removal of Protected Trees.
Construction at the Project site would require
cutting down 104 trees. Fourteen of the trees on
the site are considered protected trees under
Section 13.30.020(t)(1) of the City of South San
Francisco Municipal Code relating to tree
preservation (free Ordinance). According to the
Ordinance, a protected tree is defmed as the
following:
1. Any tree with a circumference of 48 inches or
more when measured 54 inches above natural
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
Mitigation Measure 6-1: Tree Replacement. The
Project applicant shall be required to obtain a tree
cutting permit and adhere to the City of South San
Francisco Tree Ordinance before removing any trees
from the Project site. According to the Tree
Ordinance, no protected tree shall be removed,
pruned, or otherwise materially altered without a
permit except as provided in Section 13.30.030. A tree
cutting permit requires replacement of a tree with
three 24-inch box or two 36-inch box minimum size
landscape trees for each tree removed, as described in
Section 13.30.080 of the Tree Ordinance.
Less than
Significant
PAGE 2-3
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Resulting
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of
Significance
Discharges of Storm Water Associated with
Construction Activity (Construction General Permit,
99-08-DWQ).
Impact 7-3: Unstable Soils. The site contains Mitigation Measure 7-3: Construction in Less than
shallow groundwater and variable depth of fill soils, Accordance with Design Level Geotechnical Significant
which could become unstable if improperly Investigation. A design level geotechnical
compacted, stockpiled, or excavated during investigation shall be completed that includes
grading. Settlement and dynamic densification subsurface investigation in areas now occupied by
could become issues with improper foundation structures. The design level geotechnical report shall
design. Moreover, utility trenches and other include recommendations for site preparation and
excavations are likely to encounter groundwater grading, foundation design, retaining wall design
and may require dewatering. This is a potentiallY parameters, concrete slabs-on-grade, pavement
significant impact. section design, surface and subsurface drainage
measures and site specific seismic response criteria.
Grading recommendations shall include specifications
for engineered fill, including moisture conditioning
and relative percent compaction, and suitability of
materials as engineered or structural fill.
Recommendations shall also establish maximum cut
and fill slopes. Cuts to be made adjacent to the
property line shall be evaluated for potential adverse
impact to neighboring properties. In accordance with
the East of 101 Area Plan, new slopes greater than 5
feet in height, either cut in native soils or rock, or
created by placing fill material, shall be designed by a
geotechnical engineer and have an appropriate factor
of safety under seismic loading.
Drainage recommendations shall include provisions
to prevent the ponding of water, prevent seepage
under structures, including pavements, and generally
direct flow away from structural foundations.
Drainage recommendations shall incorporate
proposed landscaping elements. Permanent
subsurface drains are expected to be necessary for
retaining walls to prevent buildup of hydrostatic
pressure behind the walls.
Recommendations for foundations shall include soil
bearing capacity or skin friction values, lateral
pressures, and types of ground improvement
techniques, if necessary. Geotechnical
recommendations shall also provide the depth of
footings or pile foundations necessary for the planned
structures. During construction, a Registered
Geotechnical Engineer or his representative shall
observe all foundation work. A letter indicating that
all foundation construction meets with the intent of
the geotechnical recommendations shall be provided
to the Building Official prior to concrete pouring.
PAGE 2-6
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Resulting
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of
Significance
Recommendations for concrete slab construction
shall identify measures to mitigate expansive soils to
minimize shrink/ swell potential, such as moisture
conditioning or replacement with select non-
expansive fill, as well as concrete thickness and
reinforcement. The feasibility report recommended
that in addition to 4 inches of Caltrans Class II AB
underlying slabs, a 10 millimeter minimum thickness
vapor retarding membrane meeting ASTM E 1745
should be placed between the concrete slab and base
rock to minimize moisture condensation under floor
coverings placed on slabs. The design level report
shall either corroborate this recommendation or
identify an alternative to be implemented.
Recommendations for pavement areas shall include
compaction and moisture conditioning requirements,
as well as pavement section thickness and
construction design based upon a Resistance-value (R-
value) determined for subgrade soils in the areas to be
paved.
The design report shall include specific drainage
criteria behind retaining walls, and identify retaining
wall foundation design and design parameters.
In general, the design report shall either corroborate
or provide alternative recommendations to the
feasibility report based upon actual soil and rock
conditions in the areas where structures are proposed.
Impact 7-4: Expansive Soils. According to the Mitigation Measure 7-4: Design and Construction Less than
feasibility level geotechnical report, potentially in Accordance with Design Level Geotechnical Significant
expansive clay soils were encountered. Expansive Investigation. The design level geotechnical report
clay soils may shrink and swell, resulting in shall recommend mitigation measures for expansive
damaged foundations, concrete slabs, pavements clay soils. Potential measures for control of expansive
and other improvements. This is a potentialfy clay soils include the following:
significant impact.
a) Placing and compacting potentially expansive soils
at high moisture contents (at least 5 percent above
optimum moisture content in accordance with ASTM
D1557) and compaction within selected ranges of88
to 92 percent.
b) Using thickened concrete slabs with increased steel
reinforcement.
c) Replacing clayey soils underlying foundations and
concrete slabs with select structural fill that is non-
expansive or has a low expansion index.
d) Treating site soils with lime to reduce the
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 2-7
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Potential Environmental Impacts
Recommended Mitigation Measures
expansion potential and increase the strength.
e) Grade around structures to assure positive drainage
away from structures.
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Impact 8-1: Routine transportation, use or
disposal of hazardous materials. The proposed
development is for construction of four Class-A
office and laboratory buildings and a parking
garage. Class A refers to a research laboratory, not
merely an instructional laboratory. Depending
upon the nature of research planned at the
proposed facilities, for which detailed information
has not yet been provided, there are likely to be
both hazardous and potentially hazardous materials
stored and used on the site that will eventually
require disposal. This could include both
biohazards as well as chemical hazards. There is
also likely to be transportation of hazardous
materials to and from the site, probably traveling
along Highway 101 and East Grand Avenue. The
risk of accidental upset and environmental
contamination from routine transport, storage, use
and disposal of hazardous and potentially
hazardous materials to the public and environment
is a potentiallY significant impact.
PAGE 2-8
Mitigation Measure 8-1a: Hazardous Materials
Business Plan Program. Businesses occupying the
development must complete a Hazardous Materials
Business Plan for the safe storage and use of
chemicals. The Business Plan must include the type
and quantity of hazardous materials, a site map
showing storage locations of hazardous materials and
where they may be used and transported from, risks
of using these materials, material safety data sheets for
each material, a spill prevention plan, an emergency
response plan, employee training consistent with
OSHA guidelines, and emergency contact
information. Businesses qualify for the program if
they store a hazardous material equal to or greater
than the minimum reportable quantities. These
quantities are 55 gallons for liquids, 500 pounds for
solids and 200 cubic feet (at standard temperature and
pressure) for compressed gases.
Exemptions include businesses selling only pre-
packaged consumer goods; medical professionals who
store oxygen, nitrogen, and! or nitrous oxide in
quantities not more than 1,000 cubic feet for each
material, and who store or use no other hazardous
materials; or facilities that store no more than 55
gallons of a specific type of lubricating oil, and for
which the total quantity of lubricating oil not exceed
275 gallons for all types of lubricating oil. These
exemptions are not expected to apply to Class A
laboratory facilities.
Businesses occupying and! or operating at the
proposed development must submit a business plan
prior to the start of operations, and must review and
update the entire Business Plan at least once every
two years, or within 30 days of any significant change.
Some of these changes are new emergency contact
information, major increases or decreases in
hazardous materials storage and! or changes in
location of hazardous materials. Plans shall be
submitted to the San Mateo County Environmental
Health Business Plan Program, which may be
contacted at (650) 363-4305 for more information.
The San Mateo County Environmental Health
Department (SMCEHD) shall inspect the business at
Less than
Significant
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Resulting
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of
Significance
least once a year to make sure that the Business Plan
is complete and accurate.
Mitigation Measure 8-1b: Hazardous Waste
Generator Program. Prior to operations, businesses
should check with the SMCEHD if they need to
register in the hazardous waste generator program.
The State of California Department of Toxic
Substances Control authorized the SMCEHD to
inspect and regulate non-permitted hazardous waste
generators in San Mateo County based on the
Hazardous Waste Control Law found in the California
Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5 and
regulations found in the California Code of
Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5. Regulations
require businesses generating any amount of
hazardous waste as defined by regulation to properly
store, manage and dispose of such waste. Division
staff also conducts surveillance and enforcement
activities in conjunction with the County District
Attorney's Office for businesses or individuals that
significantly violate the above referenced law and
regulations.
Mitigation Measure 8-1c: Compliance with
Applicable Laws and Regulations. All
transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous
waste to and from the site will be in accordance with
Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, US
Department of Transportation (DOT), State of
California, and local laws, ordinances and procedures
including the posting of placards, signs and other
identifying information.
Impact 8-2: Accidental Hazardous Materials Mitigation Measure 8-2: California Accidental Less than
Release. Mitigations for accidental release of Release Prevention Program (CalARP). Future Significant
hazardous materials during construction are businesses at the development shall need to check the
presented in the hydrology section of this state and federal lists of regulated substances available
environmental impact report. Following from the San Mateo County Environmental Health
construction, operations at the proposed facilities Department (SMCEHD). Chemicals on the list are
are expected to represent a continuing threat to the chemicals that pose a major threat to public health
environment through accidental release of and safety or the environment because they are highly
hazardous materials since the site is proposed to toxic, flammable or explosive. Businesses are
include Class A laboratory facilities, where responsible for determining which list to use in
hazardous materials may be stored, used, and consultation with SMCEHD.
disposed of. This represents a potentiallY significant
impact. Should businesses qualify for the program they must
complete a CalARP registration form and submit it to
Environmental Health. Following registration, they
shall submit a risk management plan (RMP). Risk
management plans are designed to handle accidental
releases and ensure that businesses have the proper
information to provide to emergency response teams
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 2-9
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Resulting
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of
Significance
if an accidental release occurs. All businesses that
store or handle more than a threshold quantity (TQ)
of a regulated substance must develop a RM:P and
follow it.
Risk Management Plans describe impacts to public
health and the environment if a regulated substance is
released near schools, residential areas, hospitals and
childcare facilities. RM:Ps must include procedures for:
keeping employees and customers safe; handling
regulated substances; training staff; maintaining
equipment; checking that substances are stored safely;
and responding to an accidental release.
Impact 8-3: Emissions Near Schools. The Early Mitigation Measure 8-3: Meet standards of the Less than
Years Children's Center is located at 371 Allerton Bay Area Air Quality Management District Significant
A venue, approximately 400 feet east and (BAAQMD) and Occupational Safety and Health
downwind of the northeast corner of the property. Administration (OSHA). Each independent R&D
Since the proposed development includes research facility operating on the property shall adhere to
laboratory facilities it is likely that hazardous BAAQMD standards and periodically demonstrate
chemicals will be stored and used on the property. compliance with all other local, state and federal
In certain ciccumstances these chemicals could requirements for emissions. Each facility shall also
spill, mix, ignite, or volatilize and cause a hazardous meet OSHA and California OSHA standards for
emission near the childcare center, which would be R&D facilities. This includes design review by the City
a potential!J significant impact. of South San Francisco to examine if the proposed
development plans meet the same standards as for
other similar facilities. Engineering controls, such as
exhaust hoods, ftItration systems, spill kits, fire
extinguishers, and other controls, shall be
incorporated into laboratory facilities to meet OSHA
and California OSHA requirements. These standards
are primarily designed to maintain worker safety, but
also function to reduce the risk of accidental upset
and limit potential hazardous emissions.
Impact 8-4: Handling of hazardous wastes Mitigation Measure 8-4: Regulation of hazardous Less than
within one-quarter mile of a school. The Early materials in accordance with the San Mateo Significant
Years Children's Center is located at 371 Allerton County Environmental Health Department
Avenue, approximately 400 feet east of the Programs. Registration and regulation in the
northeast corner of the property. Since the Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program,
proposed development includes research lab Hazardous Waste Generator Plan Program, and
facilities, it is likely that hazardous chemicals will be California Accidental Release Program in accordance
handled in close proximity to the childcare facility. with earlier mitigations identified in this chapter, for
Close proximity of hazardous chemicals to risk of accidental upset and for routine transport,
occupants of the child care facility represents a disposal, and use of hazardous wastes, would
significant hazard and potentiaf!Y significant impact. significantly reduce the risk to occupants of the
nearby childcare facility. In addition, the applicant
shall establish an early warning and evacuation plan
for the child care center in the case of a hazardous
materials release.
Impact 8-5: Potential Interference with Mitigation Measure 8-5: Fire Department Review. Less than
Emergency Response Plan. The proposed The applicant shall submit construction plans for Fire
PAGE 2-10
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
Potential Environmental Impacts
development would physically interfere with
implementation of an adopted emergency response
or evacuation plan if on-site circulation does not
allow for adequate emergency vehicle access.
Interference with the local Emergency Response
Plan would be a significant impact.
Impact 8-6: Airport Land Use Plan. The
proposed Project would be located within the
jurisdiction of the Airport Land Use Plan for the
San Francisco International Airport. The Project
could have a significant impact in terms of the Plan's
policies.
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Department review, and shall establish temporary
alternative emergency routes necessary for the
duration of the construction project. During design
review, the Fire Department would verify that roads
and driveways meet ordinance and uniform building
code requirements for emergency access.
Mitigation Measure 8-6: FAA Regulations
Compliance. Public Utilities Code, Section 21659,
"Hazards Near Airports Prohibited" prohibits
structural hazards near airports. To ensure
compliance with this requirement and Federal
Aviation guidelines the developer shall submit a
Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (Form
7460-1) to the Federal Aviation Administration.
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Significant
Less than
Significant
Impact 9-1: Site Conditions May Be Unsuitable
for Infiltration. Appropriate evaluation of site
conditions is critical to the effectiveness of
inflltration trenches. The geotechnical borings
indicate groundwater conditions in the proposed
parking areas can be as high as 3 and 4.5 feet bgs
during winter months. Shallow depth to
groundwater could cause underlying soils to
become saturated, particularly during winter
months, and could impair the ability of the
inflltration trenches to inflltrate water and ftlter out
pollutants. Infiltration structures require a
minimum soil infiltration rate of 0.5 inches/hour.
Percolation testing to verify the inflltration capacity
of site soils has not been conducted. Inftltration
trenches have a high failure rate if soil and
subsurface conditions are not suitable.
Furthermore, inflltration trenches are not
considered suitable for sites that use or store
chemicals or hazardous materials unless hazardous
and toxic materials are prevented from entering the
infiltration trenches. This represents a potentiallY
significant impact.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
Mitigation Measure 9-1: Evaluate Project Site for
Feasibility ofInfiltration as Water Quality BMP.
The use of infiltration trenches at the Project site may
be limited by several factors, including soil
characteristics, distance to groundwater, and proposed
land uses. The feasibility of infiltration BMPs at the
Project shall be evaluated as follows:
1) Groundwater levels at the invert of the inftltration
trenches shall be reevaluated. The Project applicant
shall ascertain that the distance from the proposed
trench inverts to groundwater be at least 10 feet.
2) Soil parameters, such as the amount of silt and clay
shall be examined. Soils should not have more than 30
percent clay or more than 40 percent clay and silt
combined.
3) Inftltration rates shall be evaluated to ensure
adequate permeability of site soils. Inftltration rates
shall be no less than 0.5 inches/hour and not more
than 2.4 inches/hour.
4) Proposed land uses shall be examined: inflltration
BMPs are not suitable for sites that use or store
chemicals or hazardous materials unless hazardous
and toxic materials are isolated such that they are not
able to enter the trench. The potential for spills can be
minimized by spill prevention control measures.
If site constraints preclude the use of inftltration
trenches at the Project site, other BMPs that do not
allow interaction with groundwater should be
considered. Possible alternatives for storm water
Less than
Significant
PAGE 2-11
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Resulting
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of
Significance
treatment include Vortex Separator Units or
Stormceptors at drop inlets. Vortex Separators are
round gravity separators that induce removal of
suspended sediment with the centrifugal force caused
by water moving circularly through the system.
Stormceptors are comprised of a round precast
concrete tank and fiberglass partition that remove oil
and sediment from storm water runoff by gravity
separation. Any storm water quality BMPs to be
implemented at the site must be approved by the
City's Public Works Department.
Impact 9-2: Potential Contamination of Local Mitigation Measure 9-2: Preparation and Less than
Groundwater. The Project site is located within a Implementation of Project Storm Water Pollution Significant
groundwater basin as defmed by the DWR. The Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Pursuant to NPDES
potential for groundwater contamination from requirements, the applicant shall develop a SWPPP to
infiltration BMPs must be carefully considered, protect water quality during and after construction.
especially in areas where the distance between The Project SWPPP shall include, but is not limited,
groundwater and the trench invert is shallow or to the following mitigation measures for the
where groundwater is or could potentially be used construction period:
for human consumption or agricultural purposes.
The inftltration of industrial and parking lot 1) Grading and earthwork shall be prohibited during
pollutants into shallow groundwater could the wet season (October 15 through April 15) and
potentially impair the quality of local groundwater such work shall be stopped before pending storm
sources. This represents a potentiallY significant impact. events.
2) Erosion control! soil stabilization techniques such
as straw mulching, erosion control blankets, erosion
control matting, and hydro-seeding, shall be utilized in
accordance with the regulations outlined in the
Association of Bay Area Governments "Erosion &
Sediment Control Measures" manual. Silt fences shall
be installed down slope of all graded slopes. Hay bales
shall be installed in the flow path of graded areas
receiving concentrated flows and around storm drain
inlets.
3) BMPs shall be used for preventing the discharge or
other construction-related NPDES pollutants beside
sediment (i.e. paint, concrete, etc) to downstream
waters.
4) After construction is completed, all drainage
facilities shall be inspected for accumulated sediment
and these drainage structures shall be cleared of debris
and sediment.
Long-term mitigation measures to be included in the
Project SWPPP shall include, but are not limited to,
the following:
5) Description of potential sources of erosion and
sediment at the Project site. Industrial activities and
PAGE 2-12
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Resulting
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of
Significance
significant materials and chemicals that could be used
at the proposed Project site should be described. This
will include a thorough assessment of existing and
potential pollutant sources.
6) Identification of BMPs to be implemented at the
Project site based on identified industrial activities and
potential pollutant sources. Emphasis shall be placed
on source control BMPs, with treatment controls used
as needed.
7) Development of a monitoring and implementation
plan. Maintenance requirements and frequency shall
be carefully described including vector control,
clearing of clogged or obstructed inlet or outlet
structures, vegetation/landscape maintenance,
replacement of media ftIters, regular sweeping of
parking lots and other paced areas, etc. Wastes
removed from BMPs may be hazardous, therefore,
maintenance costs should be budgeted to include
disposal at a proper site.
8) The monitoring and maintenance program shall be
conducted at the frequency agreed upon by the
RWQCB and/or City of South San Francisco.
Monitoring and maintenance shall be recorded and
submitted annually to the SWRCB. The SWPPP shall
be adjusted, as necessary, to address any inadequacies
of the BMPs.
9) The applicant shall prepare informational literature
and guidance on industrial and commercial BMPs to
minimize pollutant contributions from the proposed
development. This information shall be distributed to
all employees at the Project site. At a minimum, the
information shall cover: a) proper disposal of
commercial cleaning chemicals; b) proper use of
landscaping chemicals; c) clean-up and appropriate
disposal of hazardous materials and chemicals; and
d) prohibition of any washing and dumping of
materials and chemicals into storm drains.
Impact 9-3; No Treatment of Runoff for Mitigation Measure 9-3: Implement Water Less than
Parking Garages. No water quality BMPs have Quality BMPs for Stonnwater Runoff From Significant
been proposed for Parking Garage A nor Parking Parking Garage. The Project applicant shall
Garage B. Parking areas represent a source of implement storm water quality BMPs for treatment of
suspended solids, petroleum hydrocarbons, and runoff from Parking Garages A and B. Possible BMPs
heavy metals. NPS pollutants from these areas include drop inlet ftItration devices such as the Vortex
represent a potentialfy significant impact. Separator Units or Stormceptors described in
Mitigation Measure 9-1. Any storm water quality
BMPs implemented at the site must first be approved
by the City's Public Works Department.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 2-1 3
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Potential Environmental Impacts
Impact 9-4: Site Drains to Colma Creek Flood
Control Channel. The proposed Project drains to
the Colma Creek flood control channel. The
Project site is not located within the Colma Creek
Flood Control Zone. For this reason, the San
Mateo County Department of Public Works has
requested that storm water runoff from the Project
site not be directed into the Colma Creek channel.
Thus, storm water runoff from the Project site that
would flow to Colma Creek represents a potentiallY
significant impact.
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 9-4: The Project applicant
shall implement one of the following two
mitigation scenarios for Impact 9-4.
1) Reroute All Flows to Southeastern Corner of
Site and Out of the Colma Creek Watershed. The
Project applicant shall investigate the feasibility of
routing all site runoff to the existing drop inlet located
at East Grand Avenue just below the southeast comer
of the site. This would entail designing the Project
drainage infrastructure to drain to the southeast. This
configuration would like~y increase peak flows to the
southeastern drainage system and would require
evaluation of the existing drainage infrastructure from
Littlefield Avenue to the point of discharge at San
Francisco Bay. Inadequate capacity in the
southeastern drainage system may require offsite
drainage improvements.
2) Enter into Agreement with Colma Creek Flood
Control District. If it is found that routing all storm
water to the southeast comer is infeasible, a second
mitigation strategy shall be implemented. The Project
applicant shall enter into an agreement with the San
Mateo County Department of Public Works to be
included in the Colma Creek Flood Control Zone and
comply with the conditions and fees that are
associated with participation in that zone.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant
shall demonstrate that Project design has mitigated
the potential impact to a level of less than significant.
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Less than
Significant
Impact 10-1: Construction Related Noise.
Project construction would result in temporary
short-term noise increases due to the operation of
heavy equipment. This would be a potentiaf!y
significant impact associated with Project
development. Construction noise sources range
from about 82 to 90 dBA at 25 feet for most types
of construction equipment, and slightly higher
levels of about 94 to 97 dBA at 25 feet for certain
types of earthmoving and impact equipment.
Mitigation Measure 10-1: Noise Abatement. It is
possible that a child care center located 400 feet from
the Project site at 371 Allerton would be affected by
Project generated construction noise. If noise controls
are installed on construction equipment, noise levels
could be reduced to 80 to 85 dBA at 25 feet,
depending on the type of equipment. Assuming
construction noise levels comply with the 90-dBA
noise limit specified in the City Noise Ordinance,
construction related noise impacts could be reduced
to a level of less than significant.
Less than
Significant
Impact 13-1: Trip Generation Exceeds 100
Trips During Peak Hours. The project would
PAGE 2-14
Mitigation Measure 13-1: Transportation Demand
Management Program. The project applicant shall
Less than
Significant
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Resulting
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of
Significance
generate more than 100 net new trips during the implement a Transportation Demand Management
AM and PM peak hours (515 trips during the AM (TDM) program consistent with the City of South San
peak hour and 485 trips during the PM peak hour, Francisco Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20.120
if allowing for the reduction in traffic from the Transportation Demand Management, and acceptable
former Georgia Pacific manufacturing use) or 756 to C/CAG. These programs, once implemented,
trips during the AM peak hour and 729 trips during must be ongoing for the occupied life of the
the PM peak hour if assuming all site trip development. The C/CAG guidelines specify the
generation is new (see Tables 13-10, 13-11 and number of trips that may be credited for each TDM
13-12). The San Mateo City/County Association measure. Appendix Table B-5 outlines TDM
of Governments (C/CAG) Agency Guidelines for programs that can generate trip credits to offset the
the implementation of the 2003 Draft Congestion 515 total AM peak hour and 485 PM peak hour trips
Management Program ("C/CAG Guidelines") generated by the project.
specify that local jurisdictions must ensure that the
developer and/or tenants will mitigate all new peak
hour trips (including the first 100 trips) projected
to be generated by the development. This would
be a significant impact.
Impact 13-2: Freeway Level of Service. The Mitigation Measure 13-2: Transportation Demand Significant and
addition of traffic generated by approved Management Plan. The project sponsors shall Unavoidable
development in South San Francisco (year 2008 implement a Transportation Demand Management
Base Case without project conditions) would cause (TDM) program to minimize potential increases in
two freeway segments to operate at LOS F (both freeway traffic. The TDM plan shall contain all
during the AM peak hour). The project would Required Measures and Additional Measures required
increase volumes by more than one percent on by the City of South San Francisco TDM Ordinance,
both of these segments (AM peak hour- Schedule 20.120.030-B, in order to achieve a
southbound: north of the Oyster Point interchange minimum alternative mode use of 32 percent. The
and northbound: south of the East Grand A venue project applicant shall submit a Preliminary TDM
off-ramp). In addition, project traffic would result Plan containing checklists of Required and Additional
in one segment of the freeway changing from Measures, along with a site plan indicating the
LOS E to LOS F operation (PM peak hour - locations ofTDM elements such as preferential
northbound: north of the Oyster Point parking areas and bicycle facilities. The project
interchange). These would be significant impacts. applicant shall submit a Final TDM Plan
incorporating conditions imposed by the Planning
Commission.
The project shall coordinate with the City in an annual
survey of compliance with the TDM plan. The project
shall also submit a Tri-Annual report ofTDM
effectiveness, and be subject to penalties for non-
compliance in accordance with the City's TDM
Ordinance. This impact would remain significant and
unavoidable.
Impact 13-3: Year 2008 Intersection Impacts. Mitigation Measure 13-3: Intersection Significant and
Year 2008 Base Case conditions have assumed Modifications. Modifications are recommended for Unavoidable
removal of the Georgia Pacific manufacturing the following intersections.
activity on the project site. These activities were Easl Grand Avenue! Allerton Avenue Intersection
included in the "Existing Conditions" evaluation, Prohibit left turns from Allerton Avenue to East
as existing counts reflected the conservatively Grand A venue until the intersection is signalized-
higher volume levels found in 1999/2000. or-Cut back the hillside on the northeast corner of
Therefore, year 2008 Base Case + Project the intersection to improve sight lines to/ from the
evaluation evaluates the full impact of the currently
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 2-15
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Resulting
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of
Significance
proposed project in relation to an empty site. The east to at least 400 feet.
proposed project would produce significant AM Stripe a left turn lane on the eastbound intersection
and/ or PM peak hour impacts at the following approach. This will require removal of parking on the
intersections. south side of East Grand Avenue.
East Grand Avenue/ Allerton Avenue
More than a two percent increase in traffic (2.1 % Provide a fair share contribution towards having the
AM peak hour and 2.9% PM peak hour) at a intersection signalized by the time of project
location with a) unacceptable LOS F operation on occupancy--Dr-provide signalization when
the stop sign controlled Allerton Avenue approach, construction is complete and receive paybacks from
b) both AM and PM peak hour volumes exceeding other local developments as they are constructed. (All
peak hour signal warrant criteria levels, c) volume needed for Base Case operation.)
warrant criteria being exceeded for the need of a Resultant Operation
left turn lane on the eastbound East Grand Avenue
approach and d) less than acceptable sight lines AM Peak Hour: LOS B-13.2 seconds average vehicle
between traffic turning from Allerton Avenue and delay
westbound drivers on East Grand Avenue. PM Peak Hour: LOS C-25.6 seconds average vehicle
delay
East Grand Avenue! Littlefield Avenue East Grand Avenue/Littlefield Avenue Intersection
More than a two percent increase in traffic during
the AM peak hour (2.9% increase) at a location Widen the northbound Litdefield Avenue approach to
with Base Case LOS F operation. provide two intersection approach lanes. Stripe as
one exclusive right turn lane and a combined
South Airport Boulevard/ Utah Avenue left/ through/ right turn lane (needed for Base Case
Change in AM peak hour operation from LOS D operation).
to an unacceptable LOS E. Resultant Operation
Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue AM Peak Hour: LOS D-38.4 seconds average vehicle
Change in AM peak hour all-way-stop operation delay
from LOS C to an unacceptable LOS E. South Airport Boulevard/ Utah Avenue Intersection
South Airport Boulevard/ Gatewqy Boulevard/ MitcheU Restripe one of the northbound South Airport
Avenue Boulevard through lanes as a shared through/right
More than a two percent increase in traffic during turn lane.
the PM peak hour (8.6% increase) at a location Resultant Operation
with Base Case LOS F operation. AM Peak Hour: LOS C-32.1 seconds average vehicle
Oyster Point Boulevard/ Gatewqy Boulevard/ U.S. 1 01 delay
Southbound F!Jover Off-Ramp Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue Intersection
Change in PM peak hour operation from LOS D
to an unacceptable LOS E. Sign the intersection as an all-way-stop.
These would be significant impacts of the Project. Resultant Operation
AM Peak Hour: LOS B-14.1 seconds average vehicle
delay
South Airport Boulevard/ Gatewqy Mitchell/ Mitchell Avenue
Intersection
Add a second through lane on the westbound
Mitchell Avenue approach (needed for acceptable
Base Case operation).
Add a second right turn lane on the southbound
Gateway Boulevard approach.
PAGE 2-16
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Resulting
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of
Significance
Resultant Operation
PM Peak Hour: LOS C-28.2 seconds average vehicle
delay
Oyster Point Boulevard/ Gatewqy Boulevard/ U.S. 1 01
Southbound F!Jover Off Ramp
No feasible physical improvements beyond those
included in the East of 101 TIP have been identified
at this study intersection when it would exceed LOS
standards. The impact at this intersection would
remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact 13-4: Year 2020 Intersection Impacts. No feasible physical improvements beyond those Significant and
Project traffic would produce a significant impact included in the East of 101 TIP have been identified Unavoidable
at the following intersection: at this study intersection when it would exceed LOS
Oyster Point Boulevard/ Gatewqy Boulevard/ U.S. tOt standards. This impact would remain significant and
Southbound F!Jover Off Ramp unavoidable.
Change in PM peak hour operation from an
unacceptable LOS E to an unacceptable LOS F
and more than a two percent increase in traffic (a
4.4% increase) during this time period. This would
be a significant impact.
Impact 13-5: Long Queues in Driveway Lanes. Mitigation Measure 13-5: Turn Lane Extension. Less than
The project will be served by two driveways on Extend the left turn lane on the eastbound East Significant
East Grand Avenue and by one driveway on the Grand Avenue approach to the project's signalized
Cabot Road cul-de-sac. The Cabot Road driveway entrance by 200 feet. There are about 200 feet of
connection would connect to the cul-de-sac landscaped median in which to make this
directly opposite the extension of Cabot Road to improvement (to the east of the Roebling Road
the east. Driveways from three other businesses intersection). This would reduce the impact to a level
also connect to the cul-de-sac, and based upon of less than significant.
volume levels at Allerton A venue, have low traffic
volumes. Sight lines should be acceptable to/ from
all driveways connecting to the Cabot Road cul-de-
sac (including to/from the project driveway)
allowing a "see and be seen" flow of traffic
through the cul-de-sac area.
The project's easterly driveway connection to East
Grand Avenue would be limited to right turns in
and out only by the raised median along East
Grand Avenue. It will be located about 140 feet
west of the signalized Littlefield Avenue
intersection and about 600 feet east of the
signalized main project access intersection. East
Grand A venue is level and straight in the project
area and sight lines are excellent at both driveway
locations.
The westerly driveway intersection along East
Grand A venue is now signalized and also serves
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 2-1 7
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Resulting
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of
Significance
the Britannia Point Grand parking lot on the south
side of East Grand Avenue. A 100-foot-long left
turn lane is provided in the median of East Grand
Avenue on the eastbound approach to this project
entrance. As shown in Tables 13-1 and 13-2,
operation of this signalized intersection would be
acceptable during the AM peak hours in 2008 or
2020 (at LOS C) and would be just acceptable
during the PM peak hours in 2008 or 2020 (at
LOS D). However, during the AM peak hour, the
95th percentile queue of inbound traffic using this
left turn lane could extend about 275 feet in both
2008 and 2020 (i.e. 11 vehicles at 25 feet per
vehicle). During the PM peak hour the 95th
percentile queue would be five cars in 2008 and six
cars in 2020. Inbound project vehicles frequendy
extending out of the existing l00-foot-long left
turn pocket and blocking the flow of eastbound
through traffic would be a significant operational
and safety concern. This would be a significant
impact.
Impact 13-6: Internal Traffic Flow. A two-lane Mitigation Measure 13-6: Eliminate Stalls and Less than
loop road would circle the proposed campus of Channelize Aisle Connections. Parking stalls that Significant
four buildings. It would connect to the two will result in parking or backing maneuvers onto the
driveways providing access to East Grand Avenue project loop road shall be eliminated. In addition, 30
as well as to the garage in the north section of the to 45 degree parking aisle connections with the loop
site. road shall be channelized to 80 or 90 degree
connections.
All internal surface lot driveways would
accommodate two-way traffic flow as would
parking aisles in the garage. All parking aisles
would be 25 feet wide, which would meet City
code and good traffic engineering practice criteria.
Parking stalls would be 90-degree throughout the
site. The Cabot Road cul-de-sac would access a
different level of the parking garage than would the
loop road circling the project office buildings.
One area of concern with the internal circulation
system layout is the eight parking aisle connections
to the loop road that intersect at 45 to 60 degrees
rather than a preferred 90 degrees. In addition,
parking and backing maneuvers to/from some of
the parking stalls near many of these 45- to 60-
degree connections could impact traffic flow on
the loop road. This would be a signijicant impact.
Impact 13-7: Lack of Sidewalk Connections. Mitigation Measure 13-7: Provision of Sidewalk Less than
Sidewalks will be maintained along the project's Connections. A sidewalk connecting Cabot Way Significant
East Grand Avenue and Cabot Road cul-de-sac with the internal campus sidewalk system, or to a
frontages. Sidewalks will also be provided along garage elevator which will provide access to the
the interior of the project's internal lop road as well
PAGE 2-18
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
Potential Environmental Impacts
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommended Mitigation Measures
as through the office campus. One sidewalk internal campus sidewalk system shall be provided.
connection will be made from the office campus to
the sidewalk along East Grand A venue near the
southeast corner of the site, while no sidewalk
connection is proposed from the site to the Cabot
Road sidewalk. Pedestrians accessing the Cabot
Road sidewalk would need to use the garage
driveway. The East Grand Avenue pedestrian
access would be provided by both stairs and a
ramp and would be a potential location for a
shuttle stop. The lack of a defined sidewalk
connection from the Project site to Cabot Road
would produce safety concerns. This would be a
significant impact of the project.
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Impact 14-1: Increased Wastewater Flows.
According to City of South San Francisco design
wastewater flow estimates, the project would
contribute 216,000 gpd of sewage and industrial
wastewater to the City's sanitary sewer system,
which amounts to an increase of 42 percent or
more as compared with the former use of the site.
The project does not include conservation or
recycling technologies that would lessen its
wastewater flows to the municipal system. This is a
potentialfy significant impact.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
Mitigation Measure 14-1a: Sanitary Sewer Fees.
The City of South San Francisco is currently
upgrading its sanitary sewer facilities to handle
increased flows from new development. In order to
recover the costs of these upgrades, the City charges
new development a flat-rate sewer connection fee and
a monthly impact fee. The amount of the impact fee
is based on both the quantity (flow) and the quality
(pounds BOD and pounds solids) of wastewater
generated. In addition, the City raised its sewer rates
by twenty-five percent in fiscal year 2004-05 and plans
to continue to raise rates by up to nine percent in each
of the fiscal years 2005-06 through 2008-09 in order
to finance continuing sewer improvements. The
occupants of the proposed project development shall
pay the sanitary sewer fees imposed by the City of
South San Francisco in order to mitigate the cost of
the sewer system upgrades necessary to manage the
wastewater flows generated by the project.
Mitigation Measure 14-1b: Wastewater Recycling.
The proposed Project development is intended for
biotech uses. However, a particular occupant or
occupants for the Project site have not yet been
identified. Depending on the laboratory practices of
the future occupants, it may be possible to recycle
process and/or clean-up water at the Project site. The
occupants of the proposed Project development shall
evaluate the potential for on-site wastewater recycling
and shall implement wastewater recycling methods.
Less than
Significant
PAGE 2-19
3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SITE CONDITIONS
The Project site is part of the City of South San Francisco's East of 101 Planning Area. The area
consists of roughly 1,700 acres of land, and is bounded by San Francisco Bay on the east side,
Highway 101 and railway lines on the west, the City of Brisbane on the north, and San Francisco
International Airport on the south. The area is mostly developed and has a mix of land uses,
including industry, warehousing, retail, offices, hotels, marinas, and bioscience research and
development facilities.
The Project site is located in a central part of the East of 101 area, at 249 East Grand Avenue
near Roebling Road. The Project site's location is shown in Figure 3-1. The site was, until
recently, developed with a large industrial building occupied by the Georgia Pacific Company,
which was used to manufacture paper and cardboard products. The concrete-walled building is
surrounded on the north, west and south by asphalt-paved areas used for parking and truck
staging areas, and on the east by a railroad spur that was used exclusively by Georgia Pacific to
receive raw materials. Existing vegetation on the site consists of a large lawn area along the East
Grand Avenue frontage, as well as 104 trees of varying heights and maturity, primarily along
East Grand Avenue.
3.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Project would involve development of four Class-A office/laboratory buildings,
ranging from three to five stories in height, totaling about 534,500 square feet, including 5,500
square feet of commercial space, and a four level parking structure providing 1,529 parking
spaces. Building elevations would be a combination of punched and ribbon-window systems in
conjunction with panels of glass-fiber reinforced or precast concrete.
The Project would include extensive landscaping and open space areas. The site plan features a
terraced landscape area between the buildings, visible from the main approach from East Grand
A venue. The Project landscape includes several different zones: the site perimeter and parking
areas; the large public landscaped area between the buildings; and smaller sheltered landscaped
areas between the buildings (where the buildings serve as a barrier to the prevailing winds). The
site perimeter and parking landscape areas include plantings at the perimeters to screen parking
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 3-1
Not;O scale
~~
NOR""
, ,//w-aUl
EL9~---"^' CREEK
/' ~
) 0 ~
\
\ $~
" RAMO"
y-~~--\"~
'\.. SA!< LoRE",iG,
/\\ HA"(W~O \
\, FREf>AOl'll
"'~'
~(
''-\
'{:<N \"
p).\.O \ \
AL"fO"" '>,~ \ ~
'" \"~~-_.)\~
".'),~- /-")
'~tSMl "
" ) JOsE ''\
'-... ? \
souRC\'.: t,arnphier-Gr~Ory
Figure 3-1
"Pro}ect Site Location
CHAPTER 3; PROJECT DESCRIPTION
as well as to present a positive image of the Project as viewed from East Grand Avenue. The
surface parking areas would include tree plantings. From the street, a visitor would approach the
buildings from the main entry drive that provides a view of the large public landscape area
between the buildings. The Project Site Plan is shown in Figure 3-2, while perspective views of
the proposed Project are shown in Figure 3-3.
3.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The proposed Project would fulfill the following objectives:
1. Convert a vacant former industrial site into a high technology research and development
facility,
2. Build a project that creates quality jobs for South San Francisco,
3. Generate net property tax and other fees from the development project and enhance
property values,
4. Build a project which is viable in the East of 101 Area based upon market conditions
and projected service requirements for the Area,
5. Develop a project that has the high quality of design that is called for in the Design
Policies and Guidelines of the East of 101 Area Plan,
6. Provide quality research and development facilities consistent with the General Plan
designation of the site for Business and Technology Park facilities,
7. Continuing to develop the East of 101 Area into a nationally recognized research and
development center that will attract other life science businesses, and
8. Retain the flexibility to build the project in phases that respond best to the market
conditions.
3.4 REQUIRED APPROVALS
The EIR will be used to provide decision makers and the general public with relevant
environmental information to use in considering approval of the Project. The following
approvals would be required:
. Use Permit
. Tentative Parcel Map Permit
. Planned Unit Development Permit
. Design Review Approval
. Development Agreement
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 3-3
\,
\
"I
/)
00
u
'"
:2
~
a
e
2
Cl
...
~
o
Cl
Iii
~
o
o
Ul
~
15:
Q)
N .~
M(f)
Q).....
'"' ~
::l.~
b08
~P-.
."J
v
w
:2
~
~
E
:J
U
tv
-;:
i5
o
tj
~
o
<fl
o
z
<
'"
"
:;;
~
::t
o
"
~
~
;
w
>
u
..
'"
..
w
..
~$/n
I '
I
\~
"1,.\
?--. ~ "~'"
.~.t"
'.
\
\
z
o
>-
..
~
z
w
....
oJ
<
Z
"
;;;
::t
o
..
Ul
CJ)
>
'';:::
U
CJ)
0..
Ul
l-;
CJ)
P-.
OJ)
:::
"0
r<l .:;
chc:o
OJ U
~ .?!..,
.~ 2
~P-.
~
~
<
'"
~
~
;
w
>
~
~
u
w
..
'"
'"
w
..
4
AESTHETICS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
New development can substantially change the visual qualities and characteristics of an urban
area and may have long term lasting effects on the evolution of the urban area, thereby
stimulating growth and increasing its attractiveness for new or expanding businesses, residential
development or other desired or planned land uses. On the other hand, new development can
change the character of an area by disrupting the visual and aesthetic features that establish the
identity and value of an urban area for its existing residents, merchants or other users. Loss of
such identity and value may discourage new investment, continued residency or business activity
or other activities that attract visitors to the area. A single new development can add to a
district's appeal or complement adopted goals for development and change or entirely
overwhelm a district's scale and visual landmarks. Over time, a new development may become a
valued component of the district and its identity, or generate dissatisfaction by residents, visitors,
employers and employees.
The visual value of any given feature is highly subject to personal sensibilities and variations in
subjective reaction to the features of an urban area. A negative visual impression on one person
may be viewed as positive or beneficial by another. Objective or commonly agreed upon
standards are difficult to establish, but an extensive body of literature is devoted to the subject of
urban design and visual aesthetics.
4.2 SETTING
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, 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 three sides. The City's terrain ranges from the flatlands
along the water to hills west and north. Hills are visible from all parts of the City, and Sign Hill
and San Bruno Mountain (which is outside City limits) 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
Dyctt & Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues, 1997, p.4-2, 4-10, 4-15.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECTrDRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 4-1
CHAPTER 4: AESTHETICS
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.
The Project site is located in the East of 101 Planning Area of South San Francisco. 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 park, warehousing and
distribution uses that came to dominate the area in the 1950s and 1960s. The recent emergence
of modern office buildings marks the third major wave of land use change in the area. The newly
emerging office areas are unique in their uses of consistent and conscious street tree planting,
while the rest of the City, including downtown, is almost bereft of street trees. Older
manufacturing uses, industrial park structures and tilt-up warehousing buildings can all be found
in the area. Blocks are generally very large in size and the area has a very stark industrial look.
The Project site is located at 249 East Grand Avenue, where East Grand Avenue intersects with
Roebling Road. The site is currently vacant, but was formerly occupied by a large industrial
building owned by the Georgia Pacific Company, which was used to manufacture paper and
cardboard products.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The following descriptions and photographs of the Project site facilitate an understanding of the
site's visual characteristics. The photographs were taken in April and May of 2005, prior to
demolition of Georgia Pacific's building.
The site's frontage, looking west along East Grand Avenue is shown in Figure 4-1a. From this
vantage point it is possible to see virtually all of the landscaping on site, including a large lawn
area and a line of shrubs and olive trees. Figure 4-1b is a picture taken from near the location of
Figure 4-1, looking south to an office development across East Grand A venue. The former
building's massing and front parking lot are shown in Figure 4-2a. Figure 4-2b is a picture
taken from near the former building's southwest corner, looking north with neighboring
properties and San Bruno Mountain in the background. Moving northward on the Project site,
Figure 4-3a is a picture of the former building's west side and a large paved area to the west.
Though not visible in the picture, an abandoned railroad right-of-way is located between the
cyclone fence and large building in the picture's background. Figure 4-3b shows part of the
western paved area and the property located west of the site, with Sign Hill in the background.
Figure 4-4a is a view of land uses to the west of the site as well as San Bruno Mountain. Figure
4-4b shows a southern view of the Project site, looking toward East Grand Avenue, while
Figure 4-Sa is a view of the northern (rear) portion of the site. Figure 4-Sb shows the site's
eastern boundary, including a railroad spur formerly used by Georgia Pacific to receive raw
materials.
PAGE 4-2
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
~.~~
,.!.:.' ~..
----r
-""":'
..:i
~ .....-
~
11:1
I:ll
~::"l~~... -.;., "',~
East Grand Avenue
A: Site Frontage Along
. ~~".'
..........
I~,.,-
From Project Site
B: Office Complex Across
Figure 4-1
Site Views
~
",e~ "
"Q"1l I
~"1I1) /
II] ,.
~.
~ Ii
r/,"
, ,
,~
~
-JJt
.!'1
f
,~~
~
to
... ~
<:II
is 1
.-'" ...
_.......ct:'.<.~
A: Site frontage Within Parking I.ot
..............\.
~~l." ";JI!
\~;f' l....-;, 1'-
~; ~
..
I~
.:. -
:---
-II
- --~
-=.. 1.....-
.
II
II
.....,.1/:
- -"--~
~.,~,-
\-
c::' Cl
..
III
~~._ !l
I
,--
_I'
-..
1~"''''''
.~
ICI..-...~.,.'...~..
h
[~
-,
-
= '='
g: View of San Bruno Ivlountain and Neighboring Properties
Figure 4-2
Site Views
(f;J
laID
A: Western Area of Project Site
III
I:'"
- -
.;...._1'
i:::~'. .
':'i:: i~;:"'~';:',_;' _;_. .~
.~.~:~7.~jf~~ A, ~
";" ,'.
~ .;-
B: Neighboring Properties and Sign Ifill
Figure 4-3
Site Views
(tiJ
.~~.~,.
A: San Bruno tv1nunlnin
I~: S()ulhern View Toward Eal'l Grand Avcnuc
Figure 4-4
Site Views
~
~-~
{.~
" ".....
~
..,.....,-.
....~
_....-:~~. '
~--
'-"
..,;.......~
{\:"':........,~...
"'lit~_
-
,\: Nurthern Are" ur I'rujed Site
..~
f
rt
~
I
.,
1,
:
~~
.
.".....
J
.,
, ,
\\
...... -....
B: E.1Sterl1 lIull/ldilry uf Pruject Sill'
Figure 4-5
Site Views
ril
CHAPTER 4: AESTHETICS
4.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds for measuring a Project's aesthetic impacts are based upon CEQA
Guidelines thresholds:
1. Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
2. Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
3. Would the Project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings?
4. Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
SCENIC VISTA
San Bruno Mountain is a prominent visual landmark in South San Francisco, and can be seen
from many locations throughout the city, including from the Project site. San Bruno Mountain
can also be seen from across East Grand A venue, from the sidewalk, and from the business park
located across the street. Construction of the proposed Project, with its three to five story
buildings, may block out all or a portion of the existing view to the north. However, the area on
East Grand A venue from which the mountain is visible is not designated a scenic overlook; it is
not a place where people gather in order to gain a view of San Bruno Mountain. Therefore,
blockage of existing views by the proposed Project would be considered less than significant.
SCENIC HIGHWAYS
The Project site is not located on a scenic highway, and therefore would have no impact related
to scenic resource damage on a scenic highway.
VISUAL CHARACTER
As described in the Setting section above, the visual character of the East of 101 area consists of
a mixture of older and newer office and industrial buildings, with differing amounts of
associated landscaping. The Project site was until recently occupied by an older, unattractive
industrial building, while the proposed Project would involve construction of a new highly
designed office building complex with extensive landscaping and open space areas for public
PAGE 4-8
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 4: AESTHETICS
use. The proposed Project would have a beneficial impact on the visual character of the East
of 101 area.
LIGHT AND GLARE
Impact 4-1
Light and Glare. Project implementation would involve construction of
four three to five story office buildings. The many windows and outdoor
lights associated with these buildings would potentially be substantial sources
of day and nighttime glare, which would be considered a significant impact.
Mitigation
Measure 4-1
Glare Minimization Design Standards. Lighting designs should employ
fixtures that would cast light in a downward direction, and building materials
should not be sources of substantial glare. Provided these standards are
followed, the amount of light and glare emanating from the Project site
would be considered less than significant.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 4-9
5
AIR QUALITY
5.1 INTRODUCTION
While air quality is largely a regional issue, the protection of air quality is vital to the overall
health of the environment and the attractiveness of any locality.l South San Francisco enjoys
generally good air quality due largely to the presence of the San Bruno Gap, a break in the Santa
Cruz Mountains that allows onshore winds to flow easily into San Francisco Bay and quickly
disperse air pollutants.
Within South San Francisco, certain areas of the city are more likely to result in pollutant
exposure for residents and workers. These areas include the Highway 101, Interstate 280, and EI
Camino Real corridors, which experience relatively high pollutant concentrations due to heavy
traffic volumes, particularly during peak periods. In addition, wind blowing out of the south and
southeast exposes the city to emissions from the San Francisco International Airport.
5.2 REGULATORY SETTING
South San Francisco is located within the nine county San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Air
quality in the basin is monitored by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD),
which operates a regional network of air pollution monitoring stations to determine if the
national and State standards for criteria air pollutants and emission limits of toxic air
contaminants are being achieved.
Under the federal Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) can classify
an air basin or portion thereof, as either in "attainment" or "nonattainment", This classification
is based on whether or not the basin meets national ambient air quality standards. Likewise, a
basin is classified under the California Clean Air Act with respect to the achievement of State
ambient air quality standards. The Bay Area is considered "attainment" for all of the national
standards, with the exception of ozone. It is considered "nonattainment" for State standards for
ozone and suspended particulate matter (PMlO).
Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, p. 233.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 5-1
CHAPTER 5: AIR QUALITY
Air quality srnndards have also been esrnblished for other common pollurnnts. These ambient
air quality standards are levels of contaminants which represent safe levels that avoid specific
adverse health effects associated with each pollurnnt.
In 1991, the Bay Area 1991 Clean Air Plan was developed to address the Srnte requirements of
the California Clean Air Act. The Plan has been updated three times, in 1994, 1997 and 2000,
with the continued goal of improving air quality through tighter industry controls, cleaner fuels
and combustion in cars and trucks, and increased commute alternatives.
5.3 AIR QUALITY DATA
The BAAQMD monitors air quality at several locations within the San Francisco Air Basin,
although none are located in South San Francisco. The monitoring sites closest to the Project
site are located in San Francisco and Redwood City. Table 5-1 summarizes exceedances of the
state and federal standards at these two sites. The rnble shows that most of the ambient air
quality srnndards are met in the Project area with the exception of the state srnndard for PMIO
and ozone.
TABLE 5.1
AIR QUALITY DATA SUMMARY FOR SAN FRANCISCO AND REDWOOD CITY, 2001.2003
Pollutant Standard Monitorino Site Days Standard Exceeded
2001 2002 2003
Ozone Federal1-Hour San Francisco 0 0 0
Redwood City 0 0 0
Ozone State 1-Hour San Francisco 0 0 0
Redwood City 1 0 1
Ozone Federal 8-Hour1 San Francisco 0 0 0
Redwood City 0 0 0
PMlO Federal 24-Hour San Francisco 0 0 0
Redwood City 0 0 0
PM10 State 24-Hour San Francisco 7 2 1
Redwood City 4 1 0
Carbon Monoxide State/Federal San Francisco 0 0 0
8-Hour Redwood City 0 0 0
Nitrogen Dioxide State 1-Hour San Francisco 0 0 0
Redwood City 0 0 0
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2004.
PAGE 5-2
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 5: AIR QUALITY
5.4 IMPACT ANALYSIS
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds for measuring a project's environmental impacts are based on CEQA
Guidelines thresholds:
1. Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality
plan? The criteria is further defIned as follows:
_ If the Project shows an estimated population greater than assumed in the Clean Air
Plan (as defIned in ABAG Projections), then it would be inconsistent with air quality
planning, and would be deemed to have a signifIcant air quality impact.
- If the Project shows a growth rate in vehicle miles traveled (VM1) higher than the
population growth rate, it would be considered to be hindering progress toward
achieving a substantial reduction in the rate of increase in passenger vehicle trips and
miles traveled. Therefore, it would be considered inconsistent with regional air quality
planning, and deemed to have a signifIcant air quality impact.
- The consistency of the Project with Clean Air Plan Transportation Control Measures
(TCMs) must also be considered in evaluating air quality effects associated with
implementation of the Project. If the Project does not demonstrate reasonable efforts
to implement the TCMs identifIed in the Clean Air Plan, then it would be considered
to be inconsistent with the CAP and deemed to have a signifIcant air quality impact.
2. Would the Project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
3. Would the Project 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 qualitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
4. Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
5. Would the Project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
CONFLICT WITH AIR QUALITY PLAN
The amount of development associated with the proposed Project is consistent with the
intensity of development for the Project site foreseen in the South San Francisco General Plan,
which was published in 1999. The site is located in an area designated as Business and
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 5-3
CHAPTER 5: AIR QUALITY
Technology Park in the General Plan, and the Project site's proposed use is also consistent with
the city's Zoning Ordinance. The city's General Plan designations, and future land use types and
intensities, would have been taken into account during preparation of the BAAQMD's most
recent Clean Air Plan, released in 2000. The Project would therefore be consistent with, and
have no impact on, the Clean Air Plan. '
AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Impact 5-1
Construction Dust. Construction activity involves a high potential for the
emission of air pollutants. Construction activities would generate exhaust
emissions from vehicles/equipment and fugitive particulate matter emissions
that would affect local air quality. This would be a potentially significant
impact.
Construction activities would temporarily affect local air quality, causing a
temporary increase in particulate dust and other pollutants. Dust emission
during periods of construction would increase particulate concentrations at
neighboring properties. This impact is potentially significant, but normally
mitigable.
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelinel provide thresholds of significance for alt
quality impacts. The BAAQMD significance thresholds for construction dust
impacts are based on the appropriateness of construction dust controls. The
BAAQMD guidelines provide feasible control measures for construction
emission of PMIO' If the appropriate construction controls are to be
implemented, then air pollutant emissions for construction activities would
be considered less than significant.
Mitigation
Measure 5-1
Dust Suppression Procedures. The following basic, enhanced and optional
measures are recommended for inclusion in construction contracts to control
fugitive dust emissions during construction.
Basic Measures
. Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.
. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on
all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction
site.
2 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, 1996 (Revised 1999).
PAGE 5-4
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 5: AIR QUALITY
. Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can
be blown by the wind.
. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all
trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
. Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access road,
parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
. Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material
is carried onto adjacent public streets.
. Limit construction equipment idling time.
. Properly tune construction equipment engmes, and install particulate
traps on diesel equipment.
Enhanced Measures
. Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction
areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more).
. Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to
exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.).
. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.
. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff
to public roadways.
. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
Optional Measures
. Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off the tires or tracks
of all trucks and equipment leaving the site.
. Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous
gusts) exceed 25 mph.
With the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, impacts related to construction
emissions would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Operation. Development projects in the Bay Area are most likely to violate an air quality
standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation through
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 5-5
CHAPTER 5: AIR QUALITY
vehicle trip generation. New vehicle trips add to carbon monoxide concentrations near streets
that provide access to the site.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines recommends
estimation of carbon monoxide concentrations for projects where Project traffic would impact
intersections or roadway links operating at Level of Service D, E, or F or would cause Level of
Service to decline to D, E, or F; or where Project traffic would increase traffic volumes on
nearby roadways by 10% or more (if the increase is at least 100 vehicles per hour).
Emissions and ambient concentrations of carbon monoxide have decreased greatly in recent
years. These improvements are due largely to the introduction of cleaner burning motor vehicles
and motor vehicle fuels. No exceedances of the State or National CO standard have been
recorded at any of the Bay Area's monitoring stations since 1991. The Bay Area has attained the
State and National CO standard.
However, despite this progress, localized CO concentrations still warrant concern in the Bay
Area and should be addressed. The region must safeguard against localized high concentrations
of CO that may not be recorded at monitoring sites. Because elevated CO concentrations are
generally fairly localized, heavy traffic volumes and congestion can lead to high levels of CO, or
"hotspots", while concentrations at the closest air quality monitoring station may be below State
and National standards.
A screening method of the Caline4 Model was used in order to determine what effect the
Project would have on localized carbon monoxide (CO) emissions. The screening method used
for the Project area assumed worst-case, peak-hour traffic volumes along the Allerton/East
Grand Avenue intersection and the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard intersection.
According to the traffic analysis completed by Crane Transportation Group (CTG) for this
Project, and as shown in Table 13-2 of this EIR, the Allerton/East Grand Avenue intersection
would be the intersection most affected by the project in terms of decreased Levels of Service.
According to Figure 13-7, the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard intersection would
be the busiest intersection in terms of traffic volume as measured by CTG.
The model was run for each intersection for the PM Peak Hour for existing CO concentrations,
as well as CO levels in 2008 with and without the Project. The following table details the results
of the Caline4 Model runs.
PAGE 5-6
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 5: AIR QUALITY
TABLE 5.2
LOCALIZED CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS
(parts per million)
Allerton/East Grand Oyster Point/Gateway
Model Scenario CO Concentration CO Concentration
1-Hour I a.Hour 1.Hour I a.Hour
Existing
3.08
2.45
3.61
2.98
2008 no Project
3.17
2.58
3.72
3.13
2008 with Project
3.19
2.60
3.78
3.19
In any scenario, CO emissions would not reach the thresholds established by the BAAQMD of
20 parts per million over a 1-hour period, or 9 parts per million over an 8-hour period. As
shown in the above table, CO emissions in the area would increase by 2008 with the proposed
Project. However, because 2008 CO emission levels in the area would remain below BAAQMD
standards, this impact would be less than significant.
CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE IMPACTS
The Project would generate new emissions through new regional vehicle trips. The BAAQMD
has developed criteria to determine if a development Project could result in potentially
significant regional emissions. The District has recommended that 2,000 daily vehicle trips be
used as a threshold for quantifying Project regional impacts.
Based on CTG's estimate of 5,946 daily two way trips to and from the Project site,
URBEMIS7G Model calculations were performed in order to determine whether the Project
would exceed air emissions thresholds for Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), Nitrous Oxide (NO,)
and Carbon Monoxide (CO). Emissions thresholds are 80 pounds per day for ROG and NOx
and 550 pounds per day for CO. The Project's emissions for ROG are estimated at 54 lbs./ day,
below the significance threshold.
Impact 5-2
Cumulative Air Quality Impacts. The proposed Project would exceed
emissions standards for NOx' by producing 112 lbs./ day, as well as
producing 742Ibs./day of CO. This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation
Measure 5-2
Transportation Demand Management Program. Implementation of a
Transportation Demand Management Program, as described in Mitigation
Measure 13-1 of the Transportation and Circulation chapter, would reduce
the number of vehicle trips to and from the Project site, but not to the extent
that NOx and CO emissions would be reduced to acceptable levels. This
would remain a significant and unavoidable impact of the Project.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 5-7
CHAPTER 5: AIR QUALITY
SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
The BAAQMD defInes sensitive receptors as facilities where sensitive receptor population
groups (children, the elderly, the acutely ill and the chronically ill) are likely to be located. These
land uses include residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, retirement homes,
convalescent homes, hospitals and medical clinics. The closest sensitive receptor is the Early
Years Children's Center located at 371 Allerton Avenue, which is located roughly 400 feet east
of the proposed Project site.
The proposed Project could expose the Early Years Children's Center to on-site etnlsSlOns
during construction and operation of the Project. Any Project occupant who would potentially
release toxic air contaminant emissions would be subject to rules, regulations and procedures of
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. As part of its program to control toxic air
contaminant emissions, the District has established procedures for estimating the risk associated
with exposure. The methods used are conservative, meaning that the real risks from the source
may be lower than the calculations, but it is unlikely they will be higher.
In the fIrst step of a two-step process, the District estimates how much of a contaminant would
be found in the air at a specifIc location. The estimate depends upon the type of source, its rate
of production and its location. The second step involves determining if the estimated amount of
contaminant is hazardous to those exposed to it. This determination includes an evaluation of
both carcinogenicity (tendency to cause cancer) and non-cancer health effects. Chemical toxicity
is based on animal study results and in some instances, on the results of human exposure. Issues
of toxic air contaminants are discussed in Chapter 8 of this document.
ODORS
During construction the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on the site would
create odors. These odors would be temporary and not likely to be noticeable much beyond the
Project site's boundaries. The potential for diesel odor impacts is therefore less than
significant.
Because at this time it is not known exacdy what type of business activity (beyond what has been
identified as high technology research and development) would take place at the Project site if
the proposed Project is implemented, it is not possible to determine what level of impact, if any,
the Project would have. However, the Project would be expected to conform to any applicable
air quality regulations, in order to ensure that it produces a less than significant amount of
offensive odors.
PAGE 5-8
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
6
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
6.1 SETTING
The primary natural resources in the East of 101 area are wetlands and their associated plant and
animal species, and slopes with native vegetation. Other natural resources, such as forests, soils
and minerals, are generally absent in the East of 101 area due to previous industrial use of the
land and the fill soils found in the area. Natural vegetation is limited to isolated, scattered
parcels, and much of the vegetated areas are landscaped.
The vast majority of the Project site has until recent demolition activities been developed,
covered mosdy by an industrial building and asphalt. Portions of the site fronting along East
Grand Avenue are covered with vegetation, and include a large lawn area, shrubbery and trees.
There is also a thin strip of vegetation located along the western and northern property lines.
There are 104 trees located on the Project site.
6.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds for measuring a project's environmental impacts are based on CEQA
Guidelines thresholds:
1. Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either direcdy 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?
2. Would the Project 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?
3. Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wedands 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?
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 6-1
CHAPTER 6: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4. Would the Project 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?
5. Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
6. Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
SPECIES AND HABITATS
Because the Project site is located in a largely industrial area, on a site that has already been
developed, the Project would have no impact on any endangered, threatened or rare species or
their habitats, or to any federally protected wedands or wildlife corridors.
POLICIES, PLANS AND ORDINANCES
The Project site is vegetated by various types of landscaping, including trees, shrubs, and lawn
areas. Of the 104 trees located on the site, 14 are considered protected trees, based on the City
of South San Francisco Tree Ordinance.
Impact 6-1
Removal of Protected Trees. Construction at the Project site would require
cutting down 104 trees. Fourteen of the trees on the site are considered
protected trees under Section 13.30.020(f)(1) of the City of South San
Francisco Municipal Code relating to tree preservation (free Ordinance).
According to the Ordinance, a protected tree is defined as the following:
1. Any tree with a circumference of 48 inches or more when measured 54
inches above natural grade; or
2. A tree or stand of trees so designated by the Director based upon
findings that it is unique and of importance to the public due to its
unusual appearance, location, historical significance or other factor; or
3. A stand of trees in which the Director has determined each tree is
dependent upon the others for survival.
The 14 protected trees on the site are considered protected because their
trunk circumferences measure more than 48 inches above natural grade.
Cutting down these trees would be a potentially significant impact of the
Project.
PAGE 6-2
249 EAST GRAND AVE~UE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 6: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Mitigation
Measure 6-1
Tree Replacement. The Project applicant shall be required to obtain a tree
cutting permit and adhere to the City of South San Francisco Tree Ordinance
before removing any trees from the Project site. According to the Tree
Ordinance, no protected tree shall be removed, ptuned~ or otherwise
materially altered without a permit except as provided in Section 13.30.030. A
tree cutting permit requires replacement of a tree with three 24-inch box or
two 36-inch box minimum size landscape trees for each tree removed, as
described in Section 13.30.080 of the Tree Ordinance. Adherence to the
provisions of the City of South San Francisco Tree Ordinance would reduce
the impact of cutting down protected trees on the Project site to a level of
less than significant.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 6-3
7
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7.1 INTRODUCTION
The information presented below was drawn from several sources of data including: (1)
Geotechnical report for the Project site completed by KC Engineering Company (April 2, 2004);
(2) Review of USGS Open File Reports (OFR) of the area, including a map of the bedrock
geology (USGS OFR 98-354, 1998), Quaternary Geologic Map, including liquefaction
susceptibility (USGS OFR 97-715,1997), and Landslide Map (USGS OFR 97-745 C); (3) Review
of Official California Geologic Survey (CGS) (formerly the California Division of Mines and
Geology (CDMG)) Maps, including the South San Francisco Alquist-Priolo (A-P) Earthquake
Fault Zone Map (1982), and Fault Activity Map of California (1994); (4) Review of government
websites, including the Association of Bay Area Government's (ABA G) website (www.abag.gov)
for a summary of hazards ranging from liquefaction to seismic landsliding; and (5) Review of the
East of 101 Area Plan of the City of South San Francisco, as well as all other applicable
ordinances and regulations.
7.2 SETTING
Regional Seismicity
The site lies in the tectonically active Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province of northern
California, on the east side of the San Francisco Peninsula. Development of the northwest
trending ridges and valleys in the vicinity, including the Santa Cruz Mountains and San Francisco
Bay, are controlled by active tectonism along the boundary between the North American and
Pacific Tectonic Plates, the San Andreas Fault System. Area faults have predominantly right-
lateral strike-slip (horizontal) movement, with lesser dip-slip (vertical) components of
displacement. Horizontal and vertical movement is distributed on the various fault strands
within a fault zone. Throughout geologic time the fault strands experiencing active deformation
change in response to regional shifts in stress and strain from plate motions. Within 15 miles of
the project site there are three major active faults that display large right-lateral strike-slip offsets,
the San Andreas fault, the San Gregorio fault, and the Hayward fault.
The geotechnical report cited the nearest active or potentially active fault zones to the site as the
San Andreas fault, located 3.4 miles southwest of the site, the San Gregorio Fault (Seal Cove
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 7-1
CHAPTER 7: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
fault), located approximately 8.6 miles to the southwest, and the Hayward Fault, located
approximately 15.0 miles to the northeast. The nearest potentially active fault (showing evidence
of Quaternary movement, or movement within the past 1.6 million years) is the San Bruno fault,
located approximately 1.4 miles southwest of the site. The nearest geologic fault is the Hillside
fault, located approximately 1,000 feet northeast of the site. This fault is not considered active
or potentially active.
Seismicity of the Project region has resulted in several major earthquakes during the historic
period, including the 1868 Hayward Earthquake, the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, and most
recently, the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake.! Small, non-damaging earthquakes occur frequently
in the project vicinity. Larger potentially damaging earthquakes are expected to occur
periodically, and are considered likely during the design life of the Project site.
Regional Geology
The site is located at the edge of the San Francisco Bay, a submerged valley in the Central Coast
Ranges of California. This area is characterized by northwest trending mountain ranges and
valleys oriented sub-parallel to faults of the San Andreas Fault System. In the San Francisco Bay
Area, Tertiary strata commonly rest in angular unconformity on rocks of the Franciscan
complex, which is composed of weakly to strongly metamorphosed greywacke (sandstone),
argillite, limestone, basalt, serpentinite, and chert. The rocks of the Franciscan complex are
ancient Jurassic oceanic crust and deep marine (pelagic) deposits accreted onto the edge of the
North American Continent and metamorphosed as a result of accretion and partial subduction.
These deposits have been overlain by Late Jurassic to Late Cretaceous sedimentary deposits.
Deposits of these rocks may be found outcropping along San Bruno Mountain in the Project
vicinity. Little metamorphosed, high-pressure, low-temperature metamorphic minerals are
common in the Franciscan complex, but there are also high grade metamorphic blocks in
sheared but relatively un-metamorphosed argillite matrix which reflect the complicated history
of the Franciscan.
These rocks have been offset by movement along the San Andreas Fault System, which traverses
the Santa Cruz Mountains prior to heading offshore in Southern Daly City, on the other side of
the Peninsula. The San Francisco Peninsula is dissected by several northwest trending and
structurally controlled valleys, including the valley of Colma Creek, which contains the Project
site. During the Quaternary Period of rising and falling sea level in response to patterns of global
glaciation these valleys have been incised and then backfilled with sediment to form the suite of
alluvial deposits that can be found today, including the Pleistocene Colma Formation. Along the
bay margin, deposits of Holocene "Bay Mud" deposited during the past 11,000 years, during
which time the Bay has filled with seawater, can be found, as well as marsh deposits, and other
fine grained sediment accumulated by currents along the shore.
California Division of 11ines and Geology, 2002.
PAGE 7-2
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 7: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Site Geology and Soils
According to a recent map of bedrock geology (1998), most of the site is underlain by the
Pleistocene Colma Formation, with a small area of historic artificial fill over tidelands in the
south corner. The Colma Formation is described as friable, well sorted, fine to medium grained
sand containing a few beds of sandy silt, clay, and gravel throughout most of the area, but also as
sandy clay and silty sand in the Project vicinity. Fill is described as clay, silt, sand, rock
fragments, organic matter, and man made debris, placed over tidal flats. The site is likely
underlain at depth by Franciscan Rocks similar to those exposed in nearby San Bruno Mountain.
Sandstone bedrock typical of the Franciscan Complex was penetrated in two boreholes at the
site.
A site geologic map was not completed for the geotechnical investigation, but several boreholes
drilled through the property indicate subsurface conditions. Since boreholes were not drilled
inside the warehouse, the subsurface information is only detailed around the edge of the
proposed development. These boreholes typically encountered 2 to 4 inches of asphalt, and
variable gravel depths as thick as 12 inches. Along East Grand Avenue, between 4 and 5 feet of
silt, sand, and clay fill was reportedly encountered, while significant fill was not reported in the
other boreholes. However, with the exception of Borehole 6 on the north corner, all the logs
report typically clayey sand soils to a depth of between 24.5 to 31.5 feet BGS. Borehole 1
penetrated sandstone bedrock at 27.5 feet BGS, while Borehole 6 penetrated apparently similar
sandstone bedrock at about 6 feet deep. While other boreholes did not reportedly penetrate
bedrock, it seems likely that the depth to bedrock should not significantly exceed about 30 feet
and soils should become thinner in the northerly direction and toward the hills. Although
medium-dense to dense sand was most commonly found, clay lenses between about 5 and 10
feet thick were encountered in Boreholes 2 and 6. Boreholes 1 and 2 initially encountered
groundwater at 10 feet BGS, while in Boreholes 3, 4, and 5, shallower groundwater was found at
depths of 1, 4.5, and 3 feet, respectively. No groundwater was encountered in Borehole 6.
Results indicate a shallow, probably perched groundwater table between about 1 and 4.5 feet
BGS underlies most of the eastern portion of the property, with a deeper water table about 10
feet BGS found toward the west edge of the property, and little or no groundwater next to the
hill behind the property.
Landsliding and Slope Stability
Slope steepness is generally the dominant factor governing slope stability, depending upon soil
and bedrock conditions. Steep slopes greater than 50 percent are especially prone to landslides in
areas of weak soil and/or bedrock. The geotechnical feasibility report did not examine the risk
of land sliding or slope stability at the site, since the development will redevelop a nearly level
parcel of land, the risk from slope instability may be assumed to be minor. According to ABAG
the site is not at risk from slope instability.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 7-3
CHAPTER 7: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Primary Seismic Hazards - Surface Fault Rupture
A number of active and potentially active faults are present in the region. According to criteria
of the State of California Geological Survey, active faults have experienced surface rupture
within the last 11,000 years (Holocene Period). The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
of 1972 initiated a program of mapping active and potentially active faults (faults with
displacement within Quaternary time - the last 1.6 million years). According to the program,
active faults must be zoned and development projects within the Earthquake Fault Zones
investigated to establish the location and age of any faulting across the development site. Active
and potentially active faults along the San Francisco Peninsula have undergone extensive
investigation in the past. ABAG has summarized results from many of these studies to quantify
the potential impact to certain areas, while the California Geological Survey has established
Earthquake Fault Zone (EFZ) boundaries. According to these maps, the proposed development
is not located within an EFZ.
The nearest EFZ is for the San Andreas Fault, located slighrly more than 3 miles southwest of
the site. Since no faults are mapped across the Project site on any published maps, the
geotechnical consultant inferred ground rupture at the site as a result of an earthquake unlikely
and the risk of ground rupture within the Project boundaries is considered very low.
Secondary Seismic Hazards
Ground Shaking
The San Francisco Bay Area is a seismically active region. The Project site and region will likely
be subjected to strong to violent seismically induced ground shaking within the design life of the
development. The site is located in an area of active regional seismicity near active seismic
sources.
According to a recent study completed by the Working Group on California Earthquake
Probabilities (WGCEP), which assesses the probability of earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay
Area, there is a 62 percent probability that an earthquake of Richter Magnitude 6.7 or greater will
strike between 2003 and 2032.2
The intensity of ground shaking will vary with the distance and magnitude of the earthquake
causing the ground shaking. The maximum intensity ground shaking expected to occur at the
site would be a modified Mercalli intensity level of IX (violent) in response to an earthquake of
equivalent magnitude to the 1906 earthquake (7.9) on the San Andreas fault. An earthquake of
magnitude 6.8 on the Hayward fault would be expected to produce strong ground shaking
equivalent to Mercalli intensity level VIe
WGCEP,2002.
Association of Bay Area Governments, www.abag.ca.gov , 2005.
PAGE 7-4
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 7: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Peak ground accelerations for the site with a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in a 50-
year period are approximately 60 percent of the acceleration due to gravity (g).4 Actual ground
motions resulting from ground acceleration may be amplified or dampened depending on the
underlying geologic materials. Deep soft soils tend to amplify waves whereas shallow soils
overlying hard bedrock tends to dampen shaking intensity. With relatively shallow soils at the
project site, no amplification of seismic waves is anticipated.
Seismically Induced Liquefaction
Liquefaction is the temporary transformation of saturated, cohesionless soil into a viscous liquid
as a result of ground shaking. Liquefaction potential was examined for the site in the
geotechnical report. According to that report, the risk of liquefaction was determined to be very
low. According to ABAG, soils at the site have a very low susceptibility to liquefaction.s These
maps show a sharp demarcation at the line separating Bay fill and native ground, from very high
risk to very low risk. The geotechnical report assessed liquefaction potential at the site and
concluded a very low risk due to the presence of dense silty and clayey sands, with a liquid limit
greater than 35 percent and silt plus clay content between 28 and 42 percent and at least 15
percent clay.
Seismically Induced Densification
Dynamic densification or ground subsidence can occur when dry cohesionless soils collapse as a
result of seismic shaking. This may be particularly true of unconsolidated sandy fill, or ground
overlying hollow areas due to caves, mines, or areas with excessive groundwater removal. Since
these conditions do not occur at the site, dynamic densification is not considered a hazard.
Seismically Induced Lurch Cracking
Lurching is the sudden swaying, rolling, or spreading of the ground during a strong earthquake.
Lurch cracking is the development of fissures or cracks on slopes overlain by weak soils.
According to the geotechnical report, soil materials present at the site were typically stiff to very
stiff clayey soils, and are not susceptible to lurch cracking. Lurch cracking is not considered a
hazard.
Seismically Induced Landslides
Seismically induced slope failure IS another secondary SelSlnlC hazard. During earthquake
induced ground shaking, unstable slopes can fail, causing landslides and debris flows. Due to
the nearly level topography of the site, seismically induced landslides are not considered a
hazard.
California Geologic Survey, http://www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS/rghm/pshamap/pshamain.htrnl.
ABAG web site, www.abag.ca.gov
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 7-5
CHAPTER 7: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds for measuring a Project's aesthetic impacts are based upon CEQA
Guidelines thresholds:
1. Would the Project 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.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
2. Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
3. Would the Project 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?
4. Would the Project 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?
5. Would the Project 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?
PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
SEISMIC IMPACTS
According to CEQA guidelines, exposure of people or structures to major geological hazards is
a significant adverse impact. The primary geologic hazards affecting the Project identified in the
Initial Study are strong seismic ground shaking, slope instability, and expansive clayey soils. The
basic criterion applied to the analysis of impacts is whether construction of the Project will
create, or be founded on, unstable geologic conditions that would last beyond the short-term
PAGE 7-6
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 7: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
construction period. The analysis of geological hazards is primarily based on the degree to which
the site geology could produce hazards to people, structures, and the environment from
earthquakes, fault rupture, landslides, soil creep, expansion and settlement or other geologic
events.
Surface Fault Rupture
According to the latest available maps, the site is not contained within an Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone boundary. Published geologic maps show no faults across the site, and
there is no other indication of an active fault, and therefore no impact to the Project.
Exposure to Strong Seismic Ground Shaking
Impact 7-1
Mitigation
Measure 7-la
Mitigation
Measure 7-lb
Seismic Ground Shaking. There is a high probability that the proposed
development would be subjected to strong to violent ground shaking from
an earthquake during its design life. Exposure of people and buildings to
strong seismic ground shaking is considered a potentially significant
impact.
Compliance with Uniform Building Code and California Building
Code. Project development shall meet requirements of the California
Building Code Vol. 1 and 2, 2001 Edition, including the California Building
Standards, 2001 Edition, published by the International Conference of
Building Officials, and as modified by the amendments, additions and
deletions as adopted by the City of South San Francisco, California.
Incorporation of seismic construction standards would reduce the potential
for catastrophic effects of ground shaking, such as complete structural
failure, but will not completely eliminate the hazard of seismically induced
ground shaking.
Compliance with recommendations of a design level geotechnical
report. Proper foundation engineering and construction in accordance with
the recommendations of a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and a
Registered Structural Engineer shall be included in the Project. The feasibility
level geotechnical investigation was completed without a development plan.
This investigation revealed that the Project is geotechnically feasible.
Following development of a building plan, a design level geotechnical
investigation shall be completed with recommendations specific to the
proposed structures.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 7-7
CHAPTER 7: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
At a minimum, the structural engineering design shall incorporate seismic
parameters as outlined in the feasibility level geotechnical report adopted
from the California Building Code. Site specific seismic response criteria shall
be developed as part of the design level Geotechnical Investigation. There
would be no additional impact upon completion of the design level study and
adherence to recommended seismic parameters, given that the Project was
deemed feasible by the initial geotechnical study.
Seismic Zone 4
~oment11agrUtude ~6.9+
Soil Profile Type Sc
Seismic Source Type A
Seismic Zone Factor OAO
Seismic Coefficients Ca = OAONa; Cv = 0.56Nv
Near Source Factors Na = 1.5; Nv = 1.6
Mitigation
Measure 7-1c
Obtain a building permit and complete final design review. The Project
applicant shall obtain a building permit through the City of South San
Francisco Building Division. Final Design Review of planned buildings and
structures shall be completed by a licensed structural engineer for adherence
to the seismic design criteria for planned commercial and industrial sites in
the East of 101 Area of the City of South San Francisco. According to the
East of 101 Area Plan Geotechnical Safety Element, buildings shall not be
subject to catastrophic collapse under foreseeable seismic events, and will
allow egress of occupants in the event of damage following a strong
earthquake.
Conformity with these mitigation measures would reduce the Project's impact related to seismic
ground shaking to a level of less than significant.
Seismic Ground Failure, including Liquefaction, Densification, Differential
Settlement
According to Association of Bay Area Governments hazard maps, the site is not within a
liquefaction hazard zone. The Geotechnical Investigation by KC Engineering Company
PAGE 7-8
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 7: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
concluded that site soils are not susceptible to liquefaction. This would be considered a less than
significant impact.
Exposure to Seismically Induced Landslides
No landslides are mapped across the property and the site is nearly level. There would be no
impact.
SOIL EROSION
Impact 7-2
Mitigation
Measure 7-2a
Mitigation
Measure 7-2b
Soil Erosion. The Project would involve mass grading in a sensitive area
near the San Francisco Bay. During construction, grading would disturb soil
and displace any topsoil that could potentially impact vicinity drainages, and
would eventually impact Colma Creek and the Bay. This would be a
potentially significant impact during and following site construction
activities.
Erosion Control Plan. The Project applicant shall complete an Erosion
Control Plan to be submitted to the City in conjunction with the Grading
Permit Application. The Plan shall include winterization, dust, erosion and
pollution control measures conforming to the ABAG Manual of Standards
for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures, with sediment basin design
calculations. The Erosion Control Plan shall describe the "best management
practices" (BMPs) to be used during and after construction to control
pollution resulting from both storm and construction water runoff. The Plan
shall include locations of vehicle and equipment staging, portable restrooms,
mobilization areas, and planned access routes.
Recommended soil stabilization techniques include placement of straw
wattles, silt fences, berms, and gravel construction entrance areas or other
control to prevent tracking sediment onto city streets and into storm drains.
Public works staff or representatives shall visit the site during grading and
construction to ensure compliance with the grading ordinance and plans, and
note any violations, which shall be corrected immediately.
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). In accordance with the
Clean Water Act and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB),
the Applicant shall file a SWPPP prior to the start of construction. The
SWPPP shall include specific best management practices to reduce soil
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 7-9
CHAPTER 7: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
erosion. This is required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for
Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity
(Construction General Permit, 99-08-DWQ).
Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the Project's impact to a level of less
than significant.
Impact 7-3
UNSTABLE GEOLOGIC SOILS
Mitigation
Measure 7-3
PAGE 7-10
Unstable Soils. The site contains shallow groundwater and variable depth of
fill soils, which could become unstable if improperly compacted, stockpiled,
or excavated during grading. Setdement and dynamic densification could
become issues with improper foundation design. Moreover, utility trenches
and other excavations are likely to encounter groundwater and may require
dewatering. This is a potentially significant impact.
Construction 10 Accordance with Design Level Geotechnical
Investigation. A design level geotechnical investigation shall be completed
that includes subsurface investigation in areas now occupied by structures.
The design level geotechnical report shall include recommendations for site
preparation and grading, foundation design, retaining wall design parameters,
concrete slabs-on-grade, pavement section design, surface and subsurface
drainage measures and site specific seismic response criteria.
Grading recommendations shall include specifications for engineered fill,
including moisture conditioning and relative percent compaction, and
suitability of materials as engineered or structural fill. Recommendations shall
also establish maximum cut and fill slopes. Cuts to be made adjacent to the
property line shall be evaluated for potential adverse impact to neighboring
properties. In accordance with the East of 101 Area Plan, new slopes greater
than 5 feet in height, either cut in native soils or rock, or created by placing
fill material, shall be designed by a geotechnical engineer and have an
appropriate factor of safety under seismic loading.
Drainage recommendations shall include provisions to prevent the ponding
of water, prevent seepage under structures, including pavements, and
generally direct flow away from structural foundations. Drainage
recommendations shall incorporate proposed landscaping elements.
Permanent subsurface drains are expected to be necessary for retaining walls
to prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind the walls.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 7: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Recommendations for foundations shall include soil bearing capacity or skin
friction values, lateral pressures, and types of ground improvement
techniques, if necessary. Geotechnical recommendations shall also provide
the depth of footings or pile foundations necessary for the planned
structures. During construction, a Registered Geotechnical Engineer or his
representative shall observe all foundation work. A letter indicating that all
foundation construction meets with the intent of the geotechnical
recommendations shall be provided to the Building Official prior to concrete
pourmg.
Recommendations for concrete slab construction shall identify measures to
mitigate expansive soils to minimize shrink/swell potential, such as moisture
conditioning or replacement with select non-expansive fill, as well as
concrete thickness and reinforcement. The feasibility report recommended
that in addition to 4 inches of Caltrans Class II AB underlying slabs, a 10
millimeter minimum thickness vapor retarding membrane meeting ASTM
E 1745 should be placed between the concrete slab and base rock to
minimize moisture condensation under floor coverings placed on slabs. The
design level report shall either corroborate this recommendation or identify
an alternative to be implemented.
Recommendations for pavement areas shall include compaction and
moisture conditioning requirements, as well as pavement section thickness
and construction design based upon a Resistance-value (R-value) determined
for sub grade soils in the areas to be paved.
The design report shall include specific drainage criteria behind retaining
walls, and identify retaining wall foundation design and design parameters.
In general, the design report shall either corroborate or provide alternative
recommendations to the feasibility report based upon actual soil and rock
conditions in the areas where structures are proposed.
Implementation of these ffi1tlgation measures will reduce the Project's impact relating to
unstable or potentially unstable soils to less than significant.
EXPANSIVE SOILS
Impact 7-4
Expansive Soils. According to the feasibility level geotechnical report,
potentially expansive clay soils were encountered. Expansive clay soils may
shrink and swell, resulting in damaged foundations, concrete slabs,
pavements and other improvements. This is a potentially significant
impact.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 7-11
CHAPTER 7: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Mitigation
Measure 7-4
Design and Construction in Accordance with Design Level
Geotechnical Investigation. The design level geotechnical report shall
recommend mitigation measures for expansive clay soils. Potential measures
for control of expansive clay soils include the following:
a) Placing and compacting potentially expansive soils at high moisture
contents (at least 5 percent above optimum moisture content in accordance
with ASTM D1557) and compaction within selected ranges of 88 to 92
percent.
b) Using thickened concrete slabs with increased steel reinforcement.
c) Replacing clayey soils underlying foundations and concrete slabs with
select structural fill that is non-expansive or has a low expansion index.
d) Treating site soils with lime to reduce the expansion potential and increase
the strength.
e) Grade around structures to assure positive drainage away from structures.
Implementation of the above mitigation measures will reduce the impact of potentially expansive
soils to less than significant.
SEPTIC SYSTEMS
No impact would occur, because a sewer system is present in the area and septic systems are
not required at the site.
PAGE 7-12
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
8
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
8.1 INTRODUCTION
A hazardous material is a substance or combination of substances which, because of its quantity,
concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics, may either 1) cause, or
significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious, irreversible, or
incapacitating reversible illness; or 2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human
health and safety, or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed
of or otherwise managed. Hazardous waste (a subset of hazardous material) refers to hazardous
material that is to be abandoned, discarded or recycled.
The following section describes the history of hazardous materials at the site, and the threat to
future occupants and the surrounding environment resulting from the proposed development,
including expected use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials associated with Class A
laboratory facilities. The information presented below was drawn from several sources of data
including: (1) Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment for the property completed by Environ
International Corporation (April 2, 2004); (2) Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment for the
property completed by Environ International Corporation (April 2, 2004); (3) Reports on
Asbestos Surveys completed on the existing Georgia Pacific Facility (February 27, 2004 and
April 5, 2005); (4) Appendix to Phase 1, Environmental Data Resources Incorporated Radius
Map with Geocheck database search Ganuary 6, 2004); (5) Review of Historical Topographic
Maps Online (http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/histopo/); (6) Review of the East of 101 Area Plan of
the City of South San Francisco, as well as all other applicable ordinances and regulations; (7)
249 East Grand Avenue Development Plan Sheets prepared for Alexandria Real Estate Equities,
by Dowler Gruman Architects; (8) 249 East Grand Avenue Preliminary Project Description
(April 25, 2005); (9) Review of the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department
website, which may be found at (http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/smc/department/home.html);
(10) private telephone conversations with San Mateo County and City of South San Francisco
officials; and (11) a site visit by Questa Engineering Staff on May 17, 2005.
8.2 SETTING
A history of the site was documented from the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA)
prepared by Environ International Corporation (2004), as well as independent review of old
maps. More recent information was obtained from private conversations with county and city
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 8-1
CHAPTER 8: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
officials, planning documentation, and a site visit on May 15, 2005. One of the earliest maps of
the area is the 1896 topographic quadrangle map of the site. This map shows East Grand
Avenue in a similar configuration to the present configuration, but with only six buildings shown
along the length of the road between the main north-south railroad line and Point San Bruno.
Most of the area south of East Grand Avenue is shown as a marsh. In the location of the
current property only a single small building is shown located near the northeast corner of the
existing Georgia Pacific warehouse. According to the Phase 1 ESA the site was later used as a
stockyard for the meat packing industry from 1910 to 1956. During this time the property was
traversed by railroad tracks, a spur of which still remains along the east edge of the property.
From 1956 until 1966 the property was apparendy vacant. In 1966 Georgia Pacific developed
the property, and has occupied the facility until recendy, when manufacturing stopped. During
the past several months the facility has been used by the local police department for training
drills in cooperation with the Georgia Pacific facility manager. During operations Georgia Pacific
stored and used a number of potentially hazardous chemicals at the site. In the spring of 2004,
Georgia Pacific sold the property to Alexandria Real Estate Equities who have proposed the
development, which is the subject of this report. As a result of the real estate transaction and
site demolition, Phase 1 and Phase 2 environmental site assessments (ESAs) have already been
completed at the site, which provide most of the background information presented here.
PHASE 1 INVESTIGATION
Environ International Corporation of Irvine, California completed a Phase 1 ESA report on the
property and surrounding area dated April 2, 2004. The report included a literature review,
records review, site reconnaissance, and interviews with knowledgeable parties. The Phase 1
ESA indicated potential contamination of the site is primarily due to recent operations by
Georgia Pacific Corporation, for which the principal site use was manufacturing of corrugated
and solid fiber boxes. The report also disclosed the presence of five former underground storage
tanks and two underground concrete sumps on the property, which may have also caused
contamination of the site.
The report identified three major chemical categories of concern: 1) inks and dyes; 2) oils,
including hydraulic oils and possible PCB's; and 3) wax and wax products. During a site visit for
the Phase 1 ESA, ink staining was noted on the floor of the facility, while oil stains were noted
around sump grates and next to sumps, some of which were still filled with accumulated liquid,
including apparent oil and water mixtures. According to the Phase 1 ESA, wax residue and pulp
were also found scattered about the property, including some residual fluids leaking from piping.
The report further discussed the status of the underground storage tanks recorded at the site.
The property is listed in both Underground Storage Tank (UST) and Leaking Underground
Storage Tank (LUST) databases. According to the Phase 1 ESA, Georgia Pacific provided no
reports regarding the leaking tank; however, in 1986 two 10,000-gallon diesel and gasoline tanks,
as well as one 500-gallon solvent tank (reportedly with 98 percent paraffin and 2 percent
benzene and naphthalene) were removed. Between 1993 and 1995 an 8,000-gallon tank was also
removed. A remaining 10,000-gallon tank was abandoned in place in accordance with a San
Mateo County Environmental Health Division permit. A schematic site plan included with the
PAGE 8-2
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 8: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Phase 1 ESA shows this tank located about 15 feet from the north wall of the warehouse, and
approximately 60 feet from the northeast corner. No information was found on the method of
tank abandonment. However, sampling was completed during excavation, and monitoring wells
were installed to monitor contamination from all the underground tanks. Records indicate the
wells were destroyed in 1998 by pressure grouting with cement after drilling out the casing,
annular seal and filter pack materials of the wells. The San Mateo County Environmental Health
Division granted site closure for underground tanks in a letter dated November 10, 1998.
The Phase 1 ESA also included an investigation of neighboring and nearby sites, including
searches of the underground storage and leaking underground storage tank databases, and
related databases. The search revealed that two nearby facilities in South San Francisco were also
on LUST lists: 1) the Shell Oil Company at 899 Airport Boulevard, and 2) Gallo Sales Company
located at 440 Forbes Boulevard. According to the Phase 1 ESA review of records, the Shell site
is located 0.75 miles from the subject property and gasoline constituents were detected in very
low concentrations and were not detected off-site. Environ reported that according to a
groundwater report for the Gallo Sales Company site dated November 14, 2003, the petroleum
hydrocarbons TPH-g, BTEX, and MTBE were detected in a monitoring well near the property
(off site). Environ proposed groundwater sampling in the Phase 2 ESA to ascertain whether
contamination had crossed onto the Georgia Pacific property.
PHASE 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Environ followed up the Phase 1 ESA with a Phase 2 ESA, documented in a report dated April
2, 2004. The purpose of the Phase 2 ESA was to follow up on questions raised by results of the
literature review, records and database search, and interviews conducted in the Phase 1 ESA.
The Phase 2 ESA was also conducted to determine if a complete program of remediation was
required to remove or treat hazardous chemicals remaining on the property. The most pertinent
question was the extent of any contamination on the property considered hazardous to the
environment, public, new owners and occupants. While the case for the Underground Storage
Tanks reported at the site was closed by the San Mateo County Environmental Health
Department in a letter dated November 10, 1998 due diligence in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act and other environmental laws applicable to the property and
property transactions required further subsurface excavation and boreholes to examine the
nature and extent of any possible groundwater and soil contamination.
Evidence of contamination from the Phase 1 ESA included observation of: 1) melted wax and
oil draining into a catch basin; 2) a leaky pipe to an aboveground storage tank; and 3) ink and
heavy oil staining on the floor in and around the oil storage area, sumps, and pits. Subsurface
contamination from the underground storage tanks at the site was apparently mitigated
satisfactorily since San Mateo County Environmental Health issued a closure letter.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 8-3
CHAPTER 8: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
In accordance with CAL OSHA requirements for work where hazardous chemicals are
suspected and following identification of underground utilities, a subsurface investigation was
completed. Following concrete coring or cutting to expose the subsurface soil, 29 borings were
drilled and soil and groundwater samples were collected. Groundwater samples were collected
from 24 of the boreholes, while soil samples were collected from another 15 boreholes. These
samples were sealed and sent to Severn Trent analytical laboratories in South San Francisco for
analytical testing under chain of custody documentation.
All soil samples were analyzed for volatile organic compound (VOCs), including methyl tertiary
butyl ether (MTBE), benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, trimethylbenzenes, naphthalene,
methylene-chloride, acetone, and butanone according to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Method 8260B. Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) occurring in the gas, diesel, and
motor oil ranges were also analyzed for select samples according to EPA Method 8015B. In
addition, three of the soils samples were analyzed for metals according to ICP-MS (inductively
coupled plasma mass spectroscopy) and pesticides according to EPA Methods 6020 and 8081A.
Groundwater samples were tested for VOCs and TPH as gasoline and diesel were tested for
select samples. Summaries of the contaminant concentrations detected were reported in
summary tables and compared to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
(SFBRWQCB) Exposure Screening Levels (ESLs) for shallow soil (< 3m) at commercial and
industrial sites.
The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has established environmental screening
guidelines for residential developments (RWQCB, 2003). According to the publication, the
environmental screening levels (ESL's) are to be used as Tier 1 guidelines:
"Use of the ESLs and this document in general is intended to be entirely optional on the part
of the regulated facility and subject to the approval of the case manager in the overseeing
regulatory agency. The presence of a chemical at concentrations in excess of an ESL does
not necessarily indicate that adverse impacts to human health or the environment are
occurring; this simply indicates that a potential for adverse risk may exist and that additional
evaluation is warranted. ESLs presented for chemicals that are known to be highly
biodegradable in the environment may in particular be overly conservative for use as final
cleanup levels (e.g., many petroleum-related compounds). Use of the ESLs as cleanup levels
should be evaluated in view of the overall site investigation results and the cosUbenefit of
performing a more site-specific risk assessment."
None of the concentrations was found to exceed these screening levels. Contaminant
concentrations in groundwater were compared to the RWQCB ESLs for groundwater that is a
current or potential source of drinking water for commercial and industrial sites. None of the
concentrations were found to exceed these ESLs. Results were also compared to the California
Department of Health Services Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and concentrations were
below these levels.
PAGE 8-4
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 8: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Based on these fIndings, Environ concluded that uniform low levels of VOCs and petroleum
hydrocarbon residues found in soil across the site do not suggest a single source of
contamination, or a "hotspot". A similar conclusion was made regarding groundwater, since low
concentrations of VOCs were scattered and sporadic. No potential up-gradient source was
identifIed, such as the former LUST at the Gallo Sales Company site. Based on their findings,
the Phase 2 ESA concluded that residual soil and groundwater beneath the property does not
pose a signifIcant risk to future onsite workers or occupants. No recommendations for
additional subsurface investigation, excavation, or treatment were made by Environ. However,
the Environmental Health Department has recommended that despite granting closure to the
site, residual contamination associated with the remaining 10,000 gallon underground storage
tank abandoned in place may remain and should be investigated should the Building Department
notify the Health Department of any change in use of the site. Such a change in use is obviously
represented by the proposed development. Results of the Phase 2 ESA should be provided to
the regulatory agencies for review.
ASBESTOS SURVEYS
The Georgia PacifIc facility was used to store and process paper and cardboard, which are both
highly flammable. Due to the flte hazard, asbestos fIbers were used as insulation in walls and
ceilings to mitigate for potentially disastrous fires. Asbestos fIbers were commonly used to
flteproof facilities (throughout the 1960s, when the facility was originally constructed) and were
even used into the 1970s. Later research has indicated that asbestos fIbers are carcinogenic
(cancer causing). Research indicates that the microscopic needlelike fIbers can cause extreme
lung irritation, and lead to diseases such as mesothelioma. Prior to demolition and
redevelopment, surveys were completed to assess the extent of asbestos at the facility and hazard
posed to workers as well as future occupants. The results of these surveys were documented in
reports also completed by Environ, dated February 27,2004 and AprilS, 200S.
Results of the asbestos survey reported February 27, 2004 indicated asbestos in six types of floor
tile and mastic covering, one type of linoleum, mastic associated with cove base for securing a
border between the wall and flooring, joint compound on drywall, boiler insulation, duct wrap,
tank wrap and insulation, and some roofIng material. However, the April 5, 2005, report
indicated no asbestos containing material (ACM) encountered in roofing material.
Recommendations of the earlier report were for asbestos containing material to be removed by a
licensed asbestos abatement contractor prior to renovation or demolition. Until that time the
recommendation was that ACM be managed under an Operations and Maintenance Program.
CURRENT CONTAMINATION LEVELS AND HEALTH RISKS
Contamination levels may be assessed from the Phase 2 ESA. The 1998 closure letters for
former underground storage tanks indicate that the San Mateo County Environmental Health
Department had considered the site remedial activities complete. The Health Department
suggested that residual contamination might be associated with the remaining abandoned
underground 10,000-gallon storage tank. During site redevelopment, the potential for residual
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 8-5
CHAPTER 8: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
contamination should be addressed. No further investigation was recommended in the Phase 2
ESA, but consideration in regard to specific details of the proposed development was not
considered. The level of contamination is expected to remain unchanged in the subsurface
provided that sediment and debris control measures are maintained around catch basins and
other entry pathways into the subsurface. Hazardous materials were removed from the site
during demolition. Following removal of the concrete slab prior to new grading, local staining
of soil and contamination not previously detected may also be found. Based on results of the
Phase 2 ESA, the extent of any contamination is likely to be very low. Risk of exposure to
future occupants will also be very low since most of the site will be paved and the subsurface
will remain undeveloped. The greatest risk of exposure from any residual contamination would
be to workers during site grading and construction. These hazards are in addition to the normal
hazards associated with any large construction projects.
8.3 REGULATORY SETTING
Regulation of toxic and hazardous substances is locally administered through the San Mateo
County Environmental Health Department. The department administers several programs to
regulate and monitor the use of hazardous materials, including the hazardous materials business
plan program, hazardous waste generator program, California accidental release program,
underground storage tank program, groundwater protection program, and the stormwater
pollution prevention program. These programs, which are mandated by State and Federal Laws,
are aimed at protecting public health and the environment. At the federal level, the chief
regulator is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EP A), Region IX for Northern
California. At the State level, the Department of Toxic Substances and Control (DTSC) is chiefly
responsible for regulation, handling, use, and disposal of toxic materials. The State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) regulates discharge of potentially hazardous materials to
waterways and aquifers, as well as stormwater protection through the general permit, which must
be obtained for any grading projects exceeding one acre, including the proposed project. The
local branch of the Water Board is the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
(SFBRWQCB).
The Hazardous Materials Bqsiness plan is used to keep track of the use of hazardous materials
by businesses in accordance with both state and federal laws. The Hazardous Waste Generator
Program was started in 1984 when the State of California DTSC authorized the Health
Department to inspect and regulate non-permitted hazardous waste generators in San Mateo
County based on the Hazardous Waste Control Law found in the California Health and Safety
Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5 and regulations found in the California Code of Regulations, Tide
22, Division 4.5.
The groundwater protection program 1S funded wholly or in part, by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEP A), under Cooperative Agreement L-009450-1-0 to the
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and by Contract 8-014-550 to th~ County of
San Mateo. In conjunction with these laws the underground storage tank program was created to
regulate the chief source of underground contamination, leaking underground storage tanks
PAGE 8-6
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 8: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
(LUST). Regulatory agencies maintain a database of sites with these sources of contamination, as
well as potential sources of contamination, such as underground fuel tanks. Databases with
information on hazardous materials sites include the Federal Superfund list started through the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Conservation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980
and the USEP A, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS), HAZNET, the leaking underground storage tank information
system (LUST), the Cortese list, and many others. These databases were searched for the Phase
1 ESA. Air pollution is regulated through the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD).
These programs and regulations are primarily intended to 1ll1t1gate for environmental
contamination including hazards to wildlife, provide protection for natural resources, and limit
public exposure to harmful chemicals. Specific programs intended to protect workers from
exposure to hazardous materials and from accidental upset are covered under the Occupational
Health and Safety Administration at both the Federal Level (OSHA) and the state level (CAL-
OSHA).
Transportation of hazardous materials on the highways is regulated primarily through the
Federal Department of Transportation (DOT) and the California Department of Transportation
(CALTRANS). This includes a system of placards, labels, and shipping papers required to
identify the hazards of shipping each class of hazardous materials. Existing federal and state laws
address risks associated with the transport of hazardous materials. These laws include regulations
outlined in the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act administered by the DOT. Caltrans is
mandated to implement the regulations established by the DOT, which is published as the
Federal Code of Regulations, Title 49, commonly referred to as 49 CFR. The California Highway
Patrol (CHP) enforces these regulations. Regulations of hazardous materials and wastes include
the manufacture of packaging and transport containers; packing and repacking; labeling; marking
or placarding; handling; spill reporting; routing of transports; training of transport personnel;
and registration of higWy hazardous material transport.
8.4 IMPACT ANALYSIS
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds for measurmg a Project's environmental impacts are based upon
CEQA Guidelines thresholds:
1) Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
2) Would the Project 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?
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 8-7
CHAPTER 8: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
3) Would the Project produce hazardous etnlSS10nS or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
4) Would the Project 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?
5) Would the Project be 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?
6) 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?
7) Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
8) Would the Project 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?
PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 8-1
HAzARDOUS MATERIALS USE, TRANSPORT
Mitigation
Measure 8-la
PAGE 8-8
Routine transportation, use or disposal of hazardous materials. The
proposed development is for construction of four Class-A office and
laboratory buildings, and a parking garage. Class A refers to a research
laboratory, not merely an instructional laboratory. Depending upon the
nature of research planned at the proposed facilities, for which detailed
information has not yet been provided, there are likely to be both hazardous
and potentially hazardous materials stored and used on the site that will
eventually require disposal. This could include both biohazards as well as
chemical hazards. There is also likely to be transportation of hazardous
materials to and from the site, probably traveling along Highway 101 and
East Grand Avenue. The risk of accidental upset and environmental
contamination from routine transport, storage, use and disposal of hazardous
and potentially hazardous materials to the public and environment is a
potentially significant impact.
Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program. Businesses occupying the
development must complete a Hazardous Materials Business Plan for the
safe storage and use of chemicals. The Business Plan must include the type
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
Mitigation
Measure 8-1b
CHAPTER 8: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
and quantity of hazardous materials, a site map showing storage locations of
hazardous materials and where they may be used and transported from, risks
of using these materials, material safety data sheets for each material, a spill
prevention plan, an emergency response plan, employee training consistent
with OSHA guidelines, and emergency contact information. Businesses
qualify for the program if they store a hazardous material equal to or greater
than the minimum reportable quantities. These quantities are 55 gallons for
liquids, 500 pounds for solids and 200 cubic feet (at standard temperature
and pressure) for compressed gases.
Exemptions include businesses selling only pre-packaged consumer goods;
medical professionals who store oxygen, nitrogen, and/or nitrous oxide in
quantities not more than 1,000 cubic feet for each material, and who store or
use no other hazardous materials; or facilities that store no more than 55
gallons of a specific type of lubricating oil, and for which the total quantity of
lubricating oil not exceed 275 gallons for all types of lubricating oil. These
exemptions are not expected to apply to Class A laboratory facilities.
Businesses occupying and/or operating at the proposed development must
submit a business plan prior to the start of operations, and must review and
update the entire Business Plan at least once every two years, or within 30
days of any significant change. Some of these changes are new emergency
contact information, major increases or decreases in hazardous materials
storage and/or changes in location of hazardous materials. Plans shall be
submitted to the San Mateo County Environmental Health Business Plan
Program, which may be contacted at (650) 363-4305 for more information.
The San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD) shall
inspect the business at least once a year to make sure that the Business Plan
is complete and accurate.
Hazardous Waste Generator Program. Prior to operations, businesses
should check with the SMCEHD if they need to register in the hazardous
waste generator program. The State of California Department of Toxic
Substances Control authorized the SMCEHD to inspect and regulate non-
permitted hazardous waste generators in San Mateo County based on the
Hazardous Waste Control Law found in the California Health and Safety
Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5 and regulations found in the California Code
of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5. Regulations require businesses
generating any amount of hazardous waste as defined by regulation to
properly store, manage and dispose of such waste. Division staff also
conducts surveillance and enforcement activities in conjunction with the
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 8-9
CHAPTER 8: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Mitigation
Measure 8-1c
County District Attorney's Office for businesses or individuals that
significandy violate the above referenced law and regulations.
Compliance with Applicable Laws and Regulations. All transportation
of hazardous materials and hazardous waste to and from the site will be in
accordance with Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, US
Department of Transportation (DOT), State of California, and local laws,
ordinances and procedures including the posting of placards, signs and
other identifying information.
Implementation of the above tnltlgation measures would reduce the impact of routine
transportation, use or disposal of hazardous materials to a level of less than significant.
Impact 8-2
Mitigation
Measure 8-2
PAGE 8-10
Accidental Hazardous Materials Release. Mitigations for accidental
release of hazardous materials during construction are presented in the
hydrology section of this environmental impact report. Following
construction, operations at the proposed facilities are expected to represent a
continuing threat to the environment through accidental release of hazardous
materials since the site is proposed to include Class A laboratory facilities,
where hazardous materials may be stored, used, and disposed of. This
represents a potentially significant impact.
California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CalARP). Future
businesses at the development shall need to check the state and federal lists
of regulated substances available from the San Mateo County Environmental
Health Department (SMCEHD). Chemicals on the list are chemicals that
pose a major threat to public health and safety or the environment because
they are higWy toxic, flammable or explosive. Businesses are responsible for
determining which list to use in consultation with SMCEHD.
Should businesses qualify for the program they must complete a CalARP
registration form and submit it to Environmental Health. Following
registration, they shall submit a risk management plan (RMP). Risk
management plans are designed to handle accidental releases and ensure that
businesses have the proper information to provide to emergency response
teams if an accidental release occurs. All businesses that store or handle more
than a threshold quantity (TQ) of a regulated substance must develop a RMP
and follow it.
Risk Management Plans describe impacts to public health and the
environment if a regulated substance is released near schools, residential
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 8: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
areas, hospitals and childcare facilities. RMPs must include procedures for:
keeping employees and customers safe; handling regulated substances;
training staff; maintaining equipment; checking that substances are stored
safely; and responding to an accidental release.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the Project's impact to a level of less
than significant.
HAzARDOUS MATERIALS SITES
According to the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessments completed for the
property, the site was on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5. The San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD)
closed the case on leaking underground storage tanks reported at the site, and monitoring wells
were decommissioned in 1998 because no contamination of soil and groundwater that could
pose a threat to the health of future residents and the environment was found. The presence of
the site on a list of hazardous material sites represents a less than significant impact because
the condition that resulted in the inclusion of the site on the list no longer exists.
HAzARDOusMATER~SNEARSCHOOLS
Impact 8-3
Mitigation
Measure 8-3
Emissions Near Schools. The Early Years Children's Center is located at
371 Allerton Avenue, approximately 400 feet east and downwind of the
northeast corner of the property. Since the proposed development includes
research laboratory facilities, it is likely that hazardous chemicals will be
stored and used on the property. In certain circumstances these chemicals
could spill, mix, ignite, or volatilize and cause a hazardous emission near the
childcare center, which would be a potentially significant impact.
Meet standards of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA). Each independent R&D facility operating on the property shall
adhere to BAAQMD standards and periodically demonstrate compliance
with all other local, state and federal requirements for emissions. Each facility
shall also meet OSHA and California OSHA standards for R&D facilities.
This includes design review by the City of South San Francisco to examine if
the proposed development plans meet the same standards as for other similar
facilities. Engineering controls, such as exhaust hoods, @tration systems, spill
kits, fire extinguishers, and other controls, shall be incorporated into
laboratory facilities to meet OSHA and California OSHA requirements.
These standards are primarily designed to maintain worker safety, but also
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 8-11
CHAPTER 8: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
function to reduce the risk of accidental upset and limit potential hazardous
etnlSSlOns.
Implementation of this tnlt1gation measure would reduce the impact to the school from
potential hazardous emissions to a level of less than significant.
Impact 8-4
Mitigation
Measure 8-4
Handling of hazardous wastes within one-quarter mile of a school.
The Early Years Children's Center is located at 371 Allerton Avenue,
approximately 400 feet east of the northeast corner of the property. Since the
proposed development includes research lab facilities it is likely that
hazardous chemicals will be handled in close proximity to the childcare
facility. Close proximity of hazardous chemicals to occupants of the childcare
facility represents a significant hazard and potentially significant impact.
Regulation of hazardous materials in accordance with the San Mateo
County Environmental Health Department Programs. Registration and
regulation in the Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program, Hazardous
Waste Generator Plan Program, and California Accidental Release Program
in accordance with earlier mitigations identified in this chapter, for risk of
accidental upset and for routine transport, disposal, and use of hazardous
wastes, would significandy reduce the risk to occupants of the nearby
childcare facility. In addition, the applicant shall establish an early warning
and evacuation plan for the child care center in the case of a hazardous
materials release.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the impact to the school from nearby
handling of hazardous materials to a level of less than significant.
Impact 8-5
EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN
Mitigation
Measure 8-5
PAGE 8-12
Potential Interference with Emergency Response Plan. The proposed
development would physically interfere with implementation of an adopted
emergency response or evacuation plan if on-site circulation does not allow
for adequate emergency vehicle access. Interference with the local
Emergency Response Plan would be a significant impact.
Fire Department Review. The applicant shall submit construction plans for
Fire Department review, and shall establish temporary alternative emergency
routes necessary for the duration of the construction project. During design
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 8: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
review, the Fire Department would verify that roads and driveways meet
ordinance and uniform building code requirements for emergency access.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the impact of development to any
emergency response or evacuation plan to a level of less than significant.
AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN
Impact 8-6
Airport Land Use Plan. The proposed Project would be located within the
jurisdiction of the Airport Land Use Plan for the San Francisco International
Airport. The Project could have a significant impact in terms of the Plan's
policies.
Mitigation
Measure 8-6
FAA Regulations Compliance. Public Utilities Code, Section 21659,
"Hazards N ear Airports Prohibited" prohibits structural hazards near
airports. To ensure compliance with this requirement and Federal Aviation
guidelines the developer shall submit a Notice of Proposed Construction or
Alteration (Form 7460-1) to the Federal Aviation Administration.
Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the impact of development to any
emergency response or evacuation plan to a level of less than significant.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED ErR
PAGE 8-13
9
HYDROLOGY
9.1 INTRODUCTION
This section presents an evaluation of potential Project impacts to hydrology and water quality.
The discussion is based on: (1) review of the Preliminary Project Description (dated April 25,
2005) and Planning Application figures (dated June 3, 2005); (2) a site visit conducted on May
18, 2005 by Questa Engineering; (3) review of the Geotechnical Feasibility Investigation
prepared by KC Engineering; and (4) correspondence with City of South San Francisco and San
Mateo County Public Works Departments.
9.2 SETTING
CLIMATE AND TOPOGRAPHY
The Project site is located in a relatively flat industrial area east of Highway 101 in the City of
South San Francisco. The San Francisco Bay is located approximately 2,000 feet southeast of the
site. The regional climate is typical of the San Francisco Bay Area and is characterized by dry,
mild summers and moist, cool winters. About 80 percent of the total annual precipitation occurs
during the months of November through March with an average annual precipitation of 20
inches. Average monthly temperatures range from a high of 74 degrees Fahrenheit in the
summer to a low of 42 degrees Fahrenheit in the winter.!
The Project site and surrounding area are largely developed with light industrial, research and
development, warehousing, retail, office, and hotel land uses. Nearly 90 percent of the Project
site is currently covered in impervious surfaces. A 330,000 square foot warehouse building
previously occupied the 15.75-acre site. Paved parking and loading areas are located on the west,
north and south areas of the site, with a railroad loading/unloading dock running along the
eastern boundary of the property. The site generally slopes gently (less than one percent slopes)
to the south toward East Grand Avenue and elevations range from approximately 22 feet above
Mean Sea Level (MSL) along the northern boundary of the site to approximately 15 feet above
MSL at the southeast and southwest corners.
Western Regional Climate Center, 2005
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 9-1
CHAPTER 9: HYDROLOGY
REGIONAL HYDROLOGY
The majority of the site drains to the Colma Creek watershed. The Colma Creek watershed
includes portions of San Bruno Mountain as well as urbanized areas of Daly City, Colma, and
South San Francisco. Most of this urbanized creek is channelized and/or conveyed underground
to allow for urban development. The percent of impervious surface area in Colma Creek was
previously estimated at 63 percent, the highest in the County.2 Colma Creek is a flood control
channel maintained by the San Mateo County Department of Public Works that discharges into
the San Francisco Bay just north of the San Francisco International Airport. Improvements and
maintenance of the creek are funded by the Colma Creek Flood Control Zone, which contains
the parcels that must contribute financially to the Zone's revenue and maintenance of flood
control infrastructure. The Project site is not located within the designated boundaries of the
Zone.
SITE HYDROLOGY
Approximately 87 percent of the 15.75-acre Project site is currently covered by impervious
surfaces. Stormwater runoff from the Project site begins as overland sheet flow. Several storm
drains currently exist on the Project site in the parking areas to the west, north and south of the
site and adjacent to the railroad loading area on the eastern edge of the site. These existing storm
drains convey storm water runoff to two existing drop inlets located below the southeast and
southwest comers of the site at East Grand Avenue. The southeastern drop inlet drains
approximately 1/3 of the site and conveys flows into a 36-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP)
that runs south down Littlefield Avenue, east to Kimball Way before discharging into the San
Francisco Bay. The southwestern drop inlet drains the remainder of the site and connects to a
24-inch RCP along East Grand Avenue. Flows are conveyed west up East Grand Avenue and
south down Gateway Boulevard to the point of discharge at the Colma Creek flood control
channel.
GROUNDWATER
The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) defines state groundwater basins based
on geologic and hydrogeologic conditions. According to the DWR, the site is located within the
Westside Groundwater Basin. The Westside Groundwater Basin consists of bedrock and
unconsolidated materials. Unconsolidated materials overlying the basin represent the primary
water-bearing strata and are comprised of dune sands, the Colma Formation, and the Merced
Formation. While groundwater quality in the basin is generally in compliance with drinking water
quality standards, some wells in the basin have experienced nitrate-nitrogen concentration in
excess of the primary maximum contaminant levels.3
2
City of Daly City Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program, 1998
Department of Water Resources, 2004.
PAGE 9-2
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 9: HYDROLOGY
The preparation of the Geotechnical Feasibility Investigation for the proposed Project involved
six subsurface investigations to depths of between 8 and 31.5 feet below ground surface (bgs).
The borings were dug March 3, 2004, when seasonal groundwater levels are generally high.
Groundwater at the Project site was encountered at depths ranging between 1 to 10 feet bgs.4
FLOODING
The Project site is located outside of the 100-year flood hazard zone of Colma Creek as
delineated by the current Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance
Rate Maps (FIRMs). According to the FIRM, several areas downstream of the Project site are
located within the 100-year floodplain. These include the properties at Gateway Boulevard
between East Grand Avenue and Mitchell Avenue and the properties south and west of Colma
Creek and north of the navigable slough (1981). However, flood control improvements to
Colma Creek since the effective date of the FEMA FIRM have reduced flooding along the creek
channel. 5
9.3 REGULATORY SETTING
The proposed Project must be constructed in accordance with several regulatory programs, laws,
and regulations that aim to protect surface water resources. In some cases, Federal laws are
administered and enforced by state and local government. In other cases, state and local
regulations in California are stricter than those imposed by Federal law. This section summarizes
relevant regulatory programs, laws, and regulations with respect to hydrology and water quality
and how they relate to the proposed Project.
FEDERAL LAws AND REGULATIONS
CLEAN WATER ACT
The Clean Water Act (CWA) was enacted by Congress in 1972 and amended several times since
inception. It is the primary federal law regulating water quality in the United States, and forms
the basis for several state and local laws throughout the country. Its objective is to reduce or
eliminate water pollution in the nation's rivers, streams, lakes, and coastal waters. The CW A
prescribed the basic federal laws for regulating discharges of pollutants as well as set minimum
water quality standards for all waters of the United States. Several mechanisms are employed to
control domestic, industrial, and agricultural pollution under the CW A. At the Federal level, the
CW A is administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EP A). At the state and
regional level, the CWA is administered and enforced by the State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The State of
4
KC Engineeting Company, 2004.
Munar, 2005.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED ErR
PAGE 9-3
CHAPTER 9: HYDROLOGY
California has developed a number of water quality laws, rules, and regulations, in part to assist
in the implementation of the CWA and related Federally mandated water quality requirements.
In many cases, the Federal requirements set minimum standards and policies and the laws, rules,
and regulations adopted by the State and Regional Boards exceed them.
STATE LAws AND REGULATIONS
PORTER-COLOGNE WATER QUAliTY CONTROL ACT
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act establishes the SWRCB and the RWQCB as the
principal state agencies having primary responsibility for coordinating and controlling water
quality in California. The Porter-Cologne Act establishes the responsibility of the RWQCBs for
adopting, implementing, and enforcing water quality control plans (Basin Plans), which set forth
the state's water quality standards (i.e. beneficial uses of surface waters and groundwater) and the
objectives or criteria necessary to protect those beneficial uses. The NPDES permits must be
consistent with the Basin Plans.
NPDES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
The CW A has nationally regulated the discharge of pollutants to the waters of the U.S. from any
point source since 1972. In 1987, amendments to the CWA added section 402(P), which
established a framework for regulating nonpoint source (NPS) storm water discharges under the
National Pollutant Elimination System (NPDES). The Phase I NPDES storm water program
regulates storm water discharges from industrial facilities, large and medium-sized municipal
separate storm sewer systems (those serving more than 100,000 persons), and construction sites
that disturb five or more acres of land. Under the program, the Project applicant will be required
to comply with two NPDES permit requirements.
The NPDES General Construction Permit Requirements apply to clearing, grading, and
disturbances to the ground such as excavation. The Project applicant is required to submit a
Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Water Resource Control Board's (SWRCB) Division of
Water Quality. The NOI includes general information on the types of construction activities that
will occur on the site. The applicant will also be required to submit a site-specific plan called the
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction activities. The SWPPP will
include a description of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize the discharge of
pollutants from the site during construction. It is the responsibility of the property owner to
obtain coverage under the permit prior to site construction.
The NPDES General Industrial Permit Requirements apply to the discharge of storm water
associated with industrial sites. The permit requires the implementation of management
measures that will achieve the performance standard of best available technology (BAT)
economically achievable and best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT). Under the
statute, operators of new facilities must implement industrial BMPs in the Project SWPPP and
PAGE 9-4
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 9: HYDROLOGY
perform monitoring of storm water discharges and unauthorized non-storm water discharges.
An annual report must be submitted to the RWQCB each July 1. Operators of new facilities
must f1le an Nor at least 14 days prior to the beginning of operations.
LOCAL PROGRAMS AND REGULATIONS
SAN MATEO COUNTYWIDE STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM
To comply with the CWA, San Mateo County and the 20 cities and town in the County formed
the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP). STOPPP
holds a joint municipal NPDES permit from the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. The permit
includes a comprehensive plan to reduce the discharge of pollutants to creeks, San Francisco
Bay, and the ocean to the maximum extent possible.
SAN FRANCISCO BAY WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN (BASIN PLAN)
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB is responsible for the development, adoption, and
implementation of the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay region. The Basin
Plan is the master policy document that contains descriptions of the legal, technical, and
programmatic bases of water quality regulation in the San Francisco Bay Region. The Basin Plan
identifies beneficial uses of surface waters and groundwater within its region and specifies water
quality objectives to maintain the continued beneficial uses of these waters. The proposed
Project is required to adhere to all water quality objectives identified in the Basin Plan.
Beneficial Uses of Surface Waters and Groundwaters
The Basin Plan defines beneficial uses for surface waters and groundwater in its corresponding
jurisdiction. The beneficial uses of surface waters in Colma Creek include wildlife habitat,
municipal and domestic supply, agricultural supply, and industrial supply. The beneficial uses of
groundwater in the Westside Groundwater Basin (also referred to as the Merced Valley North
Groundwater Basin) include municipal and domestic supply, industrial process supply, industrial
supply, and agricultural supply.
EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN
The East of 101 Area Plan provides detailed planning policies that are consistent with policies of
the adopted South San Francisco General Plan. With respect to hydrology and water quality, the
plan aims to reduce flooding by evaluating specific development proposals to determine
drainage and flood protection requirements, and to prevent the degradation of water quality by
minimizing erosion and sedimentation, and requiring that Projects comply with NPDES permit
. 6
reqmrements.
City of South San Francisco, East ofl0l Area Plan, 1994.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 9-5
CHAPTER 9: HYDROLOGY
COLMA CREEK FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
The Colma Creek Flood Control District (District) is administrated by the San Mateo County
Department of Public Works. The District was created for the purpose of constructing flood
control facilities along the Colma Creek channel and reducing flooding problems in the City of
South San Francisco. The Colma Creek Flood Control Zone (Zone) extends over the entire
watershed and contains the parcels that must contribute fInancially to the District's revenue and
maintenance of the flood control facilities. Several channel improvements have been constructed
since the District was created in 1964.
The proposed Project is located outside of the Zone boundary. Since the Project is located
outside of the Zone boundary, it does not contribute to funds for flood control improvements
nor maintenance. For this reason, the San Mateo County Department of Public Works has
requested that storm water runoff from the site not be directed to drain into the District's flood
control channe1.7
9.4 IMPACT ANALYSIS
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds for measuring a Project's aesthetic impacts are based upon CEQA
Guidelines thresholds:
1. Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
2. Would the Project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net defIcit in aquifer volwne 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)?
3. Would the Project 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?
4. Would the Project 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?
San Mateo County Department of Public Works, 2005.
PAGE 9-6
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 9: HYDROLOGY
5. Would the Project 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?
6. Would the Project otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
7. Would the Project 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?
8. Would the Project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would
impede or redirect flood flows?
9. Would the Project 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?
10. Would the Project cause inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mud flow?
PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
INCREASE IN NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTION (NPS) IN RECEIVING WATERS
Non-point source pollutants (NPS) are washed by rainwater from roofs, landscape areas, and
streets and parking areas into the drainage network. Typical industrial NPS pollutants for various
industrial activities are listed in Table 9-1. Development of the proposed Project would
contribute to the levels of NPS pollutants and litter entering downstream waters, including
Cohna Creek and San Francisco Bay. An increase in NPS pollutants could have adverse effects
on wildlife, vegetation, and human health. NPS pollutants could also in@trate into groundwater
and degrade the quality of potential groundwater drinking sources.
Under the NPDES storm water permit, the proposed Project is required to provide permanent
treatment for site runoff. To meet this requirement, the proposed Project includes the use of
infiltration trenches at the 6-foot wide vegetated islands in the parking areas. Notches in the
curb surrounding the parking islands would allow water to enter the in@tration trenches. The
infiltration trenches would be equipped with an overflow pipe above the bottom of the trench to
convey excess flows to the formal subterranean storm drain system.8 Infiltration trenches are
long, narrow, rock-filled trenches for storm water runoff. Ideally, the runoff is stored between
gravel and sand layers before in@trating through the bottom of the trench and into the
underlying soil matrix. Details regarding the in@tration trenches were not included in the Storm
Drain Plan dated June 3, 2005 for the proposed Project.
Nakashima, 2005.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 9-7
CHAPTER 9: HYDROLOGY
TABLE 9-1
POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS FROM INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES
VJ
V
U
VJ ~
... ...
Q VJ VJ
t'l <;l .g
u
.~ '>1 CI) v
VJ 1l VJ
... VJ 0 bIJ t'l t'l VJ
Q ... VJ E-< t'l ~ V v
Q ::s .... '>1 :Q
v v <;l "0 c..'J v
INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY ~ '>1 ... ... u
... v ~ v Q u .~
::l ::s ::c t'l o(j t'l VJ
V Z VJ El P=l v
CI) U t'l :-;:I p..
... v
'E t'l t:l 0
0
eo rr:; I
Q
0 v
~
0
Vehicle & Equipment Fueling X X X
Vehicle & Equipment Washing X X X X X X
Vehicle & Equipment X X X
Maintenance & Repair
Outdoor Loading & Unloading X X X X X X X
of Materials
Outdoor Container Storage of X X X X X X
Liquids
Outdoor Process Equipment X X X X
Operations & Maintenance
Outdoor Storage of Ray
Materials, Products, & X X X X X X X
Bproducts
Waste Handling & Disposal X X X X X X
Contaminated or Erodible X X X X X X X X
Surface Areas
Building & Grounds X X X X X X X
Maintenance
Building Repair, Remodeling, X X X X
& Construction
Parking/Storage Area X X X X
Maintenance
Source: California Stormwater Quality Association, 2003. California Stormwater BMP Handbook, Industrial & Commercial.
PAGE 9-8
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
Impact 9-1
Mitigation
Measure 9-1
CHAPTER 9: HYDROLOGY
Site Conditions May Be Unsuitable for Infiltration. Appropriate
evaluation of site conditions is critical to the effectiveness of infiltration
trenches. The geotechnical borings indicate groundwater conditions in the
proposed parking areas can be as high as 3 and 4.5 feet bgs during winter
months. Shallow depth to groundwater could cause underlying soils to
become saturated, particularly during winter months, and could impair the
ability of the infiltration trenches to infiltrate water and filter out pollutants.
Infiltration structures require a minimum soil infiltration rate of 0.5
inches/hour. Percolation testing to verify the infiltration capacity of site soils
has not been conducted. Infiltration trenches have a high failure rate if soil
and subsurface conditions are not suitable. Furthermore, infiltration trenches
are not considered suitable for sites that use or store chemicals or hazardous
materials unless hazardous and toxic materials are prevented from entering
the infiltration trenches. This represents a potentially significant impact.
Evaluate Project Site for Feasibility of Infiltration as Water Quality
BMP. The use of infiltration trenches at the Project site may be limited by
several factors, including soil characteristics, distance to groundwater, and
proposed land uses. The feasibility of infiltration BMPs at the Project shall be
evaluated as follows:
1) Groundwater levels at the invert of the infiltration trenches shall be
reevaluated. The Project applicant shall ascertain that the distance from
the proposed trench inverts to groundwater be at least 10 feet (CASQA,
2003).
2) Soil parameters, such as the amount of silt and clay shall be examined.
Soils should not have more than 30 percent clay or more than 40 percent
clay and silt combined (CASQA, 2003).
3) Infiltration rates shall be evaluated to ensure adequate permeability of site
soils. Infiltration rates shall be no less than 0.5 inches/hour and not more
than 2.4 inches/hour (CASQA, 2003).
4) Proposed land uses shall be examined: infiltration BMPs are not suitable
for sites that use or store chemicals or hazardous materials unless
hazardous and toxic materials are isolated such that they are not able to
enter the trench. The potential for spills can be minimized by spill
prevention control measures.
If site constraints preclude the use of inftltration trenches at the Project site,
other BMPs that do not allow interaction with groundwater shall be used.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 9-9
CHAPTER 9: HYDROLOGY
Possible alternatives for storm water treatment include Vortex Separator
Units or Stormceptors at drop inlets. Vortex Separators are round gravity
separators that induce removal of suspended sediment with the centrifugal
force caused by water moving circularly through the system. Stormceptors
are comprised of a round precast concrete tank and fiberglass partition that
remove oil and sediment from storm water runoff by gravity separation. Any
storm water quality BMPs to be implemented at the site must be approved by
the City's Public Works Department.
The use of effective BMPs at the Project site would reduce impacts to a level of less than
significant.
Impact 9-2
Mitigation
Measure 9-2
PAGE 9-10
Potential Contamination of Local Groundwater. The Project site is
located within a groundwater basin as defined by the DWR. The potential for
groundwater contamination from infiltration BMPs must be carefully
considered, especially in areas where the distance between groundwater and
the trench invert is shallow or where groundwater is or could potentially be
used for human consumption or agricultural purposes. The infiltration of
industrial and parking lot pollutants into shallow groundwater could
potentially impair the quality of local groundwater sources. This represents a
potentially significant impact.
Preparation and Implementation of Project SWPPP. Pursuant to
NPDES requirements, the applicant shall develop a SWPPP to protect water
quality during and after construction. The Project SWPPP shall include, but
is not limited, to the following mitigation measures for the construction
period:
1) Grading and earthwork shall be prohibited during the wet season
(October 15 through April 15) and such work shall be stopped before
pending storm events.
2) Erosion control/soil stabilization techniques such as straw mulching,
erosion control blankets, erosion control matting, and hydro-seeding,
shall be utilized in accordance with the regulations outlined in the
Association of Bay Area Governments "Erosion & Sediment Control
Measures" manuaL Silt fences shall be installed down slope of all graded
slopes. Hay bales shall be installed in the flow path of graded areas
receiving concentrated flows and around storm drain inlets.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 9: HYDROLOGY
3) BMPs shall be used for preventing the discharge or other construction-
related NPDES pollutants beside sediment (i.e. paint, concrete, etc) to
downstream waters.
4) After construction is completed, all drainage facilities shall be inspected
for accumulated sediment and these drainage structures shall be cleared
of debris and sediment.
Long-term mitigation measures to be included in the Project SWPPP shall
include, but are not limited to, the following:
5) Description of potential sources of erosion and sediment at the Project
site. Industrial activities and significant materials and chemicals that could
be used at the proposed Project site should be described. This will
include a thorough assessment of existing and potential pollutant sources.
6) Identification of BMPs to be implemented at the Project site based on
identified industrial activities and potential pollutant sources. Emphasis
shall be placed on source control BMPs, with treatment controls used as
needed.
7) Development of a monitoring and implementation plan. Maintenance
requirements and frequency shall be carefully described including vector
control, clearing of clogged or obstructed inlet or outlet structures,
vegetation/landscape maintenance, replacement of media ftlters, regular
sweeping of parking lots and other paced areas, etc. Wastes removed
from BMPs may be hazardous, therefore, maintenance costs should be
budgeted to include disposal at a proper site.
8) The monitoring and maintenance program shall be conducted at the
frequency agreed upon by the RWQCB and/or City of South San
Francisco. Monitoring and maintenance shall be recorded and submitted
annually to the SWRCB. The SWPPP shall be adjusted, as necessary, to
address any inadequacies of the BMPs.
9) The applicant shall prepare informational literature and guidance on
industrial and commercial BMPs to minimize pollutant contributions
from the proposed development. This information shall be distributed to
all employees at the Project site. At a minimum, the information shall
cover: a) proper disposal of commercial cleaning chemicals; b) proper use
of landscaping chemicals; c) clean-up and appropriate disposal of
hazardous materials and chemicals; and d) prohibition of any washing
and dumping of materials and chemicals into storm drains.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 9-11
CHAPTER 9: HYDROLOGY
Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a level of less than
significant.
Impact 9-3
No Treatment of Runoff for Parking Garages. No water quality BMPs
have been proposed for Parking Garage A nor Parking Garage B. Parking
areas represent a source of suspended solids, petroleum hydrocarbons, and
heavy metals. NPS pollutants from these areas represent a potentially
significant impact.
Mitigation
Measure 9-3
Implement Water Quality BMPs for Stormwater Runoff From Parking
Garage. The Project applicant shall implement storm water quality BMPs for
treatment of runoff from Parking Garages A and B. Possible BMPs include
drop inlet filtration devices such as the Vortex Separator Units or
Stormceptors described in Mitigation Measure 9-1. Any storm water quality
BMPs implemented at the site must first be approved by the City's Public
Works Department.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce impacts to a level of less than
significant.
DECREASE IN GROUNDWATER RECHARGE
Approximately 87 percent of the Project site is currendy covered in impervious surfaces.
Redevelopment of the site would result in an approximately 6 percent decrease in impervious
surface areas. Thus, the proposed Project would not likely have a negative affect on groundwater
recharge. Pre- and post-development impervious verses pervious surfaces are presented in
Table 9-2. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
INCREASED EROSION OR SILTATION TO RECEIVING WATERS
Construction of the proposed Project would involve demolition of eXisttng structural
foundations and pavement areas that currendy help to stabilize site soils. Site grading is expected
to occur over 95 percent of the Project site and involve 13,600 cubic yards of cut volume and
16,000 cubic yards of fill volume (Richardson, 2005). Construction operations associated with
the Project would present a threat of soil erosion from soil disturbance by subjecting
unprotected bare soil areas to the erosional forces of runoff.
The Project applicant will be required to comply with all Phase I NPDES General Construction
Activities permit requirements established by the CW A and the Grading Permit requirements of
the City of South San Francisco. Erosion control measures to be implemented during
PAGE 9-12
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 9: HYDROLOGY
construction would be included in the Project SWPPP. The Project SWPPP will accompany the
NOI filing and will outline erosion control and storm water quality management measures to be
implemented during and following construction. The SWPPP will also provide the schedule for
monitoring performance. Refer to Mitigation Measure 8.1 b for more information regarding the
Project SWPPP. Implementation of Phase I NPDES General Construction Activities permit
requirements would reduce construction-related impacts associated with erosion and/ or siltation
to less than significant.
Following Project development, soil and sediment in runoff would be treated by storm water
quality BMPs. Refer to Mitigation Measures 9-1 through 9-3 for more information regarding
storm water quality BMPs at the Project site. With the implementation of these mitigation
measures, post-development impacts associated with erosion and siltation are considered less
than significant.
TABLE 9-2
IMPERVIOUS vs. PERVIOUS SURFACE AREAS
AREA (acres) PERCENT OF TOTAL PROJECT SITE
Existing Conditions
Impervious Surface Area 13.64 87%
Pervious Area 2.11 13%
Proposed Conditions
Impervious Surface Area 12.79 81%
Pervious Area 2.97 19%
Source: Dowler-Gruman Architects (DGA). June, 172005. Email correspondence between Niall Malcolmson of DGA
and Kelly White of Questa Engineering.
CHANGES IN PEAK RUNOFF
The Project site currently has a high ratio of impervious surfaces. Redevelopment of existing
industrial development in the Project area is not expected to increase runoff from the site. As
shown in Table 9-2, development of the proposed Project would result in an approximate 6
percent decrease in impervious surfaces at the Project site. A decrease in impervious surface area
would result in a corresponding decrease in peak discharge from the Project site. As currently
designed, the proposed Project would not increase peak flows to downstream infrastructure. No
impact associated with increases in peak runoff is anticipated. No mitigation is necessary.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 9-13
CHAPTER 9: HYDROLOGY
FUNDING FOR COLMA CREEK CHANNEL FLOODING/DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
The Project storm drain plan indicates approximately 2/3 of the Project site will be conveyed to
the drop inlet located at the southwestern corner of the Project site (DGA, 2005). These flows
are discharged to the Colma Creek Flood Control Channel approximately % mile southwest of
the Project site near the corner of Mitchell Avenue and Gateway Boulevard. Flood control
improvements and maintenance to the Colma Creek channel are funded partially by property
taxes from property located within the Colma Creek Flood Control Zone.
Impact 9-4
Site Drains to Colma Creek Flood Control Channel. The proposed
Project drains to the Colma Creek flood control channel. The Project site is
not located within the Zone. For this reason, the San Mateo County
Department of Public Works has requested that storm water runoff from the
Project site not be directed into the Colma Creek channel. Thus, storm water
runoff from the Project site that would flow to Colma Creek represents a
potentially significant impact.
Mitigation
Measure 9-4
The Project applicant shall implement one of the following two
mitigation scenarios for Impact 9-4.
1) Reroute All Flows to Southeastern Corner of Site and Out of the Colma
Creek Watershed. The Project applicant shall investigate the feasibility of
routing all site runoff to the existing drop inlet located at East Grand
Avenue just below the southeast corner of the site. This would entail
designing the Project drainage infrastructure to drain to the southeast.
This configuration would likely increase peak flows to the southeastern
drainage system and would require evaluation of the existing drainage
infrastructure from Litdefield Avenue to the point of discharge at San
Francisco Bay. Inadequate capacity in the southeastern drainage system
may require offsite drainage improvements.
2) Enter into Agreement with Colma Creek Flood Control District. If it is
found that routing all storm water to the southeast corner is infeasible, a
second mitigation strategy shall be implemented. The Project applicant
shall enter into an agreement with the San Mateo County Department of
Public Works to be included in the Colma Creek Flood Control Zone
and comply with the conditions and fees that are associated with
participation in that zone.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate that the Project design
has mitigated the potential impact to a level of less than significant. Implementation of one of
these mitigation measures would reduce the Project's impact to a level of less than significant.
PAGE 9-14
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
10
LAND USE
10.1 INTRODUCTION
South San Francisco has a distinctive land use pattern that reflects the decision to initially locate
industrial areas east of supporting homes and businesses in order to take advantage of
topography and winds on Point San Bruno.! Another development trend that shaped the
arrangement of uses was the extensive residential development that occurred during the 1940s
and 1950s, creating large areas almost entirely developed with single-family housing. As a result,
South San Francisco is largely comprised of single-use areas, with industry in the eastern and
southeastern portions of the City, single family homes to the north and west, commercial uses
along a few transportation corridors, and multiple family housing clustered in those same
corridors and on hillsides.
During the 1950s, the City of South San Francisco 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. It supplied ample
parking and consistent landscaping and building design.
In some ways a microcosm of American industry, South San Francisco has been making a slow
industrial transformation for the past 30 years. Steel production and other heavy industries have
largely been replaced by warehousing, research, development and biotechnology. Because the
City's industrial base has continued to evolve as the context for industry has changed, industry
will continue to play an important role in South San Francisco's future.
The City's continued status as a goods transportation hub, stemming mainly from proximity to
San Francisco International Airport, is reflected in the presence of large tracts of land, formerly
used for heavy industry, east of U.S. 101. As high technology businesses have moved into many
of these older industrial areas, conflicts, such as between automobile and truck traffIc, and land
use and visual character have become increasingly pronounced. The needs of business centers
include smaller blocks, more through street connections, ancillary facilities such as restaurants,
Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 10-1
CHAPTER 10: LAND USE
easier connections to transit, sidewalks and bikeways and higher landscape standards. These
needs are much different than those of warehousing and industrial areas. The City attempts to
balance regional growth objectives with conservation of residential and industrial
neighborhoods.
The East of 101 Area Plan, adopted in 1994, was prepared to maX1m1Ze the potential of
undeveloped or underused properties in the City's traditional industrial east of u.s. 101 area.
Upgrading of existing uses and provisions for quality design are important components of the
Plan. In addition to policies relating to land use dispersion, intensities, and transportation, the
Plan includes a Design Element to help achieve high standard development.
10.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds for measuring a project's environmental impacts are based on CEQA
Guidelines thresholds:
1. Would the Project physically divide an established community?
2. Would the Project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the Project?
3. Would the Project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
DIVIDING ESTABliSHED COMMUNITY
The proposed Project would have no impact related to the division of an established
community.
CONFliCT WITH PLANS AND POliCIES
The Project site is currently zoned Planned Industrial (P-I) and is part of the "East of 101"
Planning Sub-Area as defined by the City of South San Francisco General Plan. The site's
General Plan designation is Business and Technology Park. This designation accommodates
campus-like environments for corporate headquarters, research and development facilities, and
offices. All development is subject to high design and landscape standards.2
The proposed Project is consistent with the following General Plan policies:
Ibid., p.43.
PAGE 10-2
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 10: LAND USE
Policy 3.5-G-3 Promote campus style biotechnology, high technology and research and
development uses.
Policy 3.5-1-3 Do not permit any residential uses in the East of 101 area.
The proposed Project is consistent with the following East of 101 Area Plan policies:
Policy DE-13 New construction projects shall be required to supply and install street trees
and landscaping to meet the City's specifications for their frontages.
Streetscape planting, irrigation and hardscape should be designed
for minimum maintenance by City staff.
Selection and spacing of street trees shall be approved by the City
Landscape Architect and the Director of Parks, Recreation and
Community Services.
Medians should be cobbled and grouted or landscaped with low
maintenance plants with automatic irrigation.
Policy DE-15 Site design should de-emphasize the visual prominence of parking areas by
separating parking areas into relatively small components and locating
parking behind buildings whenever possible. The standard practice of placing
the majority of the parking between the building and the main street frontage
should be avoided when possible.
Policy DE-22 Developments in the Planned Industrial category should include on-site open
space as a unifying element and as areas for employee use. Open space
should be continuous and should connect separate buildings or sites,
especially in campus-like developments. Open spaces should particularly be
located adjacent to lunch rooms and conference rooms.
Policy DE-25 The design of front yard landscaped buffers should be integrated with that of
adjacent sites.
Policy DE-27 Parking lots should be shaded with trees and should also include shrubs in
most cases. Trees should be planted along parking lot edges and in planters
among stalls. Design policies for the number of trees and amount of
shrubbery in parking lots are contained in Section 0 of the Design Element
for the individual land use categories.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 10-3
CHAPTER 10: LAND USE
Policy DE-28 Plant species chosen for the area should include low maintenance plants and
plants adaptive to the extremes of climate in the area. In addition, plant
species and planting design should complement the development's design.
Policy DE-34 All activities and stored materials in loading, service, storage and trash
disposal areas should be screened from views from public streets, trails,
adjacent properties, and overhead views from adjacent properties, by
planting, berms and/or decorative walls. The screening should be integrated
into the design of structures or the site landscaping, so it does not appear as
an appendage added to the outside of the structure. This policy applies to all
types of outdoor storage areas containing materials, supplies, or equipment,
including autos, trucks and trailers.
Policy DE-37 The installation or replacement of exposed chain link fences, barbed wire,
razor wire or similar material shall not be allowed in those parts of the East of
101 Area that are visible from public rights-of-way, including roads and trails.
Policy DE-38 The form and location of structures, the use of building colors and materials
and the selection of landscape materials and street furniture shall consider
the overall context of the Project and promote the development of a sense of
identity for the East of 101 area.
Policy DE-52 Rooftop mechanical equipment should be screened from view by integral
architectural elements such as pitched roofs, ornamental parapets, mansards
or low towers.
Policy DE-56 The following additional design policies apply in Planned Industrial areas:
Street Trees: Street trees should be planted within at least 30 feet of
each other and should be selected to match or complement the
existing pines on Allerton Avenue and portions of East Grand
Avenue.
Landscape Buffer: Landscape buffers along major arterial streets
should be at least 20 feet wide and along other streets at least 10
feet wide. On side and rear property lines, they should be six feet
wide. All landscaping shall provide a clear connection between the
street and buildings for pedestrians.
Blank Walls: Blank building walls should be no more than 30 feet
long. Longer lengths of wall should conform with Policy DE-39.
Pedestrian scale is of particular importance for 'campus-like
developments and settings.
PAGE 10-4
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 10: LAND USE
Buildinq Orientation: Buildings should be oriented with a clear
relationship to the street to create a sense of continuity along it.
Inviting pedestrian linkages from individual buildings shall be
provided.
Desiqn Guidelines: New development plans for larger campus-like
projects should include specific design guidelines, developed as an
integral part of master planning efforts.
Parkinq Lot Shrubs: Medians and bulbs inside the perimeters of a
parking lot shall be planted. A minimum of five percent of the total
parking lot area required to be landscaped shall be planted with
shrubs.
The proposed Project would be consistent with and would not conflict with the above
applicable City of South San Francisco General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan land use policies,
thereby constituting no adverse impact.
CONFLICT WITH CONSERVATION PLAN
Construction at the Project site would require cutting down one-hundred-four (104) trees.
Fourteen (14) of the trees on the site are considered protected trees under Section
13.30.020(f)(1) of the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code relating to tree preservation
(free Ordinance). More information on this topic is included in the Biological Resources section
of this report.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 10-5
11
NOISE
11.1 INTRODUCTION
Noise may be defined as unwanted sound. Noise is usually objectionable because it is disturbing
or annoying. The objectionable nature of sound could be caused by its pitch or its loudness.
Pitch is the height or depth of a tone or sound, depending on the relative rapidity (frequency) of
the vibrations by which it is produced. Higher pitched signals sound louder to humans than
sounds with a lower pitch. Loudness is intensity of sound waves combined with the reception
characteristics of the ear. Intensity may be compared with the height of an ocean wave in that it
is a measure of the amplitude of the sound wave.
In addition to the concepts of pitch and loudness, there are several noise measurement scales
which are used to describe noise in a particular location. A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement
which indicates the relative amplitude of a sound. The zero on the decibel scale is based on the
lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Sound levels in decibels
are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 decibels represents a ten-fold increase in
acoustic energy, while 20 decibels is 100 times more intense, 30 decibels is 1,000 times more
intense, etc. There is a relationship between the subjective noisiness or loudness of a sound and
its intensity. Each 10 decibel increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of
loudness over a fairly wide range of intensities. Technical terms are defIned in Table 11-1.
There are several methods of characterizing sound. The most common in California is the A-
weighted sound level or dBA. This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which
the human ear is most sensitive. Representative outdoor and indoor noise levels in units of dBA
are shown in Table 11-2. Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time, a
method for describing either the average character of the sound or the statistical behavior of the
variations must be utilized. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described in terms of an
average level that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time-varying events.
This energy-equivalent sound/noise descriptor is called Leq. The most common averaging period
is hourly, but Leq can describe any series of noise events of arbitrary duration.
The scientifIc instrument used to measure noise is the sound level meter. Sound level meters can
accurately measure environmental noise levels to within about plus or minus 1 dBA. Various
computer models are used to predict environmental noise levels from sources, such as roadways
and airports. The accuracy of the predicted models depends upon the distance the receptor is
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-1
CHAPTER 11 : NOISE
TABLE 11-1
DEFINITION OF ACOUSTICAL TERMS
TERM DEFINITIONS
Decibel, dB A unit describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the
base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference
pressure, which is 20 micropascals (20 micronewtons per square meter).
Frequency, HZ The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below
atmospheric pressure.
A-Weighted Sound Level, dB The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter
using the A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the
very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner
similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with
subjective reactions to noise. All sound levels in this report are A-weighted,
unless reported otherwise.
L01, L 10, L50, L90 The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 1 %, 10%,50%, and 90% of
the time during the measurement period.
Equivalent Noise Level, Leq The average A-weighted noise level during the measurement period.
Community Noise Equivalent Level, CNEL The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after
addition of 5 decibels in the evening from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and after
addition of 10 decibels to sound levels measured in the night between 10:00
PM and 7:00 am.
Day/Night Noise Level, Ldn The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after
addition of 10 decibels to levels measured in the night between 10:00 PM and
7:00 am.
Lmax, Lmin The maximum and minimum A-weighted noise level during the measurement
period.
Ambient Noise Level The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing
level of environmental noise at a given location.
Intrusive That noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a
given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its
amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and tonal or
informational content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level.
Source: ILLINGWORTH & RODKIN, INC.! Acoustical Engineers
PAGE 11-2
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 11 : NOISE
TABLE 11-2
TYPICAL SOUND LEVELS MEASURED IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND INDUSTRY
At a Given Distance A-Weighted Sound
From Noise Source Level in Decibels Noise Environments Subiective Imoression
140
Civil Defense Siren (100') 130
Jet Takeoff (200') 120 Pain Threshold
110 Rock Music Concert
Diesel Pile Driver (100') 100 Very Loud
90 Boiler Room
Freight Cars (50') Printing Press Plant
Pneumatic Drill (50') 80
Freeway (100') In Kitchen With Garbage Disposal
Vacuum Cleaner (10') 70 Running Moderately Loud
60 Data Processing Center
Light Traffic (100') 50 Department Store
Large Transformer (200')
40 Private Business Office Quiet
Soft Whisper (5') 30 Quiet Bedroom
20 Recording Studio
10 Threshold of Hearing
0
Source: ILLINGWORTH & RODKIN, INC./Acoustical Engineers
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-3
CHAPTER 11: NOISE
from the noise source. Close to the noise source, the models are accurate to within about plus
or minus 1 to 2 dBA.
11.2 SETTING
In South San Francisco, the Noise Element of the City's General Plan (1999) contains land use
criteria for noise impacted areas. 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. These criteria indicate that noise levels of less than
75 dBA (CNEL/ are acceptable noise levels for industrial and open space uses.
The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32, Noise Regulations, Section 8.32.030)
specifIes the maximum permissible sound levels for residential, commercial and industrial land
uses. The Project site is zoned <<P-I, Planned Industrial," and the noise level standard for this
zone is 70 dBA (Lso).2 Shorter periods of noise levels higher than these limits are allowed, but
only for specifIed periods of time. SpecifIcally, the standard + 5 dB for more than 15 minutes,
the standard + 10 dB for more than 5 minutes, and the standard + 15 dB for more than one
minute in any hour are used. The standard + 20 dB cannot be exceeded for any period of time.
However, where the existing ambient noise level already exceeds the above noise limits, the
ambient noise level becomes the standard.
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 decibel (dB) is a logarithmic unit used to quantify sound intensity. Since the human ear is not equally
sensitive to all sound frequencies within the entire spectrum, human response is factored into sound descriptions in a
process called "A-weighting" written as "dBA".
CNEL: Community Noise Equivalent Level. Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise
intrusion during the evening and at night, state law requires that for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be
added to quiet time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise Equivalent Level
(CNEL).
The noise limit that cannot be exceeded for more than 30 minutes in any hour (50 percent of any given hour).
PAGE 11-4
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 11 : NOISE
11.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds for measunng a Project's environmental impacts are based upon
CEQA Guidelines thresholds:
1. Would the Project expose persons to, or generate noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
2. Would the Project expose persons to, or generate excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
3. Would the Project lead to a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project?
4. Would the Project lead to a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project?
5. 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?
6. 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?
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
PERMANENT NOISE INCREASES
Traffic. Implementation of the proposed Project would increase traffIc noise levels along local
streets due to Project generated traffIc. In general, a doubling of traffIc volumes would result in a
3-dBA noise increase in a traffIc dominated noise environment, and a 3-dBA noise increase is
barely perceptible to most people. As shown in Tables 13-10, 13-11 and 13-12 of the
Transportation and Circulation chapter of this EIR, Project related daily traffIc trips would
increase from 1,262 daily trips under the site's previous land use, to an estimated 5,946 daily trips
under the proposed Project, a difference of 4,684 trips. This would lead to a noticeable increase
in traffIc noise levels at the Project site and its vicinity.
However, due to the prevalence of industrial land uses in the area, noise thresholds vis-a-vis the
Project and neighboring land uses are higher there than they would be if more sensitive land
uses were present near the Project site. Also, though the Project would produce more vehicle
trips than were produced by the site's previous land use, it would be expected that these trips
would generally be quieter, due to a lesser amount of in-going and out-going diesel truck trips. In
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-5
CHAPTER 11 : NOISE
addition, the railroad spur located at the eastern edge of the Project site and previously used by
the Georgia PacifIc Company to receive raw materials would be abandoned. Therefore, a
signifIcant source of noise at the Project site under previous conditions would no longer exist
after implementation of the proposed Project. Due to these factors, the impact of traffIc noise
produced by the Project would be considered less than significant.
Mechanical Equipment. Implementation of the proposed Project could increase ambient noise
levels in the Project vicinity due to the operation of more powerful rooftop mechanical equipment
than currently function at the Project site. The impact of the HV AC system would be considered
less than significant provided that the noise level produced by it conforms to the City of South
San Francisco Noise Ordinance.
Vibration. It is not be expected that future land uses at the Project site would generate excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise. Therefore, it is expected that the Project would
have no impact related to excessive groundborne vibration or excessive groundborne noise.
NOISE, GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION
Temporary Noise Increase. During site preparation and construction at the Project site,
operation of heavy equipment could result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the Project site.
Impact 10-1
Mitigation
Measure 10-1
AIRPORTS
Construction Related Noise. Project construction would result in
temporary short-term noise increases due to the operation of heavy
equipment. This would be a potentially significant impact associated with
Project development. Construction noise sources range from about 82 to 90
dBA at 25 feet for most types of construction equipment, and slightly higher
levels of about 94 to 97 dBA at 25 feet for certain types of earthmoving and
impact equipment.
Noise Abatement. It is possible that a child care center located 400 feet
from the Project site at 371 Allerton would be affected by Project generated
construction noise. If noise controls are installed on construction equipment,
noise levels could be reduced to 80 to 85 dBA at 25 feet, depending on the
type of equipment. Assuming construction noise levels comply with the 90-
dBA noise limit specifIed in the City Noise Ordinance, construction related
noise impacts could be reduced to a level of less than significant.
The City of South San Francisco Noise Element (1999) contains existing and future (2006) airport
noise contours associated with San Francisco International Airport, located south of the site. These
contours indicate the Project site is located outside the 65-dBA (CNEL) existing and future airport
PAGE 11-6
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 11: NOISE
noise contours. Projected contours for road and railroad noise are also included in the Noise
Element. These contours indicate that the Project site is located in an area where noise levels
generated by major road and railroad noise sources will continue to be less than 60 dBA (CNEL).
Based on the City's land use criteria, the proposed Project's research and development type land use
would be compatible with future noise level projections in the Project vicinity of less than 60 to 65
dBA (CNEL), thereby representing no impact.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-7
12
PUBLIC SERVICES
12.1 SETTING
FIRE PROTECTION
The South San Francisco Fire Department provides a full emergency medical services program
with certifIed paramedics on the fIre engines as well as staffmg two full time Advanced Support
ambulances. The department staffs three engine companies, two quints (combination fue engine
and fue truck) and two ambulances. Minimum on duty staffmg is 20 persons.!
Many areas of open space within the city pose a substantial risk of fIre hazard to surrounding
areas.2 Beyond the topographic, climatic, and land use conditions that create fue hazard, two
factors contribute to fIre risk in individual locations:
1. Vegetation. Accumulations of vegetation serve as fuel for wildland fIres; large
concentrations of fuel, particularly where ftres can spread from ground level to the tops
of trees, can create conditions where wildland fIres spread rapidly. Vegetation on both
public and privately owned land in South San Francisco is generally poorly maintained
and overgrown.
2. Infrastructure. Public infrastructure, particularly site access and water supply, affect the
City's ability to respond to fIre. Poor access and inadequate local water supply can
increase the loss of life and property in a fIre.
Eight fIre hazard management units are identifIed in areas of the city that need vegetation
management or other measures to reduce wildland fIre risk and increase the potential for
successful fIre suppression.3 Each management unit is designated as high, medium or low
priority in recognition of the relative need for risk management. The project site is not located
in any of these fIre hazard management units, and access to the site is good via East Grand
A venue.
2
City of South San Francisco web site.
City of South San Francisco, City of South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, p. 264.
Ibid
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 12-1
CHAPTER 12: PUBLIC SERVICES
POLICE PROTECTION
The South San Francisco Police Department's jurisdictional area includes the entire city. The
Department currently has a total of 76 sworn offIcers. The current ratio of offIcers is 1.2 per
1,000 residents. The Department is generally able to respond to high priority calls within two to
three minutes. These times are within the Department's response time goals. The Department
typically works a four-beat system, but the watch supervisor has the discretion to deploy his
personnel as he sees fIt to accomplish daily goals and objectives. Each beat is typically staffed by
a one offIcer unit with between six and nine other offIcers consisting of traffIc, K-9, training,
float, and supervisory units available for backup and overlap.
SCHOOLS
The South San Francisco UnifIed School District operates all public schools serving South San
Francisco, the Serramonte area of Daly City, and a small area of San Bruno, and is the largest
school district in San Mateo County. The District operates ten elementary schools, three middle
schools and two high schools. The District does not expect that school facility capacities will be
met or exceeded during the General Plan horizon. Although projected residential development,
and state directed class size reduction efforts have added new students, an aging population and
a trend toward smaller families in the city will reduce the student population. Some schools
have been closed, since they are no longer needed, and additional schools may need to be closed
in coming years for the same reason.
PARKS
For a discussion on City of South San Francisco park facilities, please see the Recreation chapter
of this document.
12.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds for measuring a Project's environmental impacts are based upon
CEQA Guidelines thresholds:
· 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 following public services:
- Fire Protection
- Police Protection
PAGE 12-2
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 12: PUBLIC SERVICES
- Schools
- Parks
- Other Public Facilities
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
FIRE PROTECTION
The Project site is not located in any of the city's fIre hazard management unit areas, and access
to the site via East Grand Avenue is good. The Project's design would be required to comply
with the city Fire Marshall's code requirements regarding on site access for emergency vehicles.
Therefore, the Project would have no impact on the city's fue protection services.
POLICE PROTECTION
Though the Project would bring more people to the city, it is expected that the proposed
offIce/ research and development land use would lead to a less than significant increase in
service calls to the Police Department. It is not expected that the Project would lead to an
increase in Police Department service call response times.
SCHOOLS
The proposed Project would not involve the construction of residences which would increase
student enrollments in the South San Francisco UnifIed School District. It is possible that the
Project might lead some future employees of the company/companies occupying the Project's
buildings to move their families to the city to live. However, such an influx of new residents
would be so small that it would have a less than significant impact on the South San Francisco
UnifIed School District.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 12-3
13
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
13.1 INTRODUCTION
Crane Transportation Group (CTG) performed a traffIc and circulation analysis for the
proposed Project. This EIR chapter incorporates that analysis.
This chapter describes the transportation conditions in the study area in terms of existing roads
and traffIc operations, transit service and pedestrian and bicycle conditions. Where appropriate,
excerpts from the following EIRs or initial studies/negative declarations have been included in
this writeup: 333 Oyster Point Boulevard OffIce R&D project Draft and Final EIRs (Morehouse
Associates and Dowling Associates, September 2004 and February 2005) and East Jamie Court
OffIce R&D Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Morehouse Associates and
Dowling Associates, September 2002).
13.2 SETTING
ROADWAYS
The 249 East Grand project site is served direcrly by East Grand Avenue and the Cabot Road
cul-de-sac, while regional access is provided by the U.S. 1 01 freeway. The two driveway
connections to East Grand Avenue and the single driveway connection to Cabot Road will be
connected via internal parking aisles, as was shown in Figure 3-2 of the Project Description
chapter. Access to the U.S. 101 freeway is provided by a variety of major streets with several
route options available to the three interchanges that could potentially be used by project traffIc.
Each is briefly described below while a schematic presentation of existing intersection approach
lanes and control are presented in Figure 13-1.
Freeways
V.S.l0l is an eight-lane freeway that provides access to the project area. It extends from
downtown San Francisco and northern California to Los Angeles and southern California.
Within the study area, U.S.l0l has northbound on-ramps at Grand Avenue, South Airport
Boulevard (between Mitchell Avenue and Utah Avenue) and at Oyster Point Boulevard;
northbound off-ramps are provided at East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive, South Airport
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-1
~+(I)
"{l ~ r
Miller S8101
ramp
o:J ~t
):. -L fI\
)l~~ 1r-\tJ
Gr.nd r
-4 ~tt"t
"
):. -L fM\
)ll~ l~~
r
J
-4 ~~tt"t
---. Q.
" ~
~~fM\
)l~~r\tJ
Mitchell
J
T
" ~
)~
J
---.
---.
---.
249 East Grand EIR Traffic Study
Not To Scale
~
NORTH
:= (I) ~ ~(I)
r +~.-
Oter .,-
~ t Point
a J ~ ~ +~
8l ---."
"
"{l ~ i: ())
Drivewa r: tah
-4 ~~ttt
-. -.
()
4
C = Stop Sign
(I) = Signal
""IIIIIf = Free Right Turn
~~~
+<ii ....
~~
.....
-4
T
Forbes
..JL
~+
i}
::3
+Itll
Cabot
+~ +
~
.....
~ . U
i}~
::3 .-
E Grand
-4
---.
---.
T
~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Figure 13-1
Existing Lane Geometries
and Intersection Control
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Boulevard (between Mitchell Avenue and Utah Avenue) and at Dubuque Avenue Gust south of
Oyster Point Boulevard). Southbound on-ramps are provided from Dubuque Avenue Gust south
of Oyster Point Boulevard) and at Produce A venue; southbound off-ramps are provided at
Produce Avenue, Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue and at Bayshore Boulevard Gust north of
Oyster Point Boulevard). There are auxiliary lanes on northbound US.I0l both north and south
of Oyster Point Boulevard and on southbound US. 1 01 south of Oyster Point Boulevard.
US. lOt carries an average daily traffIc (ADT) volume of 237,000 vehicles south of Produce
Avenue, 226,000 vehicles south of Oyster Point Boulevard and 212,000 vehicles north of Oyster
Point Boulevard.
Streets
East Grand A venue is a major arterial street and a central access route serving the industrial/
offIce areas east of the US.I0l freeway. It has six travel lanes in the vicinity of the freeway and
narrows to four travel lanes east of the Forbes Boulevard/Harbor Way intersection. In the
project vicinity it has two travel lanes in each direction separated by a raised median, with no on-
street parking allowed along either the north or south sides of the street (i.e. there is no room for
on-street parking on either side of East Grand Avenue in the project vicinity). The posted speed
limit is 35 miles per hour (mph). The roadway traverses a sharp horizontal curve just east of the
Allerton Avenue intersection and ends about a half mile east of the project site.
Allerton Avenue is a two-lane local street extending northeasterly from East Grand Avenue to
Forbes Boulevard. It has a gradual south-to-north uphill grade and a posted speed limit of 30
mph. On-street parking is prohibited along both sides of the street and its curb-to-curb width is
40 feet. Allerton Avenue is stop sign controlled on its approaches to East Grand Avenue and
Forbes Boulevard. A sidewalk is provided along the west side of the street.
Cabot Road is a wide, two-lane roadway extending westerly from Grandview Drive to west of
Allerton A venue, where it ends in a cul-de-sac adjacent to the project site. There is no posted
speed limit and on-street parking is prohibited. Sidewalks are provided around the cul-de-sac
and along the north side of the street to Allerton Avenue. However, the sidewalk on the south
side of the street only extends about half-way to Allerton Avenue.
Airport Boulevard is a four- to six-lane, north-south arterial street that parallels the west side
of the US.I0l freeway.
Gateway Boulevard is a four-lane street connecting East Grand Avenue with South Airport
Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard.
Harbor Way is a two-lane street serving existing and planned industrial/offIce uses south of
East Grand Avenue. Harbor Way provides access to South Airport Boulevard and several
US.I0l freeway ramps via Mitchell Avenue and Utah Avenue.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-3
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Forbes Boulevard is a four-lane collector street connecting the San Bruno Point Genentech
area with East Grand Avenue.
Littlefield Avenue is a 40-foot-wide, two-lane north-south street connecting East Grand
Avenue with Utah Avenue. .
Utah Avenue is a four-lane east-west street connecting LittlefIeld Avenue with South Airport
Boulevard.
Oyster Point Boulevard is one of the primary arterial access routes serving the "East of 101
area" of South San Francisco. It has six travel lanes near its interchange with the U.S.l0l
freeway, four lanes east of Veterans Boulevard and two lanes near Gull Road.
VOLUMES
Weekday AM and PM peak hour analysis was requested by City staff at the following 17 major
intersections serving the project site.
. Airport Boulevard & Miller Avenue/U.S.l0l Southbound Off-Ramp
. Airport Boulevard &- Grand Avenue
. East Grand Avenue/Dubuque Avenue
. East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard
. East Grand Avenue/Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard
. East Grand Avenue/249 East Grand Signalized Entrance
. East Grand Avenue/littlefIeld Avenue
. East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue
. Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue/Produce Avenue/South Airport Boulevard
. South Airport Boulevard/ Gateway Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue
. South Airport Boulevard/U.S. 101 Northbound Hook Ramps
. South Airport Boulevard/Utah Avenue
. Allerton Avenue/Cabot Road
. Allerton Avenue/Forbes Boulevard
. Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard & U.S.l0l Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp
. Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue
. Oyster Point Boulevard/ Gull Drive
Existing counts were obtained for most locations from either the 333 Oyster Point Boulevard
Draft EIR (September 2004), the East Jamie Court Draft Initial Study & Mitigated Negative
Declaration (September 2002) or the Proposed Costco Gas Station Along South Airport
Boulevard TraffIc Study Oune 2004). These counts were conducted from 1999 to 2003. In
addition, AM and PM peak period counts were conducted by Crane Transportation Group in
April 2005 at the following six locations.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-4
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
. Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp
. East Grand A venue/ Gateway Boulevard
. East Grand Avenue/249 East Grand Avenue/Britannia Point Grand Parking Lot
Driveway Entrance
. East Grand Avenue/LitdefIeld Avenue
. Allerton Avenue/Cabot Road
. Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue
Past counts in the East of 101 area between 1999 and 2004 have indicated a measurable drop in
volumes starting in the year 2000 (due to the recession in the high tech/biotech industry), which
then continued after the September 11, 2001 terrorist incident, which signifIcandy reduced air
travel, and as a result related activities in the airport service industries in the East of 101 area.
Recent EIRs and other trafflc analysis in the area have utilized the older counts as a basis for
near term evaluation as they are higher than counts from the past few years.
The 2005 counts by Crane Transportation Group showed a signifIcant increase in AM peak hour
volumes along Oyster Point Boulevard compared to past studies, primarily due to the recent
opening of the U.S.I0l southbound flyover off-ramp connection to the Gateway intersection
and the increased ease for southbound freeway traffIc to enter the East of 101 area via this new
ramp. New PM peak hour volumes along Oyster Point Boulevard were a litde lower than
previous counts as there is little trafflc entering the East of 101 area during the evening
commute and the flyover off-ramp does nothing to facilitate the heavy outbound trafflc flow
headed westbound towards the freeway during this period. The 2005 counts along the East
Grand Avenue corridor were 10 to more than 20 percent lower than past counts in the AM
(possibly due to the diversion of some inbound traffic to Oyster Point Boulevard and away from
East Grand Avenue (accessed via the Airport/Miller southbound freeway off-ramp). During the
PM peak hour, the 2005 counts long East Grand Avenue were about the same as older counts.
Likewise, at the Airport/ Gateway /Mitchell intersection, 2005 AM peak hour counts were about
15 percent lower than older volumes, while PM volumes were similar.
In order to provide a conservative evaluation, the 2005 AM counts were used at the Oyster
Point Boulevard/Gateway / flyover off-ramp intersection along with required adjustments to
older AM counts at the two other intersections evaluated along Oyster Point Boulevard.
However, the older PM counts along Oyster Point Boulevard (with new PM volumes from the
flyover off-ramp) along with the older AM and PM peak hour counts along the East Grand
Avenue and Airport/South Airport corridors were still used to reflect existing conditions. Use
of the older counts in these remaining corridors required that traffIc activity associated with the
former Georgia PacifIc manufacturing operation on the 249 East Grand Avenue site be included
in the existing system counts, as was some activity associated with the now mosdy empty
Britannia Pointe Grand parking area on the south side of East Grand Avenue opposite the 249
East Grand Avenue parcel. The older AM peak hour counts along East Grand Avenue and at
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-5
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
the Airport intersections with Grand Avenue and the U.S.l0l southbound off-ramp did,
however, receive a reduction in southbound off-ramp and then eastbound flow along East
Grand Avenue to reflect the impact of the recendy opened southbound flyover off-ramp
connecting to Oyster Point Boulevard. Figures 13-2 and 13-3 present existing AM and PM
peak hour volumes at the 17 analysis intersections.
INTERSECTION OPERATION
Analysis Methodology
Signalized Intersections. Intersections, rather than roadway segments between intersections,
are almost always the capacity controlling locations for any circulation system. Signalized
intersection operation is graded based upon two different scales. The fIrst scale employs a
grading system called Level of Service (LOS) which ranges from Level A, indicating uncongested
flow and minimum delay to drivers, down to Level F, indicating signifIcant congestion and delay
on most or all intersection approaches. The Level of Service scale is also associated with an
average vehicle delay tabulation (1994 Highwqy Capacity Manual [HCM] operations method) at
each intersection. The vehicle delay designation allows a more detailed examination of the
impacts of a particular project. Greater detail regarding the LOS/delay relationship is provided
in Appendix Table B-1.
Unsignalized Intersections. Unsignalized intersection operation is also typically graded using
the Level of Service A through F scale. LOS ratings for all-way stop intersections are determined
using a methodology outlined in the 1994 update of the Highwqy Capacity Manual (fRB Circular
209). Under this methodology, all-way stop intersections receive one LOS designation reflecting
operation of the entire intersection. Average vehicle delay values are also calculated.
Intersections with side streets only stop sign controlled are also evaluated using the LOS and
delay scales using a methodology outlined in the 1994 Highwqy Capacity Manual. However, unlike
signalized or all-way stop analysis where the LOS and delay designations pertain to the entire
intersection, in side street stop sign control analysis LOS and delay designations are computed
for stop sign controlled approaches or individual turn and through movements rather than for
the entire intersection. Appendix Table B-2 provides greater detail about unsignalized analysis
methodologies.
Standards
The City of South San Francisco considers Level of Service D (LOS D) to be the poorest
acceptable operation for signalized and all-way-stop intersections and LOS E to be the poorest
acceptable operation for unsignalized city street intersection turn movements. The City has no
standards for turn movements from private driveways.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-6
365
75
.J +
Miller
110. ~ t
50 110
400 ):. -L 80
~ + t5 i- 115
Gr. nd " 275
155 j
225 ---
90 .
~ t ~
30285215
875 ):. -L 140
130 I 280~' _ 320
.J t ~ ~,,235
j lJ~ t ~
___ ~210 200 36
n
. III
fi,'l -L 15
~ - 120
ll>" 35
Mitchell
105 j
285 ---
o
465 . ~
475 -L 15
105 I 25 - 5
.J t ~ ,,25
US 101 Wonder-
NB Ramp Color
765 J ~ ~ t ~
50 --- ~. 752155
320 . ~
_ 280 5 1 1 ~-L6
~ _ 150
" 20 .J +~ ll>
Oster '<;;" 20
~ tn~ ~ Point j (j)~ t ~
1235 --- 100
100 g 95 55 c:
350. ~ 670 ___ ~ 210 30
365. 10
. = Project
Site
305
5 I 510
.J t ~
-L 90
-3
" 195
Utah
Not To Scale
~~
NORTH
0
0 ::>.
3 0 <ii
.J + ~ ~
16 j ):.~ t ~
590 ___ &25 o 45
35. S
::>
13 30 40 ):. t.. 20
&
S-10
.J + ~ ::>" 7
Cabot
3 j ~ t ~
8 --- 20 55 20
7 .
85 20
.J ~
101
Drivewa
190 j
970 ---
"T1 -L 25 o ~ lJ -L 20 0 -Lo
0
a - 310 <::' ., 0 0
20 45 45 11 II> O. - 280 -270
<1l .J + ~~ ~ " 20 .J+~
.J ~ C/) ,,35 " 100
E Grand E Grand E Grand
55 j ::r:~ t ~ 165 j ~ t ~ oj r-- ~ t ~
ll>
a60 55 900 ___ 50 0 5 850 --- ~ 60 0 310
1000 --- 0 70
... ~
210. 120. 100. C:i:
249 East Grand EIR Traffic Study
o
. ~
~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Figure 13-2
Existing AM Peak Hour Volumes
335
55
.J ~
Miller
140.. ~ t
110 240
505 :t> -L 170
110 I 220 ~'- 250
.J t l. 4 L 790
Grand T
150 J
75 ---
100 ..
~ t ,.
95465 100
985 :t> -L 295
90 I 150 ~'- 335
.J t l. 4 t 635
130
180
205
J \)~ t ,.
___ ~ 125225180
C')
.. CD
~ -L 20
<D - 335
:IE
Qj t 75
Mitchell
60 J
95
355 ..
490
255 I 25
.J t l.
US 1 1
NB Ramp
465 J
40
200
-L 25
-15
t 25
Wonder-
C%r
~~ t ,.
:'265305 20
4
60 20
.J l.
40 J
355 ---
249 East Grand EIR Traffic Study
_ 1095
t 40
r:n ~ ,.
B. 440 25
CD
CIl
~-L1
iji
~ _ 590
'<: t 15
G)~ t ,.
c:
:::: 315 25
1
Not To Scale
~~
NORTH
0 -L7
:::..
11 2 iji - 500
.J ~ l. ~ t 45
Forbes
3 J :t>~ t ,.
210 --- lii'55 o 65
30 .. ~
::s
60 ~ -L 30
40 CD
5 ~- 10
.J ~ l. ::s t 25
bot
10 J
10 ___
30..
510 -L 255
5 ~ 2~5 :t>
.J -5 Iii' -L 15
t 820 170 20 ~
Drivewa Utah .J l. ::s _ 865
(()~ t ,. E Grand
5 J
1 _ e. 16 170 80 J
c 325 250-
16.. 4
J1 -L 30 o ~ \) -L 20 0 -Lo
c 125 30 iji. o. - 800 0 0
a. - 920 - 755
CD .J ~ l.~ ~ t 10 .J~l.
CIl t 80 t 270
E Grand E Grand E Grand
:x:~ t ,. 69 J ~ t ,. oj t:~t,.
a. 200 25 300 _ 100 0 20 280 ___ ~ 75 0 55
Q 50
75 .. 10 .. 90 .. ~
Q:
~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Figure 13-3
Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Existing Intersection Operating Conditions
Tables 13-1 and 13-2 show that all 17 analyzed intersections are operating at good to acceptable
(LOS D or better) levels of service during both the AM and PM peak traffIc hours.
Although the Allerton Avenue/East Grand Avenue intersection is projected to be operating at
an acceptable level of service, it has two existing operational and safety problems. The lack of a
left turn lane on the eastbound intersection approach creates occasional extended queues behind
a stopped vehicle waiting for a gap in the westbound traffIc flow to make a left turn to Allerton
Avenue. Drivers in the queue then begin pulling around the stopped vehicle and interrupt the
flow of eastbound traffIc in the curb (outside) travel lane. This is an existing safety and
operational problem. Based upon Warrants for Provision of Left Turn Lanes in the
Transportation Research Board Report #279 (November 1985-see Appendix Table B-3), the
eastbound East Grand A venue approach to Allerton Avenue now warrants provision of a left
turn lane with existing peak hour volumes. In addition, the sight line from Allerton Avenue
to/from the east along East Grand Avenue is limited to about 200 feet due to the curvature in
East Grand Avenue just east of the intersection and a hillside on the northeast corner of the
intersection. Although East Grand Avenue has a posted speed limit of 35 mph, some westbound
vehicles were observed to travel as high as 40 to 45 mph through the curve. At 45 miles per
hour, a minimum safe stopping sight distance is 360 feet. (At the posted speed limit the
minimum stopping sight distance is 250 feet.)!
INTERSECTION SIGNALIZATION REQUIREMENTS
TraffIc signals are used to provide an orderly flow of traffIc through an intersection. Many times
they are needed to offer side street traffIc an opportunity to access a major road where high
volumes and/or high vehicle speeds block crossing or turn movements. They do not, however,
increase the capacity of an intersection (i.e., increase the overall intersection's ability to
accommodate additional vehicles) and, in fact, often slighrly reduce the number of total vehicles
that can pass through an intersection in a given period of time. Signals can also cause an increase
in traffIc accidents if installed at inappropriate locations.
There are eight possible tests for determining whether a traffIc signal should be considered for
installation. These tests, called "warrants", consider criteria such as actual traffIc volume,
pedestrian volume, presence of school children, and accident history. Usually, two or more
warrants must be met before a signal is installed. In this report, the test for Peak Hour Volumes
(Warrant #3) has been applied. When Warrant 3 is met there is a strong indication that a detailed
! A Poliry on Geometric Design of Highwqys and Streets, 2004, Fifth Edition, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-9
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
TABLE 13-1
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
AM PEAK HOUR
YEAR 2008 YEAR 2020
Intersection Existing WID Project + Project WID Proiect + Proiect
AirporUMiller/95 101 SB Off-Ramp (Signal) B-15.2(1) C-24.7 C-25.0 C-28.0 C-28.3
AirporUGrand (Signal) C-28.8(1) 0-48.8 D-51.7 0-38.5 0-39.7
Dubuque/E. Grand (Signal) A-5.7(1) A-5.7 A-5.7 A-6.3 A-6.3
Gateway/E. Grand/E. Grand Overcrossing C-25.4(1) C-33.3 D-52.3 C-26.9 C-33.7
(Signal)
Harbor/E.Grand/Forbes (Signal) B-13.7(1) C-29.1 D-54.3 0-36.5 D-41.7
Project Driveway@ E.Grand (Signal) B-1 0.7(1) A-6.7 C-33.1 A-6.3 C-20.6
Littlefield/E. Grand (Signal) B-17.4(1) F-87.2 F-106.4 D-45.1 0-53.0
S.AirporUU.S.101 N&S Hooks Ramps B-16.2(l} B-20.0 B-20.0 E-70.2 E-77.6
(Signal)
Utah/S.Airport (Signal) C-29.6(1) D-50.9 E-59.2 C-24.1 C-25.2
Oyster Point/Gateway/Flyover (Signal) B-15.0(l} C-25.2 C-29.2 C-25.8 C-29.8
Oyster Point/Eccles (Signal) A-8.6(1) C-24.9 D-44.3 B-11.0 B-14.7
Oyster Point/Gull (Signal) B-12.5(l} B-15.1 C-24.9 B-15.8 B-15.8
Gateway/S.AirporUMitchell (Signal) B-16.4(1) C-20.0 C-20.1 C-34.5 D-35.6
AirporUSan Mateo/Produce (Signal) C-20.9(1) C-26.6 C-27.1 C-27.1 C-27.4
Allerton/E.Grand C-15.6(2} F-57.9 F-94.5 B-14.6 (1) B-15.8 (1)
(Allerton Stop Sign Control)
Cabot/Allerton (Cabot Stop Sign Control) B-10.1/ B-10.5/ B-13.5/ 8-10.7/ B-13.9/
A-9.9(3} B-10.1 B-11.9 B-10.5 B-13.0
Forbes/Allerton (Allerton Stop Sign Control) C-16.8(4) C-18.6 E-49.7 C-23.6 F-90.9
(l) Signalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds.
(2) Unsignalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds/Allerton southbound stop sign controlled approach to
E. Grand Ave.
(3) Unsignalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds/Allerton northbound stop sign controlled approach to
Forbes Ave.
(4) Unsignalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds/Cabot eastbound stop sign controlled approach to
Allerton/Cabot westbound stop sign controlled approach to Allerton.
Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology.
Source: Crane Transportation Group.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-10
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
TABLE 13-2
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
PM PEAK HOUR
YEAR 2008 YEAR 2020
Intersection ExistinQ W/O Proiect + Proiect W/O Proiect + Proiect
Airport/Miller/95 101 SB Off-Ramp (Signal) B-17.7 (1) C-21.0 C-21.1 C-27.9 C-28.0
Airport/Grand (Signal) D-36.5(1) D-38.9 D-39.6 C-34.2 C-34.6
Dubuque/E. Grand (Signal) A-4.2(1) A-6.2 A-6.4 A-6.9 A-7.2
Gateway/E. Grand/E. Grand Overcrossing B-19.7(1) C-24.8 C-28.4 C-28.6 C-29.4
(Signal)
Harbor/E.Grand/Forbes (Signal) C-22.1(1) C-29.9 D-53.4 D-40.1 D-45.5
Project Driveway@ E.Grand (Signal) B-16.0(1) A-8.5 D-46.5 A-7.6 D-54.3
Littlefield/E. Grand (Signal) B-11.5(1) B-12.8 B-13.6 C-23.7 C-24.5
S.Airport/U.S.101 N&S Hooks Ramps (Signal) B-18.4(1) C-22.7 C-22.7 C-24.8 C-24.8
Utah/S.Airport (Signal) B-17.9(1) C-20.4 C-20.9 C-23.3 C-23.7
Oyster Point/Gateway/Flyover (Signal) C-26.8(1) D-54.2 E-60.8 E-73.4 F-82.4
Oyster Point/Eccles (Signal) B-17.8(1) D-43.0 D-54.9 C-20.6 C-22.9
Oyster Point/Gull (Signal) B-17.2(1) C-28.7 D-35.6 C-24.5 C-25.7
Gateway/S.Airport/Mitchell (Signal) C-25.0(1) F-81.1 F-133.8 C-28.0 C-31.4
Airport/San Mateo/Produce (Signal) C-24.6(1) D-37.8 D-52.1 D-36.8 D-43.0
Allerton/E.Grand (Allerton Stop Sign Control) C-20.4(2) F-522 F-835 B-15.1 (1) B-19.6 (1)
Cabot/Allerton (Cabot Stop Sign Control) A-9.8/ A-9.9/ B-14.0/ A-10.0/ B-14.6/
B-10.1(3) B-10.2 B-10.8 B-10.3 B-11.0
Forbes/Allerton Allerton Stop Sign Control) B-14.3(4) B-14.4 C-19.3 C-16.6 C-24.2
(1) Signalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds.
(2) Un signalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds/Allerton southbound stop sign controlled approach to
E. Grand Ave.
(3) Unsignalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds/Allerton northbound stop sign controlled approach to
Forbes Ave.
(4) Unsignalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds/Cabot eastbound stop sign controlled approach to
Allerton/ Cabot westbound stop sign controlled approach to Allerton.
Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology.
Source: Crane Transportation Group.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-11
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
signal warrant analysis covering all possible warrants is appropriate. These rigorous analyses are
described in Chapter 4 of the year 2003 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices/ while
Warrant 3 is presented in Appendix Table B-4 of this report.
It is possible that an unsignalized intersection will not meet signal warrants, but will have one or
more movements that experience LOS F operations. Level of service F can be indicated for a
very low volume of vehicles at a stop sign. Although these stopped vehicles may experience long
delays of one minute or more, there would not be an overall benefIt if the higher numbers of
vehicles on the major street are stopped in favor of the few vehicles on the minor street. The
signal warrant considers a balance between major street and minor street delays, and may
indicate that there is overall benefIt if drivers for some turn movements from the minor street
continue to experience long (LOS E or F) delays.
Currently, the Allerton Avenue/East Grand Avenue, Allerton Avenue/Cabot Road and Allerton
Avenue/Forbes Boulevard intersections all have AM and PM peak hour volumes below signal
warrant criteria levels, although both AM and particularly PM peak hour volumes at Allerton
Avenue/East Grand Avenue are approaching warrant criteria levels.
TRANSIT
Transit service in the study area includes local bus service, shuttle setvlce and regional rail
service. Figure 13-4 shows bus/shuttle service east of the U.S.l01 freeway in the project
vicinity.
Bus Service
The San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) provides bus service to South San Francisco.
However, currently there is no SamTrans service east of the U.S.I0l freeway. Bus service
running just west of the freeway is as follows.
Route 34: Tanforan Shopping Center-Geneva operates along Bayshore Boulevard and Airport
Boulevard between Brisbane and the San Bruno BART station in the study area. This route
operates during midday only on weekdays with headways of about two hours.
Route 130: Daly City/Colma BART-South San Francisco operates along Linden Avenue and
Grand Avenue in the study area. It connects central South San Francisco with the Colma BART
station and Daly City. It operates with 20-minute peak period headways and 30- to 60-minute
non-peak headways on weekdays, 30-minute headways on Saturdays and 60-minute headways on
Sundays.
2 Federal Highway Administration.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-12
""
I
, --L...
\<::C~~ >~.
...~c} ~.
-<", '''e, .
~,.
.--.::::::::::::
'.,'
f
..
San Bnmo Carlal
San
Fra rlcisco
i
Bay
i1
;\
.\
'1'.''... '.\
!! \/
-_._;-~'~.~'_:} ;
!";\
SAN FRANCISCO
.=~; .,co.......:,..-:.:.:
.~.;;..~
[NTERN.4"TlON....L
AlRPUHT
~
............ Caltrain Shuttle
BART Shuttle
.......... Bicyle Paths and Routes
I I I I " Caltrain
V Existing CalTrain Station
EB
249 East Grand EIR Traffic Stud
~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Figure 13- 4
Bus and Shuttle Routes
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Route 132: Airport/Linden-Arroyo/EI Camino operates along Hillside Avenue and Grand
Avenue connecting to the South San Francisco BART station. It operates on 30-minute peak
period headways and 60-minute non-peak headways on weekdays and 60-minute headways on
Saturdays.
Route 292: San Francisco-SF Airport-Hillsdale Shopping Center operates along Airport
Boulevard. It operates with 20- to 30-minute peak headways and 25- to 60-minute non-peak
headways on weekdays and 30- to 60- minute headways on Saturdays and Sundays.
Caltrain
Caltrain provides train service between Gilroy, San Jose and San Francisco. There is a station
located on the corner of Dubuque Avenue and Grand Avenue in South San Franc~sco. Trains
operate every 15 to 20 minutes during commute periods and hourly during midday.
Caltrain/BART Shuttles
Van shutdes are provided between the South San Francisco Caltrain station and employment
centers east of U.S.l0l during commute hours. Separate shutdes provide service to/from the
Colma BART station. Shutde stops are provided along East Grand Avenue in the project
vicinity.
The Gateway Area/Genentech Shutde (BART and Caltrain) provides setvlce on Gateway
Boulevard, Oyster Point Boulevard, Forbes Boulevard, Grandview Drive and East Grand
Avenue. There are 15 morning trips and 15 afternoon trips on the BART shutde, and six
morning trips and fIve afternoon trips on the Caltrain shuttle.
The Utah-Grand Shutde (BART and Caltrain) serves over 20 employers in the
Utah/Grand/LitdefIeld area. It provides service on Harbor Way, East Grand Avenue, Cabot
Court, Grandview Avenue, LitdefIeld Avenue, Haskin Way and Utah Avenue. There are six trips
in the morning and six trips in the afternoon on the BART shuttle, with seven morning and
seven afternoon trips on the Caltrain shutde.
Shutde service is ftxed-route, fixed-schedule and is provided on weekdays during the commute
periods. The shutdes are free to riders. The operating costs are borne by the Joint Powers Board
GPB), SamTrans, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the City/County
Association of Governments (75 percent) and sponsoring employers (25 percent).
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES
Sidewalks are in place along both sides of East Grand Avenue in the project vicinity. Allerton
Avenue has a sidewalk along the west side of the street but not along the east side of the street.
Cabot Road has sidewalks around its cul-de-sac adjacent to the project site. The sidewalk on the
north side of the street extends to Allerton Avenue, while the sidewalk on the south side of the
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-14
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
street extends only half-way to Allerton Avenue. There are no bicycle lanes striped or posted
along East Grand Avenue, Cabot Road or Allerton Avenue in the Project area.
FREEWAY OPERATION
Analysis Methodology
Freeway segments are evaluated based on the Year 2000 Highwqy Capaci!} Manual as specifIed by
the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP). Planning level lane capacities
have been determined based on a theoretical maximum of 2,350 vehicles per lane per hour along
sections with no auxiliary lanes. Based upon a 2005 count of the U.S.101 freeway by Crane
Transportation Group at the Oyster Point interchange, where peak hour factor and truck
percentages were obtained, the capacity of a four-lane one-way segment of U.S.I0l during peak
commute hours in South San Francisco is considered to be 8,880 vehicles per hour (2,220
vehicles per lane per hour), with LOS E for volumes between 7,900 and 8,880 vehicles, LOS D
for volumes between 6,340 and 7,899 vehicles, and LOS C for volumes below 6,340 vehicles.
The hourly capacity of a segment with four lanes plus a 1,500-foot auxiliary lane is considered to
be 9,750 vehicles, while the capacity of a segment with four lanes plus a 2,000-foot auxiliary lane
is considered to be 10,170 vehicles.
San Mateo CMP Standards for Regional Roads and Local Streets
The LOS standards established for roads and intersections in the San Mateo County CMP street
network vary based on geographic differences. For roadway segments and intersections near the
county boarder, the LOS standard was set as E in order to be consistent with the
recommendations in the neighboring counties. If the existing level of service in 1990/91 was F,
the standard was set to LOS F. If the existing or future LOS was or will be E, the standard was
set to E. For the remaining roadways and intersections, the standard was set to be one letter
designation worse than the projected LOS in the year 2000.
If a proposed land use change would either cause a defIciency (to operate below the standard
LOS) on a CMP-designated roadway system facility, or would signifIcantly affect (by using
LOS F in the 1991 CMP baseline LOS, mitigation measures are to be developed so that LOS
standards are maintained on the CMP-designated roadway system. If mitigation measures are not
feasible (due to fmancial, environmental or other factors), a DefIciency Plan must be prepared
for the defIcient facility. The DefIciency Plan must indicate the land use and infrastructure action
items to be implemented by the local agency to eliminate the defIcient conditions.
A Deficiency Plan may not be required if the defIciency would not occur if traffIc originating
outside the County were excluded from the determination of conformance.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-15
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Existing Freeway Operation
Existing levels of service on the freeway segments in South San Francisco were based upon
Crane Transportation Group's 2005 AM and PM peak period counts of the U.S.l0l freeway at
the Oyster Point interchange and from Caltrans' February and August 2004 counts of the
U.S.l0l freeway in South San Francisco. Year 2005 interchange ramp counts were used to
derive volumes for freeway segments lacking current counts.
Tables 13-3 and 13-4 show existing freeway level of service results based on the 2004/2005
traffIc counts when compared to the standard capacity of a four-lane segment or segments with
auxiliary lanes. Results are summarized below.
AM PEAK HOUR
Southbound LOS E
LOSD
Northbound LOS E
LOSD
PM PEAK HOUR
Southbound LOS D
Northbound LOS D
LOSE
North of the Bayshore Boulevard Southbound off-ramp
From Oyster Point Boulevard to south of the Produce/
Airport off-ramp
South of the East Grand Avenue off-ramp
From the East Grand Avenue off-ramp to north of the
Oyster Point Boulevard interchange
All locations
From south of the East Grand Avenue off-ramp to the
Oyster Point Boulevard interchange
North of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange
The San Mateo County Congestion Management Program 2003 Monitoring Report (Fehr and Peers,
July 29, 2003), identifIed AM peak period LOS D operations in 2003 for U.S.l0l between the
San Francisco County Line and I-380 based on travel time surveys. The 2001 LOS for this
segment was measured at E and the 1999 LOS was F. This indicates that traffIc congestion has
lessened somewhat over the past several years, most likely due to employment reductions in San
Francisco and the Peninsula.
FUTURE BASE CASE (WITHOUT PROJECT) CONDITIONS
The proposed project's traffIc impacts have been evaluated in relation to year 2008 and year
2020 Base Case conditions. Year 2008 reflects the fIrst year the 249 East Grand Avenue project
could be completely constructed and fully occupied, while 2020 represents the City's General
Plan horizon. This section details the process to determine Base Case traffIc operating
conditions for both horizon years.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-16
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
TABLE 13-3
FREEWAY OPERATION
AM PEAK HOUR
YEAR 2008
ExistinQ Base Case Base Case + Proiect
Vol LOS Vol LOS Project Increment Percent Total Vol LOS
Increase
SOUTHBOUND
North of SB Off-Ramp to 8350 E 9392 F 191 2.04% 9583 F
Bayshore Blvd./Oyster
Point Blvd.
(San Mateo Origins Only) (188) (A) ( 192) (A)
Between Oyster Point SB 7970 D 8683 D 20 0.2% 8703 E
On-Ramp and Grand/Miller
SB Off-Ramp
(San Mateo Origins Only) (174) (A) (174) (A)
Between Grand/Miller SB 7160 D 7604 D 0 0% 7604 D
Off-Ramp and
Produce/Airport SB Off-
Ramp
(San Mateo Origins Only) ( 152) (A) ( 152) (A)
South of Produce/ 6460 D 6904 D 0 0% 6904 D
Airport Off-Ramp
(San Mateo Origins Only) (138) (A) (138) (A)
NORTHBOUND
South of East Grand Off- 9050 E 10,424 F 237 2.3% 10,661 F
Ramp (D) (D)
(San Mateo Origins Only) (7401 ) (7569)
South of Grand Ave On- 7650 D 8761 E 0 0% 8761 E
Ramp (C)
(San Mateo Origins Only) (6220) (C) (6220)
Between Grand Ave. On- 8195 D 9349 E 15 0.2% 9364 E
Ramp and Oyster Point Off-
Ramp
(San Mateo Origins Only) (6638) (C) (6648) (C)
North of Oyster Point On- 8065 D 8517 D 30 0.4% 8547 D
Ramp
(San Mateo Origins Only) (6047) (C) (6068) (C)
Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology.
Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-17
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
TABLE 13.4
FREEWAY OPERATION
PM PEAK HOUR
YEAR 2008
Existing Base Case Base Case + Proiect
Vol LOS Vol LOS Project Increment Percent Total Vol LOS
Increase
SOUTHBOUND
North of sa Off-Ramp to 6965 D 7389 D 36 0.5% 7425 D
Bayshore Blvd./Oyster
Point Blvd.
(San Mateo Origins Only) (296) (A) (297) (A)
Between Oyster Point SB 7990 D 8947 E 4 0.1% 8951 E
On-Ramp and Grand/Miller
SB Off-Ramp
(San Mateo Origins Only) (358) (A) (358) (A)
Between Grand/Miller SB 7320 D 8212 E 0 0% 8212 E
Off-Ramp and
Produce/Airport SB Off-
Ramp
(San Mateo Origins Only) (328) (A) (328) (A)
South of Produce/ 6870 D 7762 D 0 0% 7762 D
Airport Off-Ramp
(San Mateo Origins Only) (310) (A) (310) (A)
NORTHBOUND
South of East Grand Off- 8100 D 8936 D 44 0.5% 8980 0
Ramp (7685) (D) (7723) (D)
(San Mateo Origins Only)
South of Grand Ave On- 7345 D 7825 D 0 0% 7825 D
Ramp
(San Mateo Origins Only) (6730) (D) (6730) (D)
Between Grand Ave. On- 8280 D 9045 D 102 1.1% 9147 E
Ramp and Oyster Point Off-
Ramp
(San Mateo Origins Only) (7779) (D) (7866) (D)
North of Oyster Point On- 9060 E 10,071 E 204 2.03% 10,275 F
Ramp
(San Mateo Origins Only) (8661 ) (D) (8837) (D)
Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology.
Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-18
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Year 2008 Base Case
The year 2008 baseline conditions include traffIc generated by approved development in the
study area, as well as traffIc generated by projects that are under construction. Based on recent
observed construction and occupancy schedules in South San Francisco, it may be assumed that
these approved development projects will be completed and occupied within the next three
years.
Committed Road Improvements (to be in place by 2008)
The City of South San Francisco is currently completing construction on the final ramp
improvement project at the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange. The "hook ramps" project is
replacing the existing "scissors" off-ramp from southbound U.S. 1 01 to Bayshore Boulevard with
a more conventional hook ramp terminating at a signalized intersection. A new on-ramp is being
constructed from Bayshore Boulevard to southbound U.S.I0l from the same intersection. The
hook ramps will signifIcantly improve access to and from southern Brisbane, and will divert
additional traffIc from Bayshore Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard.
Additionally, intersection improvements are committed by the approved Bay West Cove
development project for the intersections of Bayshore Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard
(change the existing second westbound left turn lane to a through lane and re-stripe the
westbound through/right lane to a right turn lane), Veterans Road and Oyster Point Boulevard
(widen southbound Veterans Road to add a right turn lane and re-stripe the optional
through/left lane to an optional right/through/left lane), and Gateway Boulevard and East
Grand Avenue (re-stripe the existing northbound Gateway Boulevard shared through/right turn
lane to a right turn lane and re-stripe the existing eastbound Grand A venue approach to provide
a separate right turn lane).
Based upon direction from the South San Francisco Public Works Department, these were the
only improvements to be assumed in place at study intersections by 2008. Figure 13-5 presents
year 2008 intersection geometrics and control.
Approved Development Trip Generation
South San Francisco
Trip generation was estimated for approved developments in the project area (see Table
13-5). Information on approved developments was obtained from City of South San
Francisco staff. In addition, traffIc from both Home Depot and Lowe's stores recently
proposed along Dubuque Avenue just south of the Oyster Point interchange was also
included in the analysis at direction of South San Francisco staff (see Table 13-6).
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EJR
PAGE 13-19
~+(I)
~~ ~r
Miller SB 10 1
ramp
o~ ~t
):. -L fW\
~~}.~ ir-\IJ
Grand r
-4 ~ttr(
-.
):. -L fW\
~~~~ iy\IJ
r
J
-4 ir~ttr(
-+ ~
-. lil
~ ~~ f~(I)
Mitchell
~~~t~
J
T
-.
o
:J.
~ ~~~ -L (I)
T
US 101 . Wonder-
NB Ramp. Color
J en
-4 ~~tt(
-. :J.
Not To Scale
~~
NORTH
:::(1) + ~ ~(I)
r ~~
Oster "'r
Point
J ~~~
-+
-.
C = Stop Sign
(I) = Signal
~ = Free Right Turn
~~C
+ Cii
~T
...... Forbes
-4 ...L
~+
T
g
~+[]
+ s
:);
Cabot
+~ +
~~~ i:(I) ~~U
101 ""utah ~ S
Drivewa :) ~
...... E Grand
-4 ~~tt(
-. -4
0 -+
:J.
~~
J
-+
-+
-+
249 East Grand EIR Traffic Study
~ ~ H t(l) EG:t t (I)
E Grand '
J ~..- J r::+
-+ II -+ ~
T T~
~~~(
o
....
~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Figure 13-5
Year 2008 Lane Geometries
and Intersection Control
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
rovI In ra Ie rOJec Ions or ac rOJec
RESULTANT PEAK HOUR TRIPS
Proiect Size AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
1. 333 Oyster Point Blvd.
Office/R&D 315,444 SQ.FT. 445 426
(replacing light industrial) (-94,990 SQ.FT.) (-46) (- 52)
Net 399 374
2. East Jamie Court
Office/R&D 133,000 SQ. FT. 188 180
3. Britannia East Grand
Office/R&D 783,530 SQ. FT. 1,207 1,201
Retail 8,000 SQ. FT.
Child Care 8,000 SQ.FT.
Fitness Center 5,000 SQ. FT.
(replacing light industrial) (-354,880 SQ.FT). U1Ql u.w.
Net 1,037 1,010
4. Genentech Building 5
33 R&D and 37 garage 125,000 SQ. FT. 61 131
5. Genentech Building 31
Office/R&D 150,972 SQ. FT. 234 225
6. Bay West Cove (part already
constructed)
Office 600,000 SQ. FT. 1,623 1,636
Retail 10,000 SQ.FT.
Restaurant 10,000 SQ. FT.
Hotel 350 Rooms
7.180 Oyster Point
Office 105,000 SQ. FT. 100 90
8. 200 Oyster Point
Office 155,000 SQ. FT. 147 133
9. 345 East Grand
R&D 210,560 SQ. FT. 124 115
(replacing warehouse uses) l:1ll (- 45)
Net 93 Net 70
10.285 East Grand Ave.!
349 Allerton Ave. 122 111
Office/R&D
(replacing existing site uses) (- 38) (- 28)
Net 84 Net 83
TABLE 13-5 (PAGE 1 OF 2)
TRIP GENERATION OF APPROVED DEVELOPMENT
WITHIN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO EAST OF 101 AREA
EXPECTED TO BE BUILT AND OCCUPIED BY 2008
(See References on the following page for the List of Studies
p 'd' T, fft ~ . f fI E h P . t)
Source: Crane Transportation Group.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-21
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
TABLE 13-5 (PAGE 2 OF 2)
REFERENCES
1. 333 Oyster Point Boulevard Office R&D Project
Draft EIR (M:orehouse Associates) September 2004
Final EIR (M:orehouse Associates) February 2005
2. East Jamie Court Office R&D
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (M:orehouse Associates) September 2002
3. Britannia East Grand Project (Fuller O'Brien Property)
Recirculation Draft EIR (M:orehouse Associates) February 2002
4. Genentech Site Access-Buildings 33 & 37
Evaluation of Building 33 and Mid Campus Parking Garage (Building 37) (Fehr & Peers)
December 2003
5. Genentech Building 31-Administrative Draft
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Lamphier-Gregory/Fehr & Peers) February
2005
6. Bay West Cove Commercial Report
Supplemental EIR (M:orehouse Associates) October 2002
7.,8. 180 and 200 Oyster Point Boulevard Office Projects
Draft Traffic Analysis Report (Hexagon Transportation Consultants) October 2001
9. Traffic Impact Report 345 East Grand Avenue
R&D Office Replacing Warehouse Use (Crane Transportation Group) November 2001
10. Traffic Impact Report 285 East Grand Avenue and 349 Allerton Avenue
R&D Office Replacing Existing Site Uses (Crane Transportation Group) July 2002
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-22
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
DAILY AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
2-Wav Trips Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound
Use Size Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol
Home 125,794 29.8 3750 .65 82 .55 69 1.15 145 1.30 164
Depot sa.FT. (40)
+ 25% Safety Factor 940 21 17 36 41
TOTAL 4690 103 86 181 205
TABLE 13-6
HOME DEPOT TRIP GENERATION
Trip Rate Source: Trip Generation, 7th Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003.
Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group.
DAILY AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
2-Wav Trips Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound
Use Size Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol
Lowe's 148,749 29.8 4434 .65 97 .55 82 1.15 171 1.30 193
sa.FT.
West 6,590 44.3 292 .72 5 .48 3 1.8 12 1.8 12
Marine sa.FT.
Bldg.-
North Area
Subtotal 4726 102 85 183 205
+ 25% Safety Factor 1182 26 21 46 51
Existing West Marine - NA* 2 0 14 12
Store (No Change)
TOTAL 5908** 130 106 243 268
LOWE'S PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
* NA = Not surveyed for daily trip generation.
** Does not include existing West Marine store.
Trip Rate Source: Lowe's: Trip Generation, 7th Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003; Specialty retail: Traffic
Generators, San Diego Association of Governments, 2002.
Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group.
AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
Use Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound
Lowe's and West Marine Bldg. 130 106 243 268
Existing Site Uses (including West Marine Bldg.) - 42 - 37 - 108 - 86
Net Change in Site Trip Generation +88 +69 +135 +182
LOWE'S SITE NET CHANGE IN TRIP GENERATION
LOWE'S & WEST MARINE BUILDING MINUS EXISTING SITE USES
Source: Crane Transportation Group.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-23
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
The traffIc generation rates for approved development are based on the analysis
conducted for the Drcift Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the South San Francisco
General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (April 2001).
TraffIc counts were conducted at existing offIce, R&D and hotel uses in the East of 101
area. The resulting peak hour traffIc generation rates were somewhat lower than the
standard national averages reported in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip
Generation reference. In addition, all recently approved development in the East of 101
area is required to implement transportation demand management (fDM) measures to
reduce vehicle traffIc. The analysis for the General Plan Amendment assumes that a
moderate TDM program will reduce peak hour traffIc generation by an additional 9.5
percent compared to existing traffIc generation rates.
Brisbane
TraffIc generated by development expected to be completed in Brisbane by the year
2008 was projected using a two percent per year growth rate in traffIc accessing South
San Francisco via Bayshore Boulevard.
Regional Traffic Growth on US 101
North and southbound AM and PM peak hour traffIc on the U.S.l0l freeway not
associated with any on- or off-ramp in South San Francisco was projected to grow at a
straight line rate of one percent per year from 2005 to 2008.
Approved Development Trip Distribution
The estimated distribution of approved development traffIc was based upon employee surveys
conducted for the East of 101 Area Plan Environmental Impact Report (Brady and Associates
with Barton Aschman Associates, January 1994). Inbound and outbound traffic generation from
each development was distributed according to the percentages shown in Table 13-7. Resultant
AM and PM peak hour year 2008 Base Case volumes are presented in Figures 13-6 and 13~7.
Year 2008 Base Case Intersection Operation
Table 13-1 shows that during the AM peak hour all analyzed intersections would be operating at
acceptable levels of service with year 2008 Base Case volumes, with two exceptions. The stop
sign controlled Allerton Avenue Approach to East Grand Avenue would be operating at LOS F
conditions. In addition, the signalized East Grand Avenue/LittlefIeld Road intersection would
be operating at LOS F conditions. Table 13-2 shows that during the PM peak hour all analyzed
intersections would be operating acceptably, with two exceptions. The stop sign controlled
Allerton A venue approach to East Grand Avenue would be operating at LOS F conditions as
would the signalized Airport/ Gateway /Mitchell intersection.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-24
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
TABLE 13.7
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION
Direction South San Francisco Development
Year 2005
US 101 North/San Francisco 29
US 101 South 48
South San Francisco (central area) 3
Daly City/Colma via Sister Cities Blvd. 8
Daly City/Colma via Guadalupe Parkway 0
Brisbane 7
Airport area via South Airport Blvd. 3
Local east of US 101 2
TOTAL 100%
Year 2020+
US 101 North/San Francisco 29
US 101 South 48
South San Francisco (central area) 2
Daly City/Colma via Sister Cities Blvd. 1
Daly City/Colma via Guadalupe Parkway 0
Daly City/Colma and South San Francisco (central area) 8
via Railroad Avenue Extension
Brisbane 7
Airport area via South Airport Blvd. 2
San Bruno/south via San Mateo Avenue 1
Local east of US 101 2
TOTAL 100%
Source: City of South San Francisco, Draft SupPlemental Environmental Impact RBport, South San Francisco General Plan
Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, April 2001.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-25
542
80
.J ~
Miller
110.. ~ t
50 185
405 ):.. L 111
75 I 1041 ~. +- 134
.J t L.. ~ L 281
Grand 'f
195 j
299 --+
90 ..
~ t ~
30 290 224
875 ):.. L 140
140 I 280~' +- 335
.J t L.. ~ (" 320
65
260
130
j lJ~ t ~
a
--+ @-210200 36
()
.. III
fR L 15
a;- +- 205
::E
Qj (" 35
Mitchell
140 j
295 --+
o
465 .. ~
480
105 I 25
.J t L..
US 1 1
NB Ramp
790 j
50
520
L 15
+- 5
(" 25
Wonder-
C%r
~~ t ~
~. 75 240 5
~
39 53
.J L..
81 j
1483 --+
249 East Grand EIR Traffic Study
+- 320 &L6
Cli
(" 25 al +- 155
"'" (" 20
1400 --+ 111~ ~ Ci)~ t ~
8 130 60 c:
355.. m :::: 240 30
10
295
5 I 720
.J t L..
L 90
+- 3
(" 205
tah
Drivewa
o
5 .. ~
Not To Scale
~~
NORTH
CJ
0 :;,.
3 Cli
.J ~ al
16 j ):..~ t ~
610 --+ iS25 o 50
8-
35 .. :;,
13 45 55
.J ~ L..
3 j ~ t ~
8 --+ 20 60 20
7 ..
):..
20 is L 20
90 8-
.J L.. :;, +- 490
E Grand
200 j
2115 --+
50 ..., L 25 0 &lJLO 2 Lo
0
130 ~ 45 i +- 390 0 o Cli o. +- 490 9 0 +- 465
.J L.. .J~ L..::Elll .J~L..
., (" 120 ~ ~ (" 20 (" 120
r. nd E Grand E Grand
660 j ::t~ t ~ o j ~ t ~ 35 j r-~t~
Qj
1955 --+ 0.60 75 1840 --+ 50 0 5 1755 --+ ~455560
~ 70
210.. 120 .. 90 .. ~
is:
90
25 I 115
.J t L..
~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Figure 13-6
2008 Base Case (Without Project)
AM Peak Hour Volumes
416
60
.J ~
Miller
146.. ~ t
111 402
510 b. L 313
150 I 326 ~- --- 334
.J ... l.. ~.. 801
Grand
165 J
100 -
100 ..
~ t ~
95 470 106
985 b. L 295
95 I 150 ~- --- 380
.J ... l.. ~.. 1120
J l)~ t ~
_ a 125225180
g
.. l1>
~ L 20
til---715
~
Ill.. 75
Mitchell
65 J
100 -
o
355 .. ~
510
255 I 25
.J ... l..
US 101
NB Ramp
475 J
40
220
L 25
+- 15
.. 25
Wonder-
C%r
~~ t ~
:'26531520
~
+- 1285 75 0 ~L1
3 ai-
.. 45 .J ~ l.. ~ +- 595
Oster '<:.. 15
440 - I'll ~ ~ POi~t J G)~ t ~
a 465 25 c:
145.. <ll 180 _ ""465 25
en 1
250 ..
Not To Scale
~~
NORTH
~ L7
:,
11 2 ai' +- 525
.J ~ l.. ~ .. 50
Forbes
3 J b.~ t ~
215 - ~55 o 95
30.. i}
::;,
65 ~ L 45
<ll
5 40 i} - 10
.J ~ l.. ::;,.. 25
C bot
10 J ~
10 _ 10
30..
530 L 255
5 ~ ~5 b.
.J -5 ij;' L 15
.. 865 190 20 i}
Orivewa Utah .J l.. ::;, - 1905
(J)~ t ~ E Grand
5 J
1 _ ~ 16 190 85 J
o 335 525_
16.. ;:j.
285 L 115 115 "'T1 L 40 0 ~l)t.O 30 11 Lo
225 ~ 50 - 1615 50 ~ 15 0 0 <:" .., 1
a- - 1450 o ~ ~_ - 1815 - 1745
.J l.. l.. <ll .J ~ .J~l..
.. 450 en .. 445 l..~ Q. .. 10 .. 350
E Grand E rand E Grand E Grand
190 J :r:~ t ~ 0 J ~ t ~ 5J r-~t~
III
490 _ a- 200 35 520 _ 100 0 20 495_ ~551 115
~ 55
75 .. 10 .. 60.. ~
0:
120 25
.J l..
nJ
460 -
249 East Grand EIR Traffic Study
W CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Figure 13-7
2008 Base Case (Without Project)
PM Peak Hour Volumes
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
The lack of a left turn lane on the eastbound East Grand Avenue approach to Allerton Avenue
would result in frequent extended queues behind a stopped vehicle waiting for a gap in
westbound traffIc in order to make a left turn. Vehicles in the queue would then begin to pull
around the stopped vehicle. This would be a signifIcant safety concern.
Year 2008 Base Case Intersection Signalization Needs
By 2008, both AM and PM peak hour Base Case volumes would be exceeding peak hour signal
warrant criteria levels at the Allerton Avenue/East Grand Avenue intersection.
Year 2008 Base Case Freeway Operation
Tables 13-3 and 13-4 show that by 2008 with Base Case traffIc the following freeway segments
would be experiencing LOS E or F operation.
AM PEAK HOUR
Southbound
Northbound
LOSF
LOSF
LOSE
North of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange
South of the East Grand Avenue off-ramp
North of the East Grand Avenue off-ramp to the Oyster
Point Boulevard interchange
PM PEAK HOUR
Southbound LOS E
South of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange to the
Produce/ Airport off-ramp
North of Oyster Point Boulevard interchange
Northbound LOS E
Year 2008 Base Case (Without Project) Intersection Improvement Needs
East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue Intersection
· Prohibit left turns from Allerton A venue to East Grand Avenue until the intersection is
signalized -or- cut back the hillside on the northeast corner of the intersection to
improve sight lines to/from the east to at least 400 feet.
· Stripe a left turn lane on the eastbound intersection approach. This will require removal
of parking on the south side of East Grand Avenue.
· Signalize the intersection when warranted.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-28
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Resultant Operation:
AM Peak Hour: LOS B-12.1 seconds average vehicle delay
PM Peak Hour: LOS B-17.9 seconds average vehicle delay
East Grand Avenue/Littlefield Avenue Intersection
. Widen the northbound LitdefIeld Avenue approach to provide two intersection
approach lanes. Stripe as one exclusive right turn lane and a combined
left/ through/ right turn lane.
Resultant Operation:
AM Peak Hour: LOS C-33.1 seconds average vehicle delay
South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue Intersection
. Add a second through lane to the westbound Mitchell Avenue approach.
Resultant Operation:
PM Peak Hour: LOS D-35.5 seconds average vehicle delay
Year 2020 Base Case
The year 2020 Base Case (without project) conditions include traffIc generated by approved
development in the study area, traffIc generated by project which are completed or under
construction and were not yet fully occupied, traffIc generated by proposed projects, and traffIc
generated by potential development of vacant or underutilized land in the study area.
This evaluation of year 2020 + conditions is based upon the Drqft S uppfemental Environmental
Impact Report (SEIR) fOr the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand
Management Ordinance, April 2001 with updates to project descriptions and needed improvements
based upon a series of EIRs and traffIc studies conducted over the past four years (see Table
13-5 reference list). The proposed project in the SEIR consists of a General Plan Amendment
and a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance, and it includes a set of physical
street improvements as well as policies requiring TDM measures and traffIc reduction at
employment sites. The program of street improvements and TDM measures is referred to
throughout this EIR chapter as the East of 101 Transportation Improvements Plan (TIP).
General Plan Amendment Street Improvements
The East of 101 Transportation Improvements Plan includes a series of physical improvements that
would be implemented along with a TDM program approved by the City in order to mitigate
traffIc impacts of the potential development of the East of 101 area. General Plan Policy 4.2-1-6
is amended to read as follows:
"4.2-1-6 Incorporate as part of the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
needed intersection and roadway improvements to enhance mobility in
the East of 101 area."
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-29
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
The following improvements are included in the East if 101 TIP and are therefore assumed for
the year 2020+ baseline scenario (see Figure 13-8). In addition, supplemental mitigation needs
have been determined through more recent EIRs (listed in Table 13-5). South San Francisco
Planning staff have indicated that these supplemental measures have all been included as part of
Street Improvement program. Those measures are shown in italics in the following lists and have
been assumed in place for the year 2020 Base Case and Base Case + project evaluation.
. Airport Boulevard and Miller Avenue/V.S.tOt Southbound Off-Ramp: Widen the
off-ramp and reconstruct retaining wall to provide a second left turn lane. Re-stripe the
existing off-ramp combined left/ through/ right turn lane as a through/ right turn lane.
. Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue: Re-stripe the existing southbound Airport
Boulevard right turn lane as a shared through-right lane and re-stripe the southbound
shared through-left lane as a left turn lane. Widen eastbound Grand Avenue to add two
left turn lanes, re-stripe the eastbound shared through-left lane as a through lane and the
eastbound right turn lane as a shared through-right lane. Provide a third westbound left
turn lane.
. South Airport Boulevard and V.S.t01 Northbound Hook Ramps/Wondercolor
Lane: Widen the northbound offramp approach at South Airport Boulevard to provide a second right
turn lane.
. Gateway Boulevard and East Grand Avenue: Add a second westbound left turn lane
on East Grand Avenue and a separate right turn lane on eastbound East Grand Avenue.
Re-stripe northbound Gateway Boulevard to provide one left, one through and one right
turn lane. Widen northbound Gatewqy Boulevard to provide a second right turn lane.
. Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard and East Grand Avenue: Widen westbound Grand
Avenue to provide one additional through lane and one additional left turn lane. Widen
eastbound Grand Avenue to provide one additional through lane. Widen southbound
Forbes Boulevard to provide one additional through lane and change the existing shared
through-right lane to a right turn only lane. Widen northbound Harbor Way to provide
one additional through lane, one right turn lane and change the existing shared through-
right lane to a through lane.
. South Airport Boulevard and Vtah Avenue: Widen southbound Airport Boulevard
to provide a second left turn lane and re-stripe one northbound through lane to provide
a shared through/right turn lane (in addition to the existing exclusive right turn lane).
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
PAGE 13-30
~~fI\ ~ I .- (1\
~:::w ~tt~ C ~ >>~~
E Grand E Grand r
, ~ ~~ttt j
~Cl> ~
t~ T
~l :~CI)
M. r-
Iller . S8 10 1
ramp
o~ ~t
if (I)
Grand r
:l ~tt"t
~
T
~ LfM\
~~~~ if~
~~ t t"t
~
Cl>
~A~ fECI)
fMitchell
J
~
={ g.
)~
J
~
~
~
249 East Grand EIR Traffic Study
Not To Scale
~~
NORTH
~~~~ -i- (I)
Orivewa . ~tah
o
~
~~ Ht:(J)
T; Grand
~ ~~
T
E Grand
~~ t t t
..,
+It:CI)
Oster r
Point
.::t ~ ~~ ~
t
C = Stop Sign
CI) = Signal
~ = Free Right Turn
+
,..
~~ 1-1
~ ....
~T
Forbes
-4 ....L.
~~+
,. 6-
:::>
~
+'tll
Cabot
+~ +
~
,..
~(I)
~~
:::> -+--
E Grand
J
~
~
J
~
~
T
~+t
~
~
Q:
~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Figure 13-8
Year 2020 Lane Geometries
and I ntersection Control
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
. Airport Boulevard and San Mateo Avenue: Widen westbound South Airport
Boulevard to provide one additional left turn lane, and re-stripe the existing shared
through-left lane as a left turn lane for a total of three left turn lanes, one through lane
and one right turn lane. Re-stripe southbound Aitport Boulevard to provide one left turn lane, two
through lanes and one shared through-right turn lane.
. South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard and Mitchell Avenue: Widen
eastbound South Airport Boulevard to provide one additional right turn lane and re-
stripe the existing shared through right lane as a through lane. (total four-lane approach)
Widen westbound Mitchell Avenue to provide two additional through lanes and a right
turn lane. Widen southbound Gateway Boulevard to provide one additional right turn
lane, and change the existing shared through-right lane to a right turn lane. Re-striPe the
northbound approach on South Aitport Boulevard to provide one shared right-through lane and one right
turn lane.
. Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp:
Widen eastbound Oyster Point approach to provide one left turn lane, three through
lanes and one right turn lane.
· Allerton Avenue and East Grand Avenue: Signalize the intersection. Widen eastbound East
Grand Avenue to provide a left turn lane in addition to the two through lanes.
· Littlefield Avenue and East Grand Avenue: Widen northbound Littlefield Avenue to
provide one shared left/ through/ right fane and one right turn lane. Widen East Grand Avenue to
provide a third eastbound through lane.
· Eccles Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard: Remove the median and widen the east side of
Eccles Avenue to provide two left turn lanes and an exclusive right turn lane on the northbound
approach.
· Gull Drive and Oyster Point Boulevard: Widen northbound Guff Drive to provide two left
turn lanes and one shared through-right turn lane.
· Railroad Avenue: Construct a four-lane road within the Union PacifIc Railroad right-
of-way between Linden Avenue and Gateway Boulevard.
· Harbor Way: Widen to four lanes between Grand Avenue and Mitchell Avenue.
· Mitchell Avenue: Widen to four lanes between Gateway Boulevard and Harbor Way.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIRi
PAGE 13-32
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Potential Development
South San Francisco
The City of South San Francisco identifIed several projects east of U.S.l0l that have
been proposed, but are not yet approved for construction. Additionally, there are parcels
that are known to have development potential for which no development applications
have been fued. These projects are included in the TraffIc Impact Fee Study for the East
of 101 area as well as in this study for the Year 2020+ scenario.
The East of 101 TIP would require developers to implement TDM policies in order to
achieve the densities and development levels represented in the Year 2020+ scenario.
The analysis in the SEIR for the East of 101 TIP assumes that the TDM program
approved by the City will reduce peak hour traffIc generation by 9.5 percent compared to
existing traffIc generation rates.
Table 13-8 presents the list of future developments used in preparation of year 2020
traffIc modeling projections as part of the 2001 traffIc impact fee study. As previously
detailed, these projections have been updated based upon changed development
proposals evaluated in subsequent EIRs.
Brisbane
The current planning for the City of Brisbane assumes that the maxmlUm level of
Baylands development that could be accommodated without major transportation
infrastructure improvements would range from one million square feet of high trip-
generating uses to 4.2 million square feet of low trip-generating uses. This traffIc
operations analysis is based on the most conservative scenario considered in the
Brisbane General Plan EIR, which would include 4.2 million square feet of development
with high generating uses. This scenario would have higher traffIc generation than any of
the Baylands development scenarios currendy assumed by the City of Brisbane. The
specifIc land uses assumed for the Baylands subarea were not documented, so the land
uses shown in Table 13-9 were assumed for this study.
Year 2020 Base Case Volumes
Year 2020 AM and PM peak hour Base Case (without project) volumes are presented in Figures
13-9 and 13-10.
Year 2020 Base Case Intersection Operation
Tables 13-1 and 13-2 show that with Base Case volumes and all programmed improvements, all
17 analyzed intersections would experience acceptable operation during the AM peak hour,
while only one of the 17. analyzed intersections would experience unacceptable operation during
the PM peak hour.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-33
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
PM Peak Hour
Oyster Point Boulevard/ Gateway Boulevard/U.S. 1 01 Southbound Flyover Off-
Ramp-LOS E
Year 2020 Base Case Intersection Signalization Needs
By 2020 no remaining unsignalized intersections evaluated in this study would have AM or PM
peak hour Base Case volumes exceeding peak hour signal warrant criteria levels.
Improvements to Offset Year 2020+ Base Case (Without Project) Unacceptable
Operation
No feasible physical improvements beyond those included in the East of 101 TIP and in
subsequent EIRs in the East of 101 area have been identifIed for the one intersection exceeding
the City's level of service standard. The following General Plan policies and their related
programs would mitigate the Probable Future impacts at the intersection of Gateway
Boulevard/ Oyster Point Boulevard/U.S.l0l Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp:
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 poorer than acceptable level of service are of clear, overall
public benefIt.
The East of 101 TIP will require all new development to implement a TDM and traffIc
monitoring program in order to achieve the maximum development densities.
13.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds for measuring a Project's aesthetic impacts are based upon CEQA
Guidelines thresholds:
Project impacts would be signifIcant if they result in any of the following conditions:
1. Would the project exceed 100 net new peak hour trips on the local roadway system?
2. Would signalized intersection operation change from LOS A, B, C or D to LOS E or F?
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-38
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
3. Would movements or approaches at unsignalized intersections change from LOS A, B,
C, D or E to LOS F?
4. Would Project traffIc increase Base Case volumes atan unsignalized intersection to meet
peak hour signal warrant criteria levels?
5. Would the proposed Project increase traffIc entering an intersection by two percent or
more with a signalized or all-way stop operation already at a Base Case LOS E or F, or
when the intersection is side street stop sign controlled and already operating at LOS F?
6. Would the proposed project increase traffIc entering an unsignalized intersection by two
percent or more with Base Case traffIc levels already exceeding signal warrant criteria
levels?
7. Would Project traffIc degrade operation of the U.S.101 freeway from LOS E to LOS F,
or would it increase volumes by more than one percent on a freeway segment with Base
Case LOS F operation.
8. Would the project worsen traffIc, pedestrian or bicycle safety?
9. Would the project not provide City code required parking?
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Table 13-10 shows that a total of 540,000 square feet of research and development or offIce
uses would be likely to generate 664 inbound and 92 outbound trips during the AM peak hour,
with 124 inbound and 605 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. This assumes a 9.5 percent
reduction in peak hour trips due to a moderate TDM program and assumed offIce rather than
R&D uses to provide a conservative analysis, as offIce trip generation has been found to be
higher than from R&D uses. Table 13-11 presents the projected trip generation from the
Georgia PacifIc manufacturing plant that was associated with the 249 East Grand Avenue site up
to the middle of 2004. As shown in Table 13-12, after elimination of those trips associated with
existing uses on the project site, the net increase in traffIc due to total site redevelopment would
be about 515 two-way trips during the AM peak hour and 485 two-way trips during the PM peak
hour.
Impact 13-1
Trip Generation Exceeds 100 Trips During Peak Hours. The project
would generate more than 100 net new trips during the AM and PM peak
hours (515 trips during the AM peak hour and 485 trips during the PM peak
hour, if allowing for the reduction in traffIc from the former Georgia PacifIc
manufacturing use) or 756 trips during the AM peak hour and 729 trips
during the PM peak hour if assuming all site trip generation is new (see
Tables 13-10, 13-11 and 13-12). The San Mateo City/County Association of
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-39
z
o
~
...J
~
U
c.:::
o
o
z
<(
z
o
~
<(
~
c.:::
o
0-
III
Z
<(
c.:::
I-
M
~ L()
0
c.o
"0
c: N
(f) ::J j!3
CL ~ '" ....-;
0:: ::J 0:: ......
I- 0
0::
=>
0
:I:
:.:::
<(
w <5 oq-
0... N
:;; > ......
0...
"0
c: j!3 M
::J
0 '" <'!
.a 0::
.s
<5 N
> ())
"0
en c:
::J j!3 t-
CL ~ '" ......
g ::J 0::
a: 0
=>
0
:I:
:.:::
<(
w
CL ~ oq-
::;; c.o
<( c.o
"0
c: j!3 M
::J <'!
.8 '"
a: ......
.s
c.o
<5 oq-
> ())
.g L()
~I-
:;:;: ~
a~
N j!3 c;
'"
0:: ......
......
o .
~ 01-
o l.L
U5 Cd
;:gcn
Q)
U
It:
0
'" "+:>
c:::
U> ~ Q)
=> .c E
Uc..
m..Q
Q) Q)
U) >
Q) Q)
a::: 0
c.:::
w
~
0-
<(
I
U
:E
~
c>
o
0::
0..
:E
C
I-
o
I-
Zw
0:;)
i=C
ffi~
Zl-
We.>
c>g
oo..w
'"':'0::0::
~I-Z
Wl-O
..J0i=
mW<(
<('0::
I-OW
O::z
o..w
Cc>
m~
00::
0..1-
00::
0:::;)
0..0
:I:
~
<(
W
0..
~
~
0)
:I:
I-
3:
...;
0
0
N
",^
....
v
v
.~
C
W
c
0
"J:j
~
....
0
0..
\:
"
r::
......
0
v
E
'J:j
'"
c
......
v
..s
;>-.
,!:J
C
0 0..
'J:j
'0 ::l
0
W ....
..s C)
c
t- O
.r 'J:j
'" ~
'-t: ....
~ 0
.. 0..
'" '"
(5 c
~
.~ E-<
h v
c
il.i ~
u U
....
::l >.
0
U) ,!:J
v "U
~ v
:';l
0-
0- S
"t:: 0
E-< U
<5 L()
to
> ......
'0
c:
::J j!3 t-
en ~ '" "":
CL 0::
0:: ::J
I- 0
0::
=>
0
:c
:.:::
<(
w 0 CT>
0...
:;; > co
CL
"0
c: j!3 t-
::J
.8 '" <'!
0::
.s
0 c.o
> L()
"0
c:
en ::J j!3 t-
o... ~ '" ......
g ::J a:
a: 0
=>
0
:c
:.:::
<(
w
0... 0 to
:;; > co
<( ......
"0
c: j!3 c.o
::J
.8 '" ~
0::
.s
N
0 c.o
> N
.g ......
~I-
:;:;: ~
a
N N
j!3
'" ClC!
a: M
o .
~ 01-
o l.L
U5 cd
gcn
0)
'" c:::
U> .;::
=> ~
<3
.E
~
c:::
ro
~
I-
Z
w
:E
0..
o
..J
w
Iii:!:
00
wI-
I- I-
-:;)
(1)0
w:I:
.....:;)1-
.....z-
eJ,w3:
.....>z
w<(O
..Jo-
mz~
~~w
c>z
I- W
(l)C>
<(0..
w-
O)O::
..,.1-
C'l
(I)
:;)
o
:>
w
0::
0..
...;
0
0
N
~.
v
v
.~
C
W
c
0
'J:j
~
~
0-
'I>
C
"
r::
......
0
~
E
'J:j
'"
c
......
v
..s
;>-.
,!:J
c
0 0..
"J:j ::l
'0 0
w ....
C)
..s c
t- o
;t 'J:j
'l: "
~
~ 0
" 0-
~ '"
c
\,j "
....
.~ E-<
h v
il.i B
u u
....
::l >.
0
U) ,!:J
~ "U
v
" :';l
~ 0-
0- S
i5 0
u
-g 0
::J
en ~ to
0... ..,.
0:: ::J +
I- 0
0::
=>
0
:c - f---
:.:::
<(
w
CL
:;; "0
c: L()
CL ::J
.8 M
+
.s
"0
c:
::J c.o
en .8 (V)
0... :; +
0:: 0
I-
0::
=>
0 -
:c -
:.:::
<(
w
0...
:;; "0 ())
c:
<( ::J t-
.8 oq-
.s +
~ .g oq-
~ co
:;:;: c.o
'" oq-
a ~ +
N
zc>
oz
i=0::
~i=
we.>
z<(
WLL
c>:;)
~~~
eJ,0:::E
.....1-(1)
~~:;)
mw(l)
<(00::
I-Zw
w>
0::0
wall
LLO::
~w
00
1--
wit
Zo
o
"t
I
M
w
lJ
<(
0...
I-
U
w
0.. 6'
c.:::
::l 0...
0
.... w
C) ~
c Z
0
"J:j w
~ > ~
0 <( UJ
0- 0
'" 0
c Z w
~ <( III
E-< c.::: ~
v C,J U
c
" ~ 0
....
U III U.
<( ~
il.i UJ u.
u 0"> <(
....
::l "t c.:::
0 0
U) N
Mitigation
Measure 13-1
Governments (C/CAG) Agency Guidelines for the implementation of the
2003 Draft Congestion Management Program ("C/CAG Guidelines")
specify that local jurisdictions must ensure that the developer and/or tenants
will mitigate all new peak hour trips (including the fIrst 100 trips) projected to
be generated by the development. This would be a significant impact.
Transportation Demand Management Program. The project sponsors
shall implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program
consistent with the City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance Chapter
20.120 Transportation Demand Management, and acceptable to C/CAG.
These programs, once implemented, must be ongoing for the occupied life
of the development. The C/CAG guidelines specify the number of trips that
may be credited for each TDM measure. Appendix Table B-5 outlines
TDM programs that can generate trip credits to offset the 515 total AM peak
hour and 485 PM peak hour trips generated by the project. This would
reduce the Project's impact to a less than significant level.
PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Project traffIc was distributed to the subregional roadway network based upon East of 101
development traffIc patterns contained in the April 2001 Draft SEIR for the South San
Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Ordinance (see Table 13-7).
Overall, about 62 percent of project traffIc should be destined to/from south and southwest of
the site, with 38 percent destined to/from the north and northwest. However, it is likely that
project drivers destined to/from the U.S.l0l freeway either north or south would choose to
access the freeway via several routes and interchanges. AM and PM peak hour project traffIc is
shown distributed to the local roadway network in Figures 13-11 and 13-12. Figures 13-13 and
13-14 present resultant year 2008 AM and PM peak hour Base Case + project volumes, while
Figures 13-15 and 13-16 present resultant year 2020 AM and PM peak hour Base Case + project
volumes.
FREEWAY IMPACTS
Impact 13-2
Freeway Level of Service. Tables 13-3 and 13-4 show that the addition of
traffIc generated by approved development in South San Francisco (year
2008 Base Case without project conditions) would cause two freeway
segments to operate at LOS F (both during the AM peak hour). The project
would increase volumes by more than one percent on both of these
segments (AM peak hour - southbound: north of the Oyster Point
interchange and northbound: south of the East Grand Avenue off-ramp). In
addition, project traffIc would result in one segment of the freeway changing
from LOS E to LOS F operation (PM peak hour - northbound: north of the
Oyster Point interchange). These would be significant impacts.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-41
2 0
=>.
+ ai
_ 14 ~
Miller '<: .. 3
1J1~ G)~
2"') g 4 170 . t::
40. ib ::: 14
'"
):,.
22 -a'
l. 0 _3
~
Gran NotT 0 Scale
~
9 -. ,. NORTH
6
):,. 0 I~,.
~'-2 =>.
ai
~ ~
.. 34
" 33 ):,.~ ,.
a .
13 -. g. ijf 3 15
C) S
<lI =>
G) ):,.
III ijf
36 Q) 210 S
.J ~ .J =>
Mitchell Cabot
6J t ,. 18 J
7-' 7 13 ~
0 10 "') 46
~
46 ):,.
ijf
l. .. 11 9 1 S
US 1 1 Wonder- Drivewa Utah .J l. => - 7
NB Ramp Color
20 J ,. 46J
19
46 "') 0
~
60 ~"
7 62 4 ~ a t.. 20 -7
- 18 l. l. .J l. ~ ~. - 5 ("4
'<: ~
E Grand E Grand
39 -. 349 -. if ,. 362 J r-~ ,.
i3- 26 20 -. a 33 26
0 20-' <lI
.., 1 . ~
Q:
249 East Grand EIR Traffic Study
W Figure 13-11
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP AM Peak Hour
Project Increment
:l>
:::;'
Miller
~
1
4
l..
Grand
:l> ~2
-i3'
0-12
~ .. 4
3 -
~
1
:l>
:::;.
-g - 12
~
.. 222
2 - "IJ
i3
g-
o
<1l
G)
'"
160 <ii
~ ~ -74
Mitchell
1j t ~
1_ 2 2
0
~
Wonder-
Color
E Grand
8-
249 East Grand EIR Traffic Study
_ 89
~
~ 31
~
'"
8
l..
Drivewa
.. 71
Utah
o
~
tJ
=>
~.
~
'<:
G)~ ~
c:
30 t "" 89 2
Not To Scale
~~
NORTH
~
4
~ 42 J1 ~6 ~'\]
11 - 120 g. - 322 407 6 ~. i3 ~ 5 - 31
l.. .. 160 l.. '" .. 109 ~ l..~ ~ - 30 .. 30
E Grand E Grand E Grand E Grand
~ if ~ 67 j ~ ~
3 4 - r--
66_ a. 4 4 - 2i 6 5
0 6 <1l
'" t ""
II
~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Figure 13-12
PM Peak Hour
Project Increment
544
80
.J ~
Miller
112, ~ t
50 185
410 h-L111
75 I 1063 ~. _ 137
.J . l. ~.L 281
Grand 'f
195 J
308 ---
90 ,
~ t ~
30 290 230
875 h -L 140
140 I 280~' _ 337
.J . l. ~,354
--- c:::
()
, 1Il
~ -L 15
ij) - 205
~
lli,35
Mitchell
146 J
302 ---
465 Q
, ~
810
50
566
39 53
.J l.
81 J
1522 ---
249 East Grand EIR Traffic Study
- 334
25
~-L6
~.
~ _ 155
'<;,23
1570 ---
395,
~~ t ~
"" 254 30
10
Not To Scale
~
NORTH
~ -L8
0 =:1.
3 0 ~ - 140
.J ~ l. ~ , 262
Forbes
16 J h~ t ~
610 ___ ij;=28 o 65
68 , ~
=:1
2 45 ~ -L 25
23 55 ~- 10
.J . l. =>,7
bot
21 J ~ t ~
8 --- 66 60 20
17,
295
5 I 766
.J . l.
-L 90
-3
,216
tah
99 21
.J l.
101
Orivewa
246 J
2115 ---
Q
5 , ~
90
25 I 175
.J . l.
-Lo
-472
,124
E Grand
50 Jl -L 26 0 ~ ." -L 20
130 t 52 0 62 4 <ii' a. - 495
a- - 450
.J l. 1Il .J ~ l.~1Il
'" , 126 ~ - , 20
E Grand E r. n
660 J :z:~ t ~ 362 J
lli
2304 ___ a-60 101 1860 ___
0 70
.,
210, 120,
2
91 ,
r-~t~
~ 78 5 586
~
Cl:
~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Figure 13-13
2008 Base Case + Project
AM Peak Hour Volumes
416
60
.J t
Miller
146 t ~ t
112 403
510 ~ ~ 315
150 I 330~. +- 346
.J t l.. ~.L 805
Gr: nd '
165 J
103 ---
100 t
~ t ,.
95470 107
985 ~ ~ 295
95 I 150~. +- 392
.J t l.. ~. 1342
135
187
205
J lJ~ t ,.
___ ~ 125225180
(')
t <1>
~ ~ 20
~ +- 789
III .75
Mitchell
66 J
101 ---
355 t
~ 25
+- 15
.25
Wonder-
C%r
~~ t ,.
~'265315 20
~
120 25
.J l..
72 J
468 ---
249 East Grand EIR Traffic Study
tJ
+- 1374 75 0 ::'.~ 1
3 ~
. 45 .J t l.. ~ +- 595
'<: 15
Oster .
470 --- rn ~ ,. pOi~t J G)~ t ,.
a 496 25 c:
155 t <1> 180 ___ "'" 554 27
'" 1
280 t
Not To Scale
~~
NORTH
tJ ~7
::,
11 2 ~. +- 555
.J t l.. ~ .80
Forbes
3 J ~~ t ,.
215 --- ij;=80 o 190
S
39 t ::,
65 ~~ 45
44 40 S +- 10
.J t l.. ::'.25
Cabot
130 J ~ t ,.
10 ___ 19 40 25
96t
530 ~ 255
5 t ~3 ~
.J +- 5 ij;= ~ 15
.936 250 26 S
Drivewa Utah .J l.. ::. +- 1906
(I)~ t ,. E Grand
5 J
1 ___ ~ 16 194 94 J
o 335 525 ---
16 t ~
285
225 I 61
.J t l..
115 J1 ~ 46 0 ~lJ~5 30 11 ~O
530 + 16 0 <:,-.
a. +- 1772 407 6 ~ ~. +- 1845 1 +- 1776
.J l.. <1> .J + .J+l..
'" . 554 l..~ !:l. . 10 . 380
E Grand E Grand E Grand
190 J ::t~ t ,. 67 J ~ t ,. 5J r-~ t ,.
III
556 ___ a- 200 39 524 ___ 100 0 20 499 ___ ~ 61 120
0 55 1
-. ~
75 t 10 t 66 t Q:
~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Figure 13-14
2008 Base Case + Project
PM Peak Hour Volumes
557
60
.J +
Miller
105 .
~ t
35 270
415 ),. -L 106
~O + 1~1 '[_ 154
Grand .. 276
530 J
404 -+
90 .
~ t ~
25 305 224
785 ),. -L 255
115 I 235~' _ 240
.J .. l. ~.. 675
85
235
135
J ~~ t ~
a 6
-+ 0.195 40 65
~
. <11
135 J
520
o
420 . ~
605 -L 16
120 I 30 - 5
.J .. l. .. 27
US 101 Wonder-
NB Ramp Color
1705 J ~ ~ t ~
55 -+ -"100 5
1350. ~ 345
- 625
30
~-L6
<ii
:E _ 225
llj
'<:.. 25
(j)~ t ~
c:
=:: 420 40
10
Not To Scale
~
NORTH
510
6 1470
.J + l.
4
.J +
20 J ),.~
710 -+ ar30
75 . ~
::!
50 ~ -L 25
<11
225 55 ~-16
.J t l. ::!.. 10
Cabot
25 J ~ t ~
10 -+ 65 60 20
20.
),.
ar -L 20
100 20 ~
.J l. ::! - 515
E rand
250 J
2610 -+
Drivewa
-L 115
-5
.. 215
Utah
o
5 . ~
135 255 "J1 -L 20 0 ~ ~ -L 20 920 -Lo
35 + 130 215 + 50 0 s' .,.
49 93 .J l. a- - 485 62 4 ~ ~. - 630 -615
.J l. <11 .J+ .J+l.
.J l. '" .. 270 l.~ Q .. 20 .. 80
E Grand E Grand E Grand
101 J 215 J 1385 J ::z:~ t ~ 362 J ~ t ~ 35 J r-- ~ t ~
llj
2985 -+ 2055 -+ a-70 325 1880 -+ 50 0 5 1720 -+ ~ 45 5 1125
2113 -+ 0 940
105. .., ~
225. 170. 100. 0:
249 East Grand EIR Traffic Study
~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Figure 13-15
Year 2020 (With Project)
AM Peak Hour Volumes
455 L 150 o ~\lL5 11 Lo
235 t 45 - 1805 407 6~' a. -1850 30 1 - 1750
~ L. .. 640 ~ t L.~ II .. 15 ~tL. .. 400
E rand EGr. nd E Grand
370 j :x:~ t ~ 67 j 5j r-- ~ t ~
640 ___ a. 255 140 725 ___ 690 ___ ~ 65 1 500
0 280
.., 55 -. ~
80 -. 15 -. Q:
536
55
~ +
Miller
136 -. ~ t
106 402
505 ),. L 233
560 + 541 0;.
-g - 404
~ L. ::. .. 801
Gr: n
455 j ~ t ~
130 --- 95 480 101
100 -.
1085 A L 410
105 I 180~' _ 245
~ t L. ::... 2305
165
235
245
j \l~ t ~
___ ~ 90 40 195
o
-. <l>
~ L 90
f - 1810
tl> .. 80
Mitchell
75 j
160
o
375 -. ::.
L 27
- 16
.. 27
Wonder-
C%r
~~ t ~
~'315 40022
::.
145 40
~ L.
92 j
680 ---
249 East Grand EIR Traffic Study
- 1855
.. 45
670 ---
300 -.
01 ~ ~
Q 590 30
<l>
'"
660
5 I 465
~ t L.
L 310
-5
.. 930
Utah
Orivewa
5 j Cn~ t ~
~ 20 200
o 420
20 -. ::.
~L1
~
~ _ 680
tl>
'<: .. 25
(j)~ t ~
c::
:::: 830 35
3
Not To Scale
~~
NORTH
CJ L7
::>.
11 2 ~ - 625
~ t L. ~ .. 85
Forbes
3 j A~ t ~
255 --- iif85 o 195
45 -. a-
::>
65
45 45
~ t L.
ALso
iif
a- - 10
::> .. 25
Cabot
130 j
10 ___
100 -.
~ t ~
20 45 25
250 20
~ L.
A
iif L 20
a-
::> - 1950
E Grand
100 j
1090 ___
~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Figure 13-16
Year 2020 (With Project)
PM Peak Hour Volumes
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Mitigation
Measure 13-2
Transportation Demand Management Plan. The project sponsors shall
implement a Transportation Demand Management (fDM) program to
minimize potential increases in freeway traffIc. The TDM plan shall contain
all Required Measures and Additional Measures required by the City of South
San Francisco TDM Ordinance, Schedule 20.120.030-B, in order to achieve a
minimum alternative mode use of 32 percent. The project applicant shall
submit a Preliminary TDM Plan containing checklists of Required and
Additional Measures, along with a site plan indicating the locations of TDM
elements such as preferential parking areas and bicycle facilities. The project
applicant shall submit a Final TDM Plan incorporating conditions imposed
by the Planning Commission.
The project shall coordinate with the City in an annual survey of compliance
with the TDM plan. The project shall also submit a Tri-Annual report of
TDM effectiveness, and be subject to penalties for non-compliance in
accordance with the City's TDM Ordinance. This impact would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Implementation of the TDM measures would reduce, but not fully mitigate
impacts to a less than signifIcant level, so that the impacts would remain
signifIcant and unavoidable. In determining whether to approve the
proposed project, decision-makers must balance its benefIts against its
unavoidable environmental risks. To approve a project despite its
environmental risks, the lead agency must make a statement of overriding
considerations, giving reasons in writing to support its action based on the
FEIR and/or other information in the record [CEQA Section 15093(a)].
However, under certain circumstances it is not necessary to make a statement
of overriding considerations, as described in the paragraph below.
The City may take action on the 249 East Grand project based upon a
statement of overriding considerations that was made by the City Council in
the process of approving the 1999 South San Francisco General Plan. At
that time, the lead agency determined that the City could not implement
feasible mitigation measures for cumulative impacts on the U.S.l0l freeway.
Therefore, the agency adopted a statement of overriding considerations for
freeway impacts, based on the identifIed benefIts of projected development
under the General Plan. Since the freeway impacts identifIed in this chapter
were also identifIed in the General Plan FEIR, there is no need for the
agency to make a duplicate statement of overriding considerations for the
249 East Grand project in order to take action on the project. The 1999
statement of overriding considerations should be cited in the appropriate
fIndings and the Notice of Determination for the proposed project.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-48
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
No Deficiency Plan would be required by the San Mateo County
Congestion Management Agency based on exclusion of interregional
traffic.
Freeway operations were evaluated for Existing, 2008 Baseline without
project and 2008 Baseline with project conditions (fables 13-3 and 13-4).
Each freeway segment has been evaluated based on the capacity of a four-
lane freeway segment or a four-lane segment with an auxiliary lane, as
defined by the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. An impact is identifIed if the
project would add traffIc amounting to one percent or more of the capacity
of a defIcient CMP freeway segment (operating at LOS F), or if the addition
of project traffIc results in acceptable Base Case operations being degraded
to unacceptable operation.
The addition of traffIc generated by approved development in South San
Francisco and Brisbane as well as regional growth (year 2008 Baseline
without project) would cause two freeway segments to operate at LOS F.
. Northbound U.S.l0l south of the East Grand Avenue off-ramp during
the AM peak hour.
. Southbound U.S.I0l north of Oyster Point Boulevard during the AM
peak hour.
Under the year 2008 Baseline with project scenario, traffIc added by the
proposed 249 East Grand project would increase volumes by more than one
percent on these two segments. Project traffIc would also change LOS E to
LOS F operation on the following freeway segment.
. Northbound U.S. 1 01 north of Oyster Point interchange during the PM
peak hour. Project traffIc would also increase Base Case volumes by 2.03
percent on this segment.
The San Mateo County Congestion Management Program indicates that a
jurisdiction may be required to develop a DefIciency Plan for segments of the
CMF roadway system that exceed LOS standards. For these purposes, it may
be determined if the defIciency would still occur if traffIc originating outside
San Mateo County is excluded from the determination of conformance.
U.S. 1 01 southbound traffIc originating in San Francisco, Alameda and Marin
counties may be excluded. In the northbound direction, traffIc originating in
Santa Clara County may be excluded.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 1 3-49
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
In the 333 Oyster Point EIR traffIc analysis/ the C/CAG regional travel
model for year 2000 was applied to determine the amounts of traffIc on
U.S.l0l that originate in San Mateo County. A "select link analysis" was used
to identify the origins and destinations of peak hour traffIc on northbound
and southbound U.S.I0l in South San Francisco. The percentages are as
follows:
. AM peak hour, northbound U.S.l 01: 71 % of trips originate in San Mateo
County
. AM peak hour, southbound U .S.l 01: 2% of trips originate in San Mateo
County
. PM peak hour, northbound U .S.l 01: 86% of trips originate in San Mateo
County
. PM peak hour, southbound U.S.I0l: 4% of trips originate in San Mateo
County
Tables 13-3 and 13-4 indicate the freeway level of service that would result
when considering only trips that originate in San Mateo County. In the
northbound direction, the level of service would not exceed D on any
segment during the AM or PM peak hours. In the southbound direction,
level of service would be A, as nearly all traffIc originates outside of San
Mateo County, so San Mateo County vehicles do not contribute signifIcandy
to defIcient conditions. Therefore, preparation of a DefIciency Plan would
not be required.
INTERSECTION IMPACTS
Impact 13-3
Year 2008 Intersection Impacts. Year 2008 Base Case conditions have
assumed removal of the Georgia PacifIc manufacturing activity on the
project site. These activities were included in the "Existing Conditions"
evaluation, as existing counts reflected the conservatively higher volume
levels found in 1999/2000. Therefore, year 2008 Base Case + Project
evaluation evaluates the full impact of the currendy proposed project in
relation to an empty site. Tables 13-1 and 13-2 show that the proposed
project would produce signifIcant AM and/or PM peak hour impacts at the
following intersections.
3 Dowling Associates.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-50
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
. East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue
More than a two percent increase in traffIc (2.1 % AM peak hour and
2.9% PM peak hour) at a location with a) unacceptable LOS F operation
on the stop sign controlled Allerton Avenue approach, b) both AM and
PM peak hour volumes exceeding peak hour signal warrant criteria levels,
c) volume warrant criteria being exceeded for the need of a left turn lane
on the eastbound East Grand Avenue approach and d) less than
acceptable sight lines between traffIc turning from Allerton Avenue and
westbound drivers on East Grand Avenue.
. East Grand Avenue/Littlefield Avenue
More than a two percent increase in traffIc during the AM peak hour
(2.9% increase) at a location with Base Case LOS F operation.
. South Airport Boulevard/Utah Avenue
Change in AM peak hour operation from LOS D to an unacceptable
LOS E.
. Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue
Change in AM peak hour all-way-stop operation from LOS C to an
unacceptable LOS E.
. South Airport Boulevard/ Gateway Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue
More than a two percent increase in traffIc during the PM peak hour
(8.6% increase) at a location with Base Case LOS F operation.
. Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S.tOt Southbound
Flyover Off-Ramp
Change in PM peak hour operation from LOS D to an unacceptable
LOSE.
These would be significant impacts of the Project.
Mitigation
Measure 13-3
Intersection Modifications. ModifIcations are recommended for the
following intersections.
East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue Intersection
. Prohibit left turns from Allerton Avenue to East Grand Avenue until the
intersection is signalized--or-Cut back the hillside on the northeast
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-51
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
corner of the intersection to improve sight lines to/from the east to at
least 400 feet.
. Stripe a left turn lane on the eastbound intersection approach. This will
require removal of parking on the south side of East Grand Avenue.
. Provide a fair share contribution towards having the intersection
signalized by the time of project occupancy--or-provide signalization
when construction is complete and receive paybacks from other local
developments as they are constructed.
(All needed for Base Case operation.)
Resultant Operation
AM Peak Hour: LOS B-13.2 seconds average vehicle delay
PM Peak Hour: LOS C-25.6 seconds average vehicle delay
East Grand Avenue/Littlefield Avenue Intersection
. Widen the northbound LittlefIeld A venue approach to provide two
intersection approach lanes. Stripe as one exclusive right turn lane and a
combined left/through/right turn lane (needed for Base Case operation).
Resultant Operation
AM Peak Hour: LOS D-38.4 seconds average vehicle delay
South Airport Boulevard/Utah Avenue Intersection
. Restripe one of the northbound South Airport Boulevard through lanes
as a shared through/ right turn lane.
Resultant Operation
AM Peak Hour: LOS C-32.1 seconds average vehicle delay
Forbes Boulevard/ Allerton Avenue Intersection
. Sign the intersection as an all-way-stop.
Resultant Operation
AM Peak Hour: LOS B-14.1 seconds average vehicle delay
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-52
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Mitchell/Mitchell Avenue
Intersection
. Add a second through lane on the westbound Mitchell Avenue approach
(needed for acceptable Base Case operation).
. Add a second right turn lane on the southbound Gateway Boulevard
approach.
Resultant Operation
PM Peak Hour: LOS C-28.2 seconds average vehicle delay
Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S.101 Southbound
Flyover Off-Ramp
No feasible physical improvements beyond those included in the East of 101
TIP have been identifIed at this study intersection when it would exceed LOS
standards.
The impact at this intersection would remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact 13-4
Year 2020 Intersection Impacts. Tables 13-1 and 13-2 show that project
traffIc would produce a signifIcant impact at the following intersection:
. Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S.I01 Southbound
Flyover Off-Ramp
Change in PM peak hour operation from an unacceptable LOS E to an
unacceptable LOS F and more than a two percent increase in traffIc (a 4.4%
increase) during this time period. This would be a significant impact.
No feasible physical improvements beyond those included in the East of 101 TIP have been
identifIed at this study intersection when it would exceed LOS standards. This impact would
remain significant and unavoidable.
PROJECT DRIVEWAYS
Impact 13-5
Long Queues in Driveway Lanes. The project will be served by two
driveways on East Grand Avenue and by one driveway on the Cabot Road
cul-de-sac. The Cabot Road driveway connection would connect to the cul-
de-sac direcdy opposite the extension of Cabot Road to the east. Driveways
from three other businesses also connect to the cul-de-sac, and based upon
volume levels at Allerton A venue, have low traffIc volumes. Sight lines
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-53
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
should be acceptable to/from all driveways connecting to the Cabot Road
cul-de-sac (including to/from the project driveway) allowing a "see and be
seen" flow of traffIc through the cul-de-sac area.
The project's easterly driveway connection to East Grand Avenue would be
limited to right turns in and out only by the raised median along East Grand
Avenue. It will be located about 140 feet west of the signalized LittlefIeld
Avenue intersection and about 600 feet east of the signalized main project
access intersection. East Grand Avenue is level and straight in the project
area and sight lines are excellent at both driveway locations.
The westerly driveway intersection along East Grand Avenue is now
signalized and also serves the Britannia Point Grand parking lot on the south
side of East Grand Avenue. A 100-foot-Iong left turn lane is provided in the
median of East Grand Avenue on the eastbound approach to this project
entrance. As shown in Tables 13-1 and 13-2, operation of this signalized
intersection would be acceptable during the AM peak hours in 2008 or 2020
(at LOS C) and would be just acceptable during the PM peak hours in 2008
or 2020 (at LOS D). However, during the AM peak hour, the 95th percentile
queue of inbound traffIc using this left turn lane could extend about 275 feet
in both 2008 and 2020 (i.e. 11 vehicles at 25 feet per vehicle). During the
PM peak hour the 95th percentile queue would be fIve cars in 2008 and six
cars in 2020. Inbound project vehicles frequently extending out of the
existing 100-foot-Iong left turn pocket and blocking the flow of eastbound
through traffIc would be a signifIcant operational and safety concern. This
would be a significant impact.
Mitigation
Measure 13-5
Turn Lane Extension. Extend the left turn lane on the eastbound East
Grand Avenue approach to the project's signalized entrance by 200 feet.
There are about 200 feet of landscaped median in which to make this
improvement (to the east of the Roebling Road intersection). This would
reduce the impact to a level of less than significant.
INTERNAL CIRCULATION
Impact 13-6
Internal Traffic Flow. A two-lane loop road would circle the proposed
campus of four buildings. It would connect to the two driveways providing
access to East Grand Avenue as well as to the garage in the north section of
the site.
All internal surface lot driveways would accommodate two-way traffIc flow
as would parking aisles in the garage. All parking aisles would be 25 feet
wide, which would meet City code and good traffIc engineering practice
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-54
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Mitigation
Measure 13-6
criteria. Parking stalls would be 90-degree throughout the site. The Cabot
Road cul-de-sac would access a different level of the parking garage than
would the loop road circling the project offIce buildings.
One area of concern with the internal circulation system layout is the eight
parking aisle connections to the loop road that intersect at 45 to 60 degrees
rather than a preferred 90 degrees. In addition, parking and backing
maneuvers to/from some of the parking stalls near many of these 45- to 60-
degree connections could impact traffIc flow on the loop road. This would
be a significant impact.
Eliminate Stalls and Channelize Aisle Connections. Parking stalls that
will result in parking or backing maneuvers onto the project loop road shall
be eliminated. In addition, 30 to 45 degree parking aisle connections with
the loop road shall be channelized to 80 or 90 degree connections. This
would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
ON-SITE PARKING
The 540,000 square feet of offIce/R&D development would have a total of 1,529 parking spaces
provided (404 surface spaces and 1,125 garage spaces). This is 91.5% of the 1,670 spaces that
would be required by City code. The City of South San Francisco promotes reduction in parking
from City zoning standards as a way to support trip reduction goals required per the City's TDM
ordinance and supported by various policies in the General Plan (G.P. Policies 4.3-1-8, 11 and
12). No mitigation measures are required.
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE CIRCULATION
Impact 13-7
Mitigation
Measure 13-7
Lack of Sidewalk Connections. Sidewalks will be maintained along the
project's East Grand Avenue and Cabot Road cul-de-sac frontages.
Sidewalks will also be provided along the interior of the project's internal
loop road as well as through the offIce campus. One sidewalk connection will
be made from the offIce campus to the sidewalk along East Grand Avenue
near the southeast corner of the site, while no sidewalk connection is
proposed from the site to the Cabot Road sidewalk. Pedestrians accessing the
Cabot Road sidewalk would need to use the garage driveway. The East
Grand Avenue pedestrian access would be provided by both stairs and a
ramp and would be a potential location for a shuttle stop. The lack of a
defIned sidewalk connection from the Project site to Cabot Road would
produce safety concerns. This would be a significant impact of the project.
Provision of Sidewalk Connections. A sidewalk connecting Cabot Way
with the internal campus sidewalk system, or to a garage elevator which will
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-55
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
provide access to the internal campus sidewalk system shall be provided.
This would reduce the project's impact to a less than significant level.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-56
14
UTI LITI ES
14.1 SETTING
WATER SUPPLY
South San Francisco has two water suppliers. The California Water Service Company Peninsula
District (CWSC) serves that portion of the city east of Interstate 280, which represents the
majority of the city's area. The CWSC also serves San Carlos and San Mateo, with no restrictions
on water allocation among these communities. The company's current contract with the San
Francisco Water Department (SFWD) entides the city to 42.3 million gallons per day (tngd) per
year. An additional 1.4 mgd can be pumped from groundwater. The Westborough County Water
District serves the area west of 1-280, an area not targeted for growth in the city's General Plan.
Water use has increased steadily, and at a rate faster than increases in the number of users. Water
use has rebounded signifIcandy from the levels of the late 1980s and early 1990s, when an
extended period of drought and resulting conservation measures brought water use levels down
considerably.
While residential users comprise approximately 90% of the water accounts in South San
Francisco, less than half of the total consumption may be attributed to these users. On the other
hand, industrial users comprise only 0.46% of the water accounts but use 11 % of the total water.
Part of the reason for the high industrial water usage in the city is the predominance of
biotechnology fIrms in the city. Pharmaceutical manufacturing requires extremely pure water,
and large quantities of water are used to achieve necessary water purity levels.
The CWSC bases its future water use projections on estimates of both the number of future
water users and the amount of water each type of user will consume. The fIve year average
growth in the number of accounts is the basis for the utility's projections of the number of water
users through 2020. Water use projections for 2020 range from 5.9 million gallons per day (mgd)
to 9.1 mgd. Assuming the SFWD contract allocation is not modifIed during the remaining
contract period, the CWSC has adequate supply to meet even the highest projected demand.!
Dyett and Bhatia, City of South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, p. 194.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED ErR
PAGE 14-1
CHAPTER 14: UTILITIES
Water lines in the East of 101 Area would generally be adequate to serve new development
allowed under the East of 101 Area Plan.2 The water distribution system in the area was
designed and constructed to meet industrial water demands. It consists of a network of 12-inch
lines in relatively good condition, adequate to serve the 2,500 gallons per minute ftre flow
requirement and use demands for the land uses planned for the area.
WASTEWATER
South San Francisco Municipal Wastewater System
The existing wastewater system serving the project site and surrounding community is operated
and maintained by the City of South San Francisco Public Works Department. The complete
sewer network consists of approximately 90 miles of 6-inch through 36-inch diameter pipes,
which convey flows from the cities of South San Francisco, San Bruno, and porti0ns of Daly
City and Colma to the South San Francisco-San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP)
located at the end of Belle Air Road in South San Francisco.3
Much of the existing South San Francisco sewer collection system is over sixty years old, and
portions of the system are in need of repair. In the area east of Highway 101, subsidence of
sewer lines has resulted in reduced capacity. Pump Station #4, which serves the South San
Francisco area north of Colma Creek and east of South Airport Boulevard, needs to be upgraded
to improve reliability and handle increased flows from proposed new development. Since 1997,
the City of South San Francisco has been under a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) from the San
Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to upgrade its facilities in order
to protect the environmental quality of the Bay. The required work at the WQCP has been
completed; the remaining work within the sewer collection network must be accomplished by
November 2005 to meet the time schedule specifIed in the CDO.
Currently, the WQCP has the capacity to provide secondary treatment for 13 million gallons per
day (MGD). Average dry weather flows to the plant are 10 MGD; peak wet weather flows
approach 30 MGD.4 Wastewater treatment at the WQCP consists of screening, grit removal,
primary settling, aeration, clarifIcation, and chlorination. Excess chlorine is removed prior to
discharge of the treated water into the adjacent San Francisco Bay.
In an ongoing Recycled Water Feasibility Study conducted by the City of South San Francisco
and other agencies, the WQCP is being considered as a potential source of recycled water to
serve portions of South San Francisco, San Bruno, and Colma. The aim of the study is to
evaluate the feasibility of developing a recycled water treatment and distribution system to
reduce the demand on the potable water supply in the San Francisco Peninsula area. The study
2 Brady and Associates, East ojl0tArea Plan, 1994, p. 98.
3 City of South San Francisco, 2005
4 Prudhel, 2005
PAGE 14-2
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 14: UTILITIES
has identifIed several potential providers of recycled water in addition to the South San
Francisco-San Bruno WQCP, including the Burlingame/Millbrae wastewater treatment plants,
the North Bayside System Unit Outfall, and the Shaw Road Pump Station (in conjunction with a
membrane wastewater treatment facility); however, the San Francisco-San Bruno WQCP is
being recognized as the most viable option at this point in the study. The 249 East Grand
Avenue project site would be within the area serviceable by a recycled water facility at the
WQCP. The Recycled Water Feasibility Study is cUfrendy half-complete; the City of South San
Francisco is seeking a grant to continue the study. It has not been determined whether a
recycled water system at the WQCP is economically feasibleY
Project Site Sewer System
Figure 14-1 shows the portion of the South San Francisco municipal sewer system that serves
the Project site and adjacent areas. The sewer along East Grand Avenue is an 18-inch pipe that
runs westward to Harbor Way, where it connects to a 30-inch pipe running south on Harbor
Way. The 30-inch pipe was installed in 2000 to replace an old, subsided 21-inch pipe.7 It receives
flows from all of the area north of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way and all of the area
east of LitdefIeld Avenue; it is intended to serve most of the expected future development in the
City's East of 101 Area. Flows through this pipe are conveyed to Pump Station #4 on Harbor
Way (near the intersection with Mitchell Avenue), from which they are pumped to the WQCP.
Pump Station #4 is scheduled for upgrade in the fIscal year 2005-06; four new pumps, new
motor controls, and a new force main will be installed, giving the station a new f1rm capacity of
13 MGD.8
The City's design wastewater flow criterion for commercial/industrial buildings is 0.4 gallons per
day (gpd) per square foot of building space.9 The Georgia PacifIc box manufacturing facility that
previously occupied the project site had a total floor area of 379,320 square feet, which translates
to a flow of approximately 151,730 gpd. However, the facility did not discharge the wastewater
generated from its manufacturing processes into the municipal sewer system; instead, it treated
and recycled its process water through a closed-loop Beckart Water Treatment System. to No
information is available to know how much reduction in flow was achieved by the recycled water
system. Therefore, it is assumed that the previous wastewater discharges from the Georgia
PacifIc facility into the City's sanitary sewers were equal to the 151,730 gpd determined from
standard flow criteria.
5 Barrett, et aI., 2005
6 Luck, 2005
7 Munar, 2005
8 Castagnola, 2005
9 Prudhel, 2005
10 ENVIRON, 2004
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 14-3
\
~
J:z
~:5
00.
<I'IV'I
u..W
OJ::
~~
_f-
u=>
~o
OU
~V'I
u..O
c:Z
ii:~
<c:z
D<c
<CV'I
~
'1::
"
"
0:
6'0
0:
~
~
&
tij
i;i
:>
Sl
Ei
2
<JJ
>.
C/)
I-<
Q)
~
QJ
C/)
~
~
'2
Cll
C/)
~ Cll
I ~
;!:<:e:
OJ....
I-< U
::l.~
.~ 8
~o...
CHAPTER 14: UTILITIES
Regulatory Setting
Wastewater treatment and disposal in the City of South San Francisco is governed by laws,
regulatory programs and policies established by the Federal government, the State of California,
the San Francisco Bay RWQCB, and the City of South San Francisco. Most of the pertinent
requirements affecting wastewater facilities for the proposed project are contained in the
following:
Federal Laws and Regulations
Clean Water Act (CWA)
The Clean Water Act (CWA) was enacted by Congress in 1972 and amended sev:eral times since
its inception. It is the primary federal law regulating water quality in the United States, and forms
the basis for several state and local laws throughout the country. Its objective is to reduce or
eliminate water pollution in the nation's rivers, streams, lakes, and coastal waters. The CW A
prescribed the basic federal laws for regulating discharges of pollutants as well as set minimum
water quality standards for all waters of the United States. At the Federal level, the CW A is
administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). At the state and regional
level, the CW A is administered and enforced by the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The State of California
has developed a number of water quality laws, rules, and regulations to assist in the
implementation of the CW A and related Federally mandated water quality requirements. In
many cases, the Federal requirements set minimum standards, and the laws, rules, and
regulations adopted by the State and Regional Boards are more restrictive, i.e. more protective of
the environment.
State Laws and Regulations
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act establishes the SWRCB and the RWQCB as the
principal state agencies having primary responsibility for coordinating and controlling water
quality in California. The Porter-Cologne Act establishes the responsibility of the RWQCBs for
adopting, implementing, and enforcing water quality control plans (Basin Plans), which set forth
the state's water quality standards (i.e. benefIcial uses of surface waters and groundwater) and the
objectives or criteria necessary to protect those benefIcial uses.
San Francisco Bay Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan)
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB is responsible for the development, adoption, and
implementation of the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the San Francisco Bay
region. The Basin Plan is the master policy document that contains descriptions of the legal,
technical, and programmatic bases of water quality regulation in the San Francisco Bay Region.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED ErR
PAGE 14-5
CHAPTER 14: UTILITIES
The Basin Plan identifIes benefIcial uses of surface waters and groundwater within its region and
specifIes effluent limitations, discharge prohibitions, and water quality objectives to maintain the
existing potential benefIcial uses of the waters. The proposed project is required to adhere to all
applicable requirements of the Basin Plan.
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit Requirements
The San Francisco-San Bruno WQCP operates under an NPDES permit issued by the State of
California. One of the requirements of the permit is that the WQCP implement a Pretreatment
Program to regulate the collection of toxic and hazardous wastes in municipal sewers. Under
the Pretreatment Program, dischargers of industrial wastewater are required to abide by specifIc
wastewater discharge limits and prohibitions. Industrial dischargers are also required to submit
self-monitoring reports on the total volume and pollutant concentrations of their wastewater,
and to allow for inspections by the City of South San Francisco.
Local Programs and Regulations
East of 101 Area Plan
The East of 101 Area Plan was adopted by the City of South San Francisco in 1994 in order to
guide and regulate development in the City's East of 101 Area, which includes the Project site.
The Plan provides detailed planning policies for land use, circulation, public facilities, design,
conservation, financing and other related elements. With respect to wastewater collection and
treatment, the Plan outlines policies for the repair and reconstruction of East of 101 Area sewer
collection lines, pump stations, and the WQCP. The Plan also addresses the issue of increasing
wastewater treatment demand, and recommends that new projects that will generate large
wastewater quantities be required to lower their wastewater treatment needs through water
recycling, on-site treatment, graywater irrigation, or other similar technologies wherever feasible.
STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES
The existing drainage system in the East of 101 Area is generally designed and constructed for
industrial development, which has a high ratio of impervious surfaces. Thus, any redevelopment
of existing development will generally not increase runoff.
SOLID WASTE
Solid waste is collected from South San Francisco homes and businesses and then processed at
the Scavenger Company's materials recovery facility and transfer station. Materials that cannot
be recycled or composted are transferred to the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landf1ll, near Half Moon
Bay. Browning-Ferris Industries, owner of the landf1ll, has a permit for forward expansion of
the Corinda Los Trancos Canyon at Ox Mountain. When the permit expires in 2016, either
Corinda Los Trancos will be expanded further or Apanolio Canyon will be opened for f1ll.
PAGE 14-6
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 14: UTILITIES
The Scavenger Company's facility is permitted to receive a daily maximum of 1,250 tons per day
of wastes and recyclable materials. This facility gives the Company increased capability to
recover valuable materials from wastes, reducing the amount of waste being sent to the landfill.
South San Francisco recycles both household and industrial solid waste and sewage sludge.
With an expected buildout population of 67,000 residents in South San Francisco, the city will
generate approximately 38,000 tons of solid waste each year, based on the assumed generation
rates used by San Mateo County.
14.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds for measuring a Project's environmental impacts are based upon
CEQA Guidelines:
. Would the Project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board?
. Would the Project require substantial expansion or alteration of the City's water or
wastewater treatment and collection facilities?
. Would the Project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities
or expansion of existing facilities?
. Would the Project have suffIcient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing
entidements and resources, or are new or expanded entidements needed?
. Would the Project 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?
. Would the Project be served by a landfill with suffIcient permitted capacity to accommodate
the Project's solid waste disposal needs?
. Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
WASTEWATER
The proposed project would contribute both domestic sewage and industrial wastewater to the
City of South San Francisco's municipal sewer system. Each of the four new offIce/laboratory
buildings proposed for the project site would have two separate waste disposal systems (a
domestic sewer system and an industrial waste system) that would combine into one sewer
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 14-7
CHAPTER 14: UTILITIES
outside of each building. The domestic sewer system would be used for discharges from
restrooms, break rooms and other similar areas, while the industrial waste system would collect
wastewater from laboratory sinks, fume hoods, floor drains, autoclaves, glass washers and other
similar equipment. An outdoor sampling port would be located in the industrial waste system
before the connection to the combined sewer to enable monitoring by the City of South San
Francisco. The combined sewer would then connect to the City's existing IS-inch sewer pipeline
on East Grand Avenue. Potential wastewater impacts would be primarily related to the increased
flows that would be contributed by the project to the City's existing sewer facilities.
Increase in Wastewater Flows
The four buildings proposed for the project site are intended to accommodate life science
tenants and would consist of approximately 60% laboratory space and 40% offIce space. II
Together the buildings would have a combined gross area of 540,000 square feet. According to
the City's design wastewater flow criterion of 0.4 gallons per day (gpd) per square foot of
building space, the projected wastewater flows for the proposed project would be 216,000 gpd.
This represents an increase of at least 42 percent over the wastewater flows generated by the
former Georgia PacifIc facility, which are estimated to have been no more than approximately
152,000 gpd (per City criteria). The proposed project does not include specifIc plans for
graywater recycling, on-site treatment, or any other method that would reduce its wastewater
flows to the municipal system.
Impact 14-1
Mitigation
Measure 14-1a
Increased Wastewater Flows. According to City of South San Francisco
design wastewater flow estimates, the project would contribute 216,000 gpd
of sewage and industrial wastewater to the City's sanitary sewer system,
which amounts to an increase of 42 percent or more as compared with the
former use of the site. The project does not include conservation or recycling
technologies that would lessen its wastewater flows to the municipal system.
This is a potentially significant impact.
Sanitary, Sewer Fees. The City of South San Francisco is currendy
upgrading its sanitary sewer facilities to handle increased flows from new
development. In order to recover the costs of these upgrades, the City
charges new development a flat-rate sewer connection fee and a monthly
impact fee. The amount of the impact fee is based on both the quantity
(flow) and the quality (pounds BOD and pounds solids) of wastewater
generated. In addition, the City raised its sewer rates by twenty-fIve percent
in fIscal year 2004-05 and plans to continue to raise rates by up to nine
percent in each of the fIscal years 2005-06 through 200S-09 in order to
II1falcohnson,200S
PAGE 14-8
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 14: UTILITIES
fInance continuing sewer improvements. The occupants of the proposed
project development shall pay the sanitary sewer fees imposed by the City of
South San Francisco in order to mitigate the cost of the sewer system
upgrades necessary to manage the wastewater flows generated by the project.
Mitigation
Measure 14-1b
Wastewater Recycling. The proposed Project development is intended for
biotech uses. However, a particular occupant or occupants for the Project
site have not yet been identifIed. Depending on the laboratory practices of
the future occupants, it may be possible to recycle process and/or clean-up
water at the Project site. The occupants of the proposed Project
development shall evaluate the potential for on-site wastewater recycling and
shall implement wastewater recycling methods.
The implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact of the Project's
wastewater flows to a level of less than significant. The funding of South San Francisco's
ongoing pipeline improvements and the scheduled upgrade of Pump Station #4 would ensure
that the City's wastewater system has suffIcient capacity to handle the increased flows generated
by the Project. Wastewater recycling at the Project site would also help by reducing the Project's
flows to the municipal system.
Effects on Groundwater, Water Quality, and Public Health
Wastewater flows from the proposed project would include both domestic sewage and industrial
wastes. The industrial wastewater at the project site would be collected separately from the
domestic sewage, and a sampling port would be installed in the industrial sewer line in
accordance with the San Francisco-San Bruno WQCP Pretreatment Program. After the
monitoring point, both wastewaters would be combined and routed through the City's sanitary
sewers to the WQCP. The WQCP treats wastewater to secondary levels and discharges effluent
to the San Francisco Bay in accordance with RWQCB Waste Discharge Requirements. The
proposed Project would not have a negative effect on groundwater recharge, water quality, or
public health. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.
DTIUTY INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY
The proposed Project would not lead to an increase in demand for potable water that could not
be fulfilled by the California Water Service Company, as stated in the South San Francisco
General Plan.
The wastewater treatment plant that serves the city and the trunk sewer system that would serve
the Project site have recently been, or are in the process of being expanded and upgraded. This
work will ensure adequate wastewater collection and treatment service over the city's buildout
horizon.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 14-9
CHAPTER 14: UTILITIES
Because the eXlStlng drainage system in the East of 101 Area is generally designed and
constructed for industrial development, it is capable of accommodating large amounts of storm
water from the large amount of impervious surfaces in the area. Thus, any redevelopment of
existing development, including on the Project site, will generally not increase runoff.
The proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on utility service and
infrastructure in the City of South San Francisco and East of 101 Area.
LANDFILL CAPACITY
The City of South San Francisco's solid waste is transported to the Ox Mountain Landf1ll
Facility, which has a permit to receive waste unti12016.12 Upon expiration of the permit, either
Corinda Los Trancos will be expanded further or Apanolio Canyon will be opened for f1ll.
Given the large amount of space still available at Ox Mountain, and the option of opening
Apanolio Canyon after Ox Mountain is no longer available, the proposed Project would have a
less than significant impact on solid waste service capacity.
12
Dyett and Bhatia, City of South San Francisco General Plan, 1999.
PAGE 14-10
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
15
AL lERNA liVES
15.1 INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines, 1970, as amended,
Section 15126.6) requires an EIR to include a discussion of a reasonable range of alternatives to
the preferred option. The CEQA Guidelines also require that the EIR explain why specifIc
project alternatives that were considered at one time in developing the project proposal were
rejected in favor of the preferred option. The selection of alternatives is to be guided by the
provision of reasonable choices and the promotion of informed decision making and informed
public participation. An EIR need not evaluate alternatives that would have effects that cannot
be determined, or for which implementation would be remote and speculative.
The Guidelines also require that the EIR specifIcally address a "no project" alternative within
this discussion and that an "environmentally superior" alternative be identifIed (Section 15126.6
[e)). Where the "no project" alternative is also identifIed as the "environmentally superior"
alternative, another alternative which would represent the "environmentally superior" in the
absence of the "no project" alternative should then be identifIed.
The preferred option is the proposed Project, as fully described in Chapter 3 of this EIR
(project Description). The environmental consequences associated with this preferred option
are fully addressed in Chapters 4 through 14 of this EIR. In addition to the proposed Project,
this EIR includes a discussion of the following alternatives:
. No Project Alternative, which would leave the Project site in its current state,
. 0.50 Floor Area Ratio Alternative, and
. 0.39 Floor Area Ratio/Tree Preservation Alternative
15.2 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
No PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
Under the No Project Alternative, the Project site would remain as it is today, a vacant industrial
site formerly occupied by the Georgia PacifIc Company and used to produce various cardboard
and paper products.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 15-1
CHAPTER 15: ALTERNATIVES
This alternative would not fulf1ll the site's Business and Technology Park General Plan
designation. It would prevent the establishment of the large amount of landscaping and public
open space being proposed for the site by the Project applicant, as well as removal of the
existing railroad spur on site formerly used by Georgia PacifIc to receive raw materials.
The No Project Alternative would not result in environmental impacts described in this EIR
document, particularly those identifIed as significant and unavoidable.
0.50 FLOOR AREA RATIO ALTERNATIVE
Under this alternative, the Project's Floor Area Ratio (FAR) would be reduced from the
currently proposed 0.78 FAR for the 540,000 square foot Project, to a square footage of
343,000, corresponding to a FAR of 0.50.
This reduced development intensity would produce fewer vehicle trips and less air pollutant
emissions. Fewer vehicle trips would result in better freeway Levels of Service and better Levels
of Service on street intersections near the Project site
This alternative would still provide extensive landscaping and public open space on the site, and
would also require a smaller amount of vehicle parking facilities.
0.39 FLOOR AREA RATIO/TREE PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVE
Under this alternative, the Project's FAR would be reduced from the currently proposed 0.78
FAR to a square footage of 270,000, corresponding to a FAR of 0.39, while ensuring that the 14
protected trees on the Project site are incorporated into the Project's landscaping plan.
The reduced development intensity resulting from this alternative would produce fewer vehicle
trips and air pollutants than the proposed Project, and would have the added benefIt of
preserving existing trees considered protected under the City of South San Francisco Tree
Ordinance. This alternative would provide extensive landscaping and would require less parking
spaces than the proposed Project or the 0.50 FAR Alternative.
15.3 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
Consideration of the alternatives to the proposed 249 East Grand Avenue Project reveals that
the environmentally superior alternative would be the No Project Alternative, since it would
result in no environmental impacts.
However, in the absence of the No Project Alternative, the 0.39 Floor Area Ratio Alternative
would be designated as environmentally superior because it would fulf1ll the City of South San
Francisco's as well as the Project applicant's Project Objectives, as identifIed in Section 3.3 of
this document. In addition, implementation of this reduced intensity alternative would lead to
milder environmental impacts.
PAGE 15-2
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
16
IMPACT OVERVIEW
16.1 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS THAT
CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT
The following Project related impacts have been identifIed as signifIcant and unavoidable:
Impact 5-2
Impact 13-2
Impact 13-3
Impact 13-4
Cumulative Air Quality Impacts. The proposed Project would exceed
emissions standards for NOx' by producing 112 lbs./ day, as well as
producing 742Ibs./day of CO. This would be a significant impact.
Freeway Level of Service. Tables 3 and 4 show that the addition of traffIc
generated by approved development in South San Francisco (year 2008 Base
Case without project conditions) would cause two freeway segments to
operate at LOS F (both during the AM peak hour). The project would
increase volumes by more than one percent on both of these segments (AM
peak hour - southbound: north of the Oyster Point interchange and
northbound: south of the East Grand Avenue off-ramp). In addition, project
traffIc would result in one segment of the freeway changing from LOS E to
LOS F operation (PM peak hour - northbound: north of the Oyster Point
interchange). These would be significant impacts.
Year 2008 Intersection Impact. The Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway
Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp would experience a
change in PM Peak Hour operation from LOS D to an unacceptable LOS E.
This would be a significant impact.
Year 2020 Intersection Impact. The Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway
Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp would experience a
change in PM peak hour operation from an unacceptable LOS E to an
unacceptable LOS F and more than a two percent increase in traffIc (a 4.4%
increase) during this time period. This would be a significant impact.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 16-1
CHAPTER 16: IMPACT OVERVIEW
16.2 IMPACTS DETERMINED NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
The following impact topic areas related to the 249 East Grand Avenue Project would be
considered to have no impact or to be less than signifIcant after mitigation:
. Aesthetics
. Biologicalflesources
. Geology and Soils
. Hazardous Materials
. Hydrology
. Land Use
. Noise
. Public Services
. Utilities
16.3 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL
CHANGES
An EIR must identify any signifIcant irreversible environmental changes that could be caused by
the proposed Project. These may include current or future uses of non-renewable resources, and
secondary or growth-inducing impacts that commit future generations to similar uses.
Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current
consumption is justifIed. The CEQA Guidelines describe three distinct categories of signifIcant
irreversible changes: 1) changes in land use which would commit future generations to specifIc
uses; 2) irreversible changes from environmental actions; and 3) consumption of non-renewable
resources.
Changes in Land Use Which Would Commit Future Generations
The Project would commit future generations to new development at the Project site. The
property would be converted from a warehouse and heavy industrial use to a high technology
light industrial land use.
Irreversible Changes from Environmental Actions
Impact 5-2
Cumulative Air Quality Impacts. The proposed Project would exceed
emissions standards for NOx' by producing 112 lbs./day, as well as
producing 742Ibs./day of CO. This would be a significant impact.
PAGE 16-2
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
Impact 13-2
Impact 13-3
Impact 13-4
CHAPTER 16: IMPACT OVERVIEW
Freeway Level of Service. Tables 13-3 and 13-4 show that the addition of
traffIc generated by approved development in South San Francisco (year
2008 Base Case without project conditions) would cause two freeway
segments to operate at LOS F (both during the AM peak hour). The project
would increase volumes by more than one percent on 'both of these
segments (AM peak hour - southbound: north of the Oyster Point
interchange and northbound: south of the East Grand Avenue off-ramp). In
addition, project traffIc would result in one segment of the freeway changing
from LOS E to LOS F operation (PM peak hour - northbound: north of the
Oyster Point interchange). These would be significant impacts.
Year 2008 Intersection Impact. The Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway
Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp would experience a
change in PM Peak Hour operation from LOS D to an unacceptable LOS E.
This would be a significant impact.
Year 2020 Intersection Impact. The Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway
Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp would experience a
change in PM peak hour operation from an unacceptable LOS E to an
unacceptable LOS F and more than a two percent increase in traffIc (a 4.4%
increase) during this time period. This would be a significant impact.
Consumption of Nonrenewable Resources
Consumption of nonrenewable resources includes increased energy consumption, conversion of
agricultural lands, and lost access to mining reserves. No agricultural lands would be converted
and no access to mining reserves would be lost with implementation of the Project. The Project
would result in the consumption of some nonrenewable resources during construction and
operation, such as electricity and construction materials.
16.4 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
The proposed project would not be expected to result in a direct increase in the local population,
since it would not result in the construction of any new housing units. The proposed Project
would not require any major increases in the capacity of local infrastructure which might later be
used to support new housing development, and would not result in the extension of
infrastructure into areas which might ultimately support new housing.
16.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
As defined in Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines, a cumulative impact consists of an impact
which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the ErR together with
other projects causing related impacts. "Cumulative impacts" refer to two or more individual
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 16-3
CHAPTER 16: IMPACT OVERVIEW
effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other
environmental impacts. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the
environment which results from the incremental impact of the Project when added to other
closely related past, present, and reasonable foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative
impacts can result from individually minor but collectively signifIcant projects taking place over a
period of time.
The development of the Project site as proposed would contribute to a permanent increase in
regional emissions of air pollutants and reduced freeway Levels of Service, representing
signifIcant and unavoidable adverse impacts.
PAGE 16-4
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
17
REFERENCES
17.1 REpORT PREPARERS
Lamphier - Gregory
1944 Embarcadero
Oakland, Ca. 94606
510-535-6690
Lamphier-Gregory
Joan Lamphier, President
Rudy Calderon, Associate Planner
Questa Engineering
Will Hopkins, Senior Engineering Geologist
Crane Transportation Group
Mark Crane, Principal
17.2 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barrett, Colin (Carollo Engineers), et al, FeasibilifY ifRerycfed Water Treatment on the San
Francisco Peninsula: Conference paper from the 2005 Conference if the California Section if the WateReuse
Association, 2005.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Annual Bqy Area Air QualifY Summaries, 2001-
2003.
Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA). Start at the Source,
Design Guidance Manual for S tormwater QualifY Protection, 1999.
Bonilla, M.G., Preliminary Geologic Map if the San Francisco South 7.5' Quadrangle and Part if the
Hunters Point 7.5' Quadrangle, San Francisco Bqy Area, California: A digital database, USGS Open-fue
Report 98-354, 1998.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 17-1
CHAPTER 17: REFERENCES
Brady and Associates, East of101 Area Plan, adopted July 1994.
California Division of Mines and Geology, Earthquake Fault Zone Map of the South San Francisco
Quadrangle, 1982.
California Div. of Mines & Geology, Fault Activity Map of CalifOrnia and Atfjacent Areas, 1994.
California Division of Mines and Geology with U.S. Geological Survey, Probabilistic Seismic
Hazard Assessment for the State of CalifOrnia, 2002.
California Geological Survey, Fault Evaluation Reports Prepared Under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Act, CGS CD 2002-01, 2002.
California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA), New Development and Redevelopment
Handbook, 2003.
California Stonnwater Quality Association (CASQA), CalifOrnia Stormwater BMP Handbook,
Industrial and Commercial, January 2003.
Carollo Engineers, City of San Francisco East ofHighwqy 101 Sewer System Master Plan, September
2002.
City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco Municipal Code: Tree Preservation, adopted June
28, 2000.
City of South San Francisco, East of101 Area Plan, June 1994.
County of San Mateo Public Works, Letter correspondence from Ann Stillman, Principal Civil
Engineer to S u.ry Kalkin of City of South San Francisco Planning Division. ((Notice of Preparation of a Drqft
Environmental Impact Report- 249 East GrandAvenue/R&D Prqject, South San Francisco," 24 May
2005.
County of San Mateo Public Works, Letter correspondence from S antfy Hesnard, Aviation
Environmental Planner to Su.ry Kalkin of City of South San Francisco Planning Division. ((Notice of
Preparation for the 249 East Grand Avenue Office Drqft Environmental Impact Report, South San
Francisco," May 11, 2005.
Crane Transportation Group, Traffic Impact Report: 285 East GrandAvenue and 349 Allerton
Avenue, November, 2001.
Crane Transportation Group, Traffic Impact Report: 345 East GrandAvenue, November, 2001.
PAGE 17-2
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 17: REFERENCES
Department of Water Resources (DWR), California's Groundwater- Bulletin 118. Updated 2004,
1975.
Dowler-Gruman Architects, 249 East GrandAvenue Development Plan, June 3, 2005.
Dyett & Bhatia, Ciry of South San Francisco General Plan, adopted October 1999.
Dyett & Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues, p.4-2, 4-
10,4-15, 1997.
Environ, Asbestos &of Sampling Results: 249 East GrandAvenue, South San Francisco, California, April
5, 2005.
Environ, Asbestos Surory: 249 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California, February 27, 2004.
Environ, Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment: Georgia Pacific Faciliry, 249 East Grand Avenue South
San Francisco, California, April 2, 2004.
Environ, Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment: Georgia Pacific Faciliry, 249 East Grand Avenue South
San Francisco, California, April 2, 2004.
Environmental Data Resources Incorporated, Ri1dius Map with Geocheck database, January 6,
2004
Environ International Corporation, Results of Phase II Site Investigation, 249 East Grand Avenue,
South San Francisco, California, April 2, 2004
Environ International Corporation, Results of Phase I Site Investigation, 249 East GrandAvenue,
South San Francisco, California, April 2, 2004
Environ International Corporation, Asbestos Roof Sampling Results, 249 East Grand Avenue, South
San Francisco, California, April 5, 2005
Environ International Corporation, Asbestos Surory, 249 East Grand A venue, South San Francisco,
California, February 27, 2004
Fehr & Peers/Lamphier-Gregory, Genentech Building 31 Draft Initial Stucfy/ Mitigated Negative
Declaration, February 2005.
Fehr & Peers, Genentech Site Access - Buildings 33 & 37, Evaluation of Building 33 and Mid Campus
Parking Garage (Building 37), December 2003.
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, 180 and 200 Oyster Point Boulevard Office Prqjects Drqft
Traffic Anafysis Report, October 2001.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 17-3
CHAPTER 17: REFERENCES
KC Engineering Company, Geotechnical Feasibiliry Investigation on Proposed Office/Laboratory
Buildings A.P.N. 's 015-050440,450,249 East GrandAvenue, South San Francisco, California, April 2,
2004.
KC Engineering Company, Goetechnical Feasibiliry Investigation on Proposed Office/Laboratory
Buildings, APN's 015-050440 and 450, April 2005.
KC Engineering Company, Geotechnical Feasibiliry Investigation on Proposed Office/Laboratory
Buildings, APNs 015-050440 and 450, April 2005.
Knudsen, K.L., Noleer, J.S., Sowers, J.M., Lettis, W.R.,Quaternary Geology and Liquefaction
Susceptibiliry, San Francisco, California 1:100,000 Quadrangle: A Digital Database,
USGS Open-File Report 97-715, 1997.
Morehouse Associates, 333 Oyster Point Boulevard Office R&D Prqject Drqft EIR, September 2004.
Morehouse Associates, 333 Oyster Point Boulevard Office R&D Project Final EIR, February 2005,
Morehouse Associates, Bqy West Cove Commercial Report Supplemental EIR, October 2002.
Morehouse Associates, Britannia East Grand Project (Fuffer 0 'Brien PropertY) Recirculation Drqft
EIR, February 2002.
Morehouse Associates, East Jamie Court Office R&D Initial Stutfy/ Mitigated Negative Declaration,
September 2002.
Richardson, J ames, South San Francisco Planning Application ftrm fiffed out by propertY owner, 3 June
2005.
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Screeningftr Environmental Concerns
at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater, 2003
Wentworth, C.M., Graham, S.E., Pike, R.J., Beukelman, G.S., Ramsey, D.W., Barron,
A.D., San Francisco Bqy Region Landslide Folio Part C - Summary Distribution of Slides and Earthflows in
the San Francisco Bqy Region, California, USGS Open File Report 97-745 C, 1997.
Western Regional Climate Center, 2005. Period ofMonthfy Climate SummaryftrSan Francisco
WSO AP, California (047769). Period of Record: 7/1/1948 to 12/31/2004. Online. 14 June. 2005.
Available: http://www.wrt'c.dri.edu/ cgi-bin/ diAfAIN..vl?casjoa+ sjo
PAGE 17-4
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 17: REFERENCES
PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS
Castain, Don, Per telephone conversation between Joseph Farrow, Staff Geologist at Questa
Engineering and Don Castain, City of South San Francisco Building Inspector, 27 June 2005.
Castagnola, David, Per telephone conversation between Anna Rensi, Assistant Environmental
Engineer at Questa Engineering and David Castagnola, Superintendent, South San Francisco-
San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant, September 15, 2005.
Dacanay Raul, Assistant Engineer, City of South San Francisco, personal communication, May
4, 2005.
Kain, Robert, Vice President, Construction, Alexandria Real Estate Equities.
Kalkin, Susy, Principal Planner, City of South San Francisco.
Luck, Kirk, Per telephone conversation between Anna Rensi, Assistant Environmental
Engineer at Questa Engineering and Kirk Luck, CSG Consultants, September 20, 2005.
Malcolmson, Niall, Per telephone conversation between Anna Rensi, Assistant Environmental
Engineer at Questa Engineering and Niall Malcolmson, Project Architect, Dowler-Gruman
Architects, September 9, 2005.
Munar, Kelvin. Per telephone conversation between KellY White, Environmental Scientist at Questa
Engineering and Kelvin Munar, Czry of South San Francisco Public Works Department, 21 June 2005.
Munar, Kelvin, Per telephone conversation between Anna Rensi, Assistant Environmental
Engineer at Questa Engineering and Kelvin Munar, City of South San Francisco Public Works
Department, September 13, 2005.
Nakashima, Stevan, Per telephone conversation between Kelly White, Environmental Scientist
at Questa Engineering and Stevan Nakashima, Consulting Civil Engineer, 15 June 2005.
Prudhel, Cassandra, Per telephone conversation between Anna Rensi, Assistant
Environmental Engineer at Questa Engineering, and Cassandra Prudhel, Environmental
Compliance Coordinator, South San Francisco-San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant,
September 12,2005.
Pryor, Pamela, Director of Asset Services, Alexandria Real Estate Equities.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 17-5
18
ApPENDICES
APPENDIX A NOTICE OF PREPARATION
RESPONSES TO NOTICE OF PREPARATION
INITIAL STUDY
ApPENDIX B TRAFFIC TABLES
ApPENDIX A
April 21, 2005
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC
AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
(650) 877-8535
FAX (650) 829-6639
. 7001-1140-0001-0465-0523
State Clearinghouse
Office of Planning and Research
1400 Tenth Street/P.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, CA 95812-3044
Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency:
Consulting Firm:
Agency Name: City of South San Francisco Firm Name: Lamphier-Gregory
Planning Division
Street Address: 315 Maple Avenue Street Address: 1944 Embarcadero
South San Francisco, CA Oakland, CA 94606
94080
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA
94083
Contact: Susy KaIkin, Principal Contact: Joan Lamphier
Planner
Response to NOP: The City of South San Francisco will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an
Environmental Impact Report for the project identified below. An hritial Study is not attached. We
need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information
which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project.
Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other
approval for the project.
Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your written response must be sent at the earliest
possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt ofthis notice. Please send your response to
SUSy Kalkin at the address shown above. We will need the name of a contact person in your agency.
Scoping Meeting: CEQA requires a Lead Agency to call at least one scoping meeting for a proposed
project that may affect highways or other facilities under the jurisdiction of the Department of
Transportation, and for a project of statewide, regional, or areawide significance. The Lead Agency
315 MAPLE AVENUE . p.o. BOX 711 . SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94083
for the meeting from the Department of Transportation (Section 21083.9 of the Public Resources
Code). The Lead Agency shall provide notice of the scoping meeting to all of the following: any
county or city that borders on a county or city within which the project is located; any responsible
agency; any public agency that has jurisdiction by law with respect to the project; and any organization
or individual who has filed a written request for the notice.
The project description, location, and proposed development are summarized below.
Project Title: 249 East Grand Avenue Office/ R&D Project
Project Location: The 15.75 acre site is" located east of Highway 101, on East Grand Avenue, in the
City of South San Francisco, in the County of San Mateo.
Project Description: Use Permit to construct a phased development consisting of four office/R&D
buildings totaling approximately 500,000 sq. "ft., including approximately 5,500 sq. ft. of ancillary
retail/commercial space, surface parking and a 4-level parking structure. The site is located within an
area designated by the General Plan for up to approximately 686,000 square feet of Business and
Technology Park use. An existing 360,000 sq. ft. industrial building that occupies the site will be
demolished along with all other site improvements and replaced by the proposed officefR&D
buildings and garage.
Impacts: The site is located within an area that has been used for various industrial uses since about
1910. The current warehouse was built in about 1966. Environmental investigations have been
conducted on the property; the EIR will document the significance of any findings of these studies.
Traffic generated by the project may cause significant regional transportation impacts and air quality
impacts.
Date: A ril21, 2005
References: California Code of Regulations, Title 14, (CEQA Guidelines) Sections 15082(a), 15103,
15375 Revised October 1989.
AB 1108, February 2001, Environmental quality: scoping meetings: military areas. Section 21083.9 of
the Public Resources Code.
TOWN OF COLMA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1190 EI Camino Real- Colma, California 94014
Phone: (650) 985-2590 - FAX: (650) 985-2578
April 27, 2005
RECEIVED
APR 2 8 ?
c'005
PLANNING
Susy Kalkin, Principal Planner
City of South San Francisco
Planning Division
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083-0711
RE: Notice of Preparation of a DEIR - 249 East Grand Avenue Office/R&D Project
Dear Ms. Kalkin,
Thank you for allowing the Town of Colma Planning Department to comment on the Notice of
Preparation of a Draft EIR for the 249 East Grand Avenue Office/R&D Project.
The Town of Colma would strongly suggest that the Environmental Impact Report address potential
impacts brought about by projected increases in traffic, specifically in the vicinity of Lawndale
Boulevard. The establishment of McLellan Drive and Lawndale Boulevard, leading from EI Camino
Real east to Hillside Boulevard, provides an alternative access route to Sister Cities Boulevard from
Highway 280. This alternative access could see an increase in use with the development of the
proposed project.
Please keep the Town of Colma informed during the environmental review process. Feel free to call
me at (650) 985-2590 if you have any questions of wish to discuss the project.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUSINFSS. TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
r--"
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPO,,___.1\. TION
DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS - M.S.#40
1120 N STREET
P. O. BOX 942873
SACRAMENTO, CA 94273-0001
PHONE (916) 654-4959
FAX (916) 653-9531
TTY (916) 651-6827
ARNOLD SCHW ARZENEGGER. Governor
RECEIVED
MAY 1 6 2005
PLANNING
@
Flex your power!
Be energy efficient!
Ms. Susy Kalkin
City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
May 11, 2005
Dear Ms. Kalkin:
Re: City of South San Francisco's Notice of Preparation for the 249 East Grand A venue Office Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR); SCH# 2005042121
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Aeronautics (Division), reviewed the above-
referenced document with respect to airport-related noise and safety impacts and regional aviation land use
planning issues pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Division has technical
expertise in the areas of airport operations safety and airport land use compatibility. We are a funding agency for
airport projects and we have permit authority for public use airports and heliports. We offer the following
comments for your consideration.
The proposal is for the construction of four office/research and developm~nt buildings and a four-level parking
structure. The project site is located approximately 9,000 feet northwest of San Francisco International Airport.
Structures should not be at a height that will result in penetration of the approach imaginary surfaces. Public
Utilities Code,Section 21659, ''Hazards Near Airports Prohibited" prohibits structural hazards near airports. To
ensure compliance with Federal Aviation Regulation, Part 77, "Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace,"
submission of a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (Form 7460-1) to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) may be required. For further technical information, please refer to the FAA's web site at
http://www.faa.gov/atslata/ATA400/oeaaa.html.
Section 11010 of the Business and Professions Code and Sections 1102.6, 1103.4, and 1353 of the Civil Code
(http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html) address buyer notification requirements for lands around airports. Any
person who intends to offer land for sale or lease within an airport influence area is required to disclose that fact
to the person buying the property.
These comments reflect the areas of concern to the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics with respect to airport-
related noise and safety impacts and regional airport land use planning issues. We advise you to contact our
district office concerning surface transportation issues.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. If you have any questions, please call me
at (916) 654-5314.
Sincerely,
6aAo!G~
SANDY HBSNARD
Aviation Environmental Planner
c: State Clearinghouse, San Mateo County ALUC, San Francisco Int Airport
"Caltrans improves mobility across California"
CCAG
CITY/CoUNTY AsSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
OF SAN MATEO COUNTY
Atherton . Belmont. Brisbane' Burlingame' ColllUl . Daly City. East Palo Alto' Foster City. Half Moon Bay' Hillsborough . Menlo Parle' Millbrae
Pacifica' Ponola Vaney . Redwood City. San Bruno' San Carlos' San Mateo' San. Mateo Caunty . South San Francisco' Woodside
May 23,2005
RECEIVED
MAY 2 5 2005
PL"NNING
Susy Kalkin, Principal Planner
City of South San. Francisco
Planning Division
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA
Dear Susy:
RE:
C/CAG Airport Land Use Committee (ALUe) Staff Comments on a Notice of
Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental hnpact Report (DEIR) for the 249
E Grand Avenue Office/R& D P .
Thank you for.
that follow
airport/lan
ents
The ct r a Us nstruct a ph velopment, consi four
officelR.&D buildings that will total approximately 500,000 square feet, including approximately
5,500 square ~eet to ancillary retail/commercial space, surface parking, and a four-level parking
garage. An existing 360,000 square-foot industrial building, that currently occupies the site and
all related site improvements, will be demolished to construct the proposed development. The
existing general plan arid zoning regulations allow the proposed use with a Use Permit. No land
use policy change(s) are needed to accommodate the proposed project.
CCAG/Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) Review
The existing land use and zoning regulations allow the proposed use with a Use Permit. Since no
land use policy change(s) is required, the proposed project does not require formal review/action
by the ALUC and CCAG.
AirportJLand Use Compatibility Issues'
The proposed officefR&D/retail project is a compatible use with aircraft operations at nearby
San Francisco International Airport. However, the ALUC and CCAG routinely look at three
.specific issues to address airportlland use compatibility regarding specific project characteristics.
Each ()fthese issues, related to the proposed project, is addressed, as follows:
~~' =!
;'g[; !if
j' .@.
4- ~i!ii:-
(Jl~t _Lilritllj~~(~
555 COUNTY CENTER., 5TH FLoOR, REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 .650/599-1406.650/594-9980
(FRM00341.DOC)
CCAG Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) Staff Comment Letter, Notice of Preparation
(NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the 249 East Grand Avenue
Office/R& D Project
May 23, 2005
Page 2
Height of Structures/Airspace Protection. The 15.75 acres site is located east of U.S.
Highway 101, within the F ederal Aviation Regulations FAR Part 77 Conical Surface
airspace protection area for San Francisco International Airport. CCAG, acting as the
Airport Land Use Commission for San Mateo County, has adopted the FAR Part 77
regulations, as applicable to San Francisco International Airport, to protect the airspace
for the unobstructed passage of aircraft in flight in the vicinity of the Airport.
Since the project site is located within the FAR Part 77 Conical Surface, the project
sponsor must file FAA Form 7460-1, "Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration"
with the FAA Western-Pacific Regional Office in Southern California The FAA staff
will then review the proposed project to determine if it has any impact on the airspace
and/or local navigation aids and will identify other FAA concerns with the project, if any.
Since the FAA staff at the Western-Pacific Regional Office receives many of these
submittals, I strongly suggest that the project sponsor submit the required FAA
. . paperwork as soon as possible. The necessary FAA forms can be obtained from the FAA
Airports District Office (ADO) in Burlingame, California, by calling 650/876-2805.
Aircraft Noise/Overflight. The project site is located east of u.s. Highway 101, under
"j: the Shoreline Departure Route, for aircraft departing on Runways 28 at San Francisco
International Airport. When this departure procedure is used, under certain weather
conditions, northbound and eastbound departing aircraft are required to turn right as soon
as feasible, to avoid the populated areas in South San Francisco and Brisbane and remain
east of the freeway. This procedure was designed as an aircraft noise mitigation
procedure and when used, it is a very successful mitigation tool. The Shoreline
Departure right turn will frequently take aircraft over the project site, under full take-off
power. Therefore, there will be frequent occurrences of high single-event noise levels
and aircraft overflight in the vicinity of the project site.
To mitigate the above-referenced noise impact, the proposed inhabited structures should
be designed and built to achieve an interior noise level of not more than 45 dB, based on
aircraft noise events. That noise level should en easily achievable with standard building
construction fro office/R&D buildings. However, I strongly suggest that the City of
South San Francisco carefully review the building plans for the proposed project to
assure itself that the 45 dB interior noise level will be achieved, via the proposed
construction design and selected building materials.
CCAG Airport Land Use Committee (ALVC) Staff Comment Letter, Notice of Preparation
(NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the 249 East Grand Avenue
Office/R& D Project
May 23, 2005
Page 3
Safety Criteria. The most critical and restrictive airport/land use safety criteria are
focused on the ends of the runways and along the extended runway centerlines. The
project site is located north of the departure ends of Runways 28 Right at San Francisco
International Airport. Any specific safety criteria that would be applicable to the
runways at San Francisco International Airport would not be incompatible with the
proposed use at the project location.
Comments from the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics
The comments contained herein are consistent with and supportive of the comments in a letter to
you, dated May 11,2005, prepared and signed by Sandy Hesnard, Aviation Environmental
Planner, at the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please call me at 650/363-4417.
cc: CCAG Airport Land Use Committee (ALVe) Members
Richard Napier, CCAG Executive Director
Nixon Lam, SFO Planning
Sandy Hesnard, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics
alucstaffcomletssf24geastgrandnop.doc
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS. TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER. Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
111 GRAND AVENUE
P. O. BOX 23660
O~,CA 94623-0660
PHONE (510) 286-5505
FAX (510) 286-5559
TTY (800) 735-2929
RECEIVED
MAY 2 5 2005
PLANNING
Flex your power!
Be energy efficient!
May 23, 2005
SM101408
SM-IOI-22.14
SCH2005042121
Ms. Susy Kalkin
City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
Dear Ms. Kalkin:
249 E~t Grand A ven~e OfficeIR&DP~rij'~~t - Notic~ iof Preparation
Thank you for including theCaliforni~ Department of Transportati~n(Department) in the
environmental review process for the above-referenced project. We have reviewed the
Notice of Preparation for the 249 East Grand Avenue Office/R&D Project draft
Environmental Impact Report and have the following comments to offer:
.1','-':
Our primary concern with the project is the potentially significant impact it may have to
traffic volume and congestion. We recommend a traffic impact analysis be prepared. The
traffic impact analysis should include, but not be limited to the following:
1. Information on the project's traffic impacts in terms of trip generation, distribution,
and assignment. The assumptions and methodologies used in compiling this
information should be addressed.
2. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and AM and PM peak hour volumes on.a1l significantly
affected streets and highways, including crossroads and controlling intersections. . . .
3. Schematic illustration of the traffic conditions for:!) existing, 2) existing plus project,
_~) cumulatiye, and 4) cumulative plus project for the intersections and roadway
segnients in the project area.
"Caltrans improves mobility across California-
Ms. Susy Kalkin
May 23, 2005
Page 2
4. Calculation of cumulative traffic volumes should consider all traffic-generating
developments, both existing and future, that would affect the State highway facilities
being evaluated.
5. Mitigation measures should consider highway and non-highway improvements and
services. Special attention should be given to the development of alternate solutions to
circulation problems that do not rely on increased highway construction.
6. All mitigation measures proposed should be fully discussed, including financing,
scheduling, implementation responsibilities, and lead agency monitoring.
We encourage the City of South San Francisco to coordinate preparation of the study with
our office, and we would appreciate the opportunity to review the scope of work. Please see
the Department's "Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies" at the following
website for more information:
http://www.dot.ca. gOV /hq/traffopsl developserv 1 operationalsystems/reports/tis ~ruide. pdf
We look forward to reviewing the traffic impact analysis and draft Environmental Impact
Report for this project. Please send two copies to:
Alice Jackson
Office of Transit and Community Planning
Department of Transportation, District 4
P.O. Box 23660
Oakland, CA 94623-0660
Should you require further information or have any questions regarding this letter, please
call Alice Jackson of my staff at (510) 286-5988.
~cerelY' ~
T~SABLE
District Branch Chief
IGR/CEQA
c: Scott Morgan (State Clearinghouse)
"Caltrans improves mobility across Californian
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
r-'.
f !
(
.mold Schwarzenegger, Governor
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
505 VN-I NESS AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94102-3298
May 24, 2005 .
File No.183-4l
SCH# 2005042121
Susy Kalkin
City of South San Francisco
PO Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
RE: 249 East Grand Avenue Office/R&D Project.
Dear Ms. Kalkin:
As the state agency responsible for rail safety within California., we recommend that any
development projects planned adjacent to or near the rail corridor in the County be
planned with the safety of the rail corridor in mind. New developments may increase
traffic volumes not only on streets and at intersections, but also at at-grade highway-rail
crossings. This includes considering pedestrian circulatipn patterns/destinations with
respect to the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way.
If the spur track that leads to the site is no longer needed, it should be removed, with the
rail removed from East Grand Avenue as part of the project.
The above-mentioned safety improvement should be considered when approval is sought
for the new development. Working with Commission staff early in the conceptual design
phase will help improve the safety to motorists and pedestrians in the County.
If you have any questions in this matter, please call me at (415) 703-2795.
~
Kevin Boles
Utilities Engineer
Rail Crossings Engineering Section
Consumer Protection and Safety Division
cc: Patrick Kerr, Union Pacific Railroad
Department of Public Works
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
MARK CHURCH
RICHARD S. GORDON
JERRY HILL
ROSE JACOBS GIBSON
ADRIENNE TISSIER
NEIL R. CULLEN
DIRECTOR
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
555 COUNTY CENTER, 5TH FLOOR. REDWOOD CITY. CALIFORNIA 94063-1665. PHONE (650) 363-4100' FAX (650) 361-8220
May 24, 2005
Ms. Susy Kalkin
City of South San Francisco
Planning Division
315 Maple Avenue
City Hall Annex
South San Francisco, CA 94083
RfCEIVED
MAY 3 1 2005
PLANNING
Dear Ms. Kalkin:
Subject:
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report-
249 East Grand Avenue OfficelR&D Project, South San Francisco
We are in receipt of your letter dated April 21, 2005, regarding the subject project. The San
Mateo COlmty Depmiment of Public Works, in its capacity as the Administrator of the Colma
Creek Flood Control District (District), has reviewed the Notice of Preparation of a Draft
Environmental hnpact RepOli. Our records show that the proposed project site is located
outside of the Colma Creek Flood Control Zone (Zone). Since the project site is located outside
of the Zone boundaries and does not contribute financially to the Zone's revenue and
maintenance of the District's facilities, storm water runoff from this site must not be directed to
drain into the District's flood control channel. We request that you provide us with a copy of the
EIR when completed for our review m1d comment.
If you have any questions, please contact Mark Chow at (650) 599-1489, or myself at
(650) 599-1417.
Very truly yours,
Ann M. Stillman, P.E.
Principal Civil Engineer
Utilities-Flood Control-Watershed Protection
AMS:MC:JY:mmy
F:\USERS\ADMfN\CITIES\SSF\2005\249 E Grand Ave R&D - Notice of Prep. Review.doc
G:\USERS\UTILlTY\Colma Creek FCD\WORD\Review Extemal Project\2005\249 E Grand Ave R&D - Notice of Prep. Review.doc
File No: F-149 (9H)
cc: Mark Chow, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer, Utilities-Flood Control-Watershed Protection
CCAG
RECEIVED
JUN 0 1 2005
PLANNING
CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
OF SAN MATEO COUNTY
Atherton. Belmont. Brisbane. Burlingame. Colma . Daly City. East Palo Alto. Foster City. HalfMool! Bay. Hillsborough . Menlo Park. Millbrae
Pacifica. Portola Valley. Redwood City. San Bruno. San Carlos. San Mateo. San Mateo County. South San Francisco. Woodside
May 25, 2005
Susy Kalkin, Principal Planner
City of South San Francisco
Planning Division
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
Dear Ms. Kalkin:
SUBJECT: 249 East Grand Avenue Office/R&D Project
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental
Impact Report (ElR.) for the 249 East Grand Avenue Office/R&D Project. Under the Congestion
Management Program, the review of the project must include the identification of the traffic
impacts on the State Highway System. If that review reveals that the project will generate 100 or
more peak hour trips, the C/CAG land use policy and implementation guidelines must be
followed. This includes the mitigation of all of the trips through Transportation Demand
Management measures.
I look forward to seeing a copy of the Draft EIR for this project. Thank you for your continued
efforts on the reduction of congestion in our County.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Regards,
~ #r::'~
Tom Madalena
Planner IT
City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County
650-363-1867 direct
tmadalena@co.sanmateo.ca.us
TAM:kcd - TAMP0596 WKN.DOC
555 CoUNTYCENrER, 5rnFLooR, REDWOODCrrY, CA 94063 . 650/599-1406 . FAX: 650/361-8227
(FRM00345.DOC)
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
PREPARED FOR:
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
PREPARED BY LAMPHIER - GREGORY
1944 EMBARCADERO
OAKLAND, CA 94606
MARCH 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INITIAL STUDy................ ....... ........................... ....... ...... ........... ...... .......... .................. ............. ...... ........... ....... 2
GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION .................................................................................................................................................2
Project Entidements . .......................... .............. ........ .... ........ ... ......... .... ........ ...... .......... ......... ......... ......... ...... ......... ...... ........ ........ 2
Lead Agency ...................................................................................................................................................................................2
Project Location............. ... ........ ..... .... ..... ....... ........ ........................ ........ ........ ............................ .... .......... ...... .......... ..... ......... ........2
Project Applicant....... .... .............. .... ............ ........ ........ ..... .... ...... ....... ..... ........ ...... ...... ...... ............. .... ....... .... ........... .... ...... ...... ......2
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECfED ..............................................................................................................2
LEAD AGENCY DETERMINA TION....................................................................................................................................................3
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST ..........................................................................................................................4
AESTHETICS ...............................................................................................................................................................................................4
AGRICULTURE RESOURCES.....................................................................................................................................................................6
AIR QUALIlY .............................................................................................................................................................................................7
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES........................................................................................................................................................................ 9
CULTURAL RESOURCES..........................................................................................................................................................................1 0
GEOLOGY AND SOILS ............................................................................................................................................................................11
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ..........................................................................................................................................13
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALIlY..................................................................................................................................................15
LAND USE AND PLANNING ..................................................................................................................................................................17
MINERAL RESOURCES............................................................................................................................................................................18
NOISE........................................................................................................................................................................................................19
POPULATION AND HOUSING ...............................................................................................................................................................21
PUBLIC SERVICES ....................................................................................................................................................................................22
RECREATION ...........................................................................................................................................................................................23
TRANSPORTATION ITRAFFIC ................................................................................................................................................................24
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .......................................................................................................................................................26
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ......................................................................................................................................28
INITIAL STUDY
.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 1
INITIAL STUDY
GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS
The proposed Project would require a Use Permit to construct a phased development consisting of
four office/Research & Development buildings totaling about 500,000 square feet, and a 4-level,
1,227 space car parking structure.
LEAD AGENCY
City of South San Francisco
Department of Economic and Community Development
315 Maple Avenue
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, Ca. 94083
PROJECT LOCATION
A site bounded by East Grand Avenue on the south, industrial buildings fronting Roebling Road on
the west, and railroad rights-of-way on the north and east.
PROJECT ApPLICANT
The Project applicant is Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
Environmental factors which may be affected by the Project, as defined by the California
Environmental Quality Act are listed alphabetically below. Factors marked with a filled in block C.)
were determined to be potentially affected by the Project, involving at least one impact that has been
identified as a "Potentially Significant Impact", as indicated in the Environmental Evaluation Form
Checklist and related discussion that follows. Unmarked factors (D) were determined to not be
significantly affected by the Project, based on discussion provided in the Checklist.
INITIAL STUDY
II
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 2
I Aesthetics
o Agriculture Resources
lAir Quality
o Biological Resources
o Cultural Resources
'Geology and Soils
. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
I Hydrology and Water Quality
lLand Use and Planning
o Mineral Resources
INoise
o Population and Housing
IPublic Services
o Recreation
. Transportation and Circulation
'Utilities and Service Systems
LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
/
I find that the proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared
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 revisions in the Project have been made
by or agreed to by the Project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
I find that the proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required
I find that the proposed Project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
ErR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed Project, an
EIR Addendum is required
~~b
Susy ~, Principal Planner
~/ d6, 2005
I
Date
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
The Checklist portion of the Initial Study begins below, with explanations of each CEQA issue
topic. A "no impact' response indicates that no action that would have an adverse effect on the
environment would occur due to the Project. A "less than significanf' response indicates that
while there may be potential for an environmental impact, there are standard procedures or
regulations in place, or other features of the Project as proposed, which would limit the extent of
this impact to a level of "less than significant." Responses that indicate that the impact of the
Project would be "less than significant with mitigation" indicate that mitigation measures,
identified in the subsequent discussion, will be required as a condition of Project approval in order
to effectively reduce potential Project-related environmental effects to a level of "less than
significant."
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No New
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
I. AESTHETICS - Would the Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic [ ,(] ] ]
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, ] [ ,(]
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual [ [ ,(]
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or [ ,(]
glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
a) Scenic Vistas. The Project site is not located within a scenic vista. However, the Project's
proposed buildings may block views of San Bruno Mountain as seen from areas east of the site. The
EIR will evaluate the extent of this impact.
b) Scenic Highways. The Project site is not located near a designated scenic highway.
INITIAL STUDY
.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 4
c) Visual Character. The proposed development would involve the demolition of an older vacant
industrial building, and would replace it with new building structures as well as new landscaping.
The development would enhance the visual character of the site.
d) Light and Glare. The proposed Project, with its new buildings, would result in additional light
emanating from structures, parking lots and other sources. New lighting would be required to
conform to standards that limit the amount of light that can spill over to other properties, through
the use of downcast lighting fixtures.
INITIAL STUDY
II
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 5
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental 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. Would the Project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
[ ,f]
[ ,f]
[ ,f]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
a) Prime Farmland. No designated agricultural land is located on the Project site.
b) Williamson Act Contracts. No land on the Project site is under a Williamson Act contract.
c) Farmland Conversion. No land on the Project site is used for agricultural purposes.
INITIAL STUDY
II
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 6
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No New
Impact Mitigation Impact 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 ] [ ] [ ,f] [ ]
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute [ ,f] [ ] [ ]
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net [ ] [ ] [ ,f] [ ]
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)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial [ ,f] [ ] [ ] [ ]
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ,f]
substantial number of people?
a) Air Quality Plan Conflict. The local air quality agency is the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD). The District enforces rules and regulations regarding air pollution sources and
is the primary agency preparing the regional air quality plans mandated under state and federal law.
The San Francisco Bqy Area Ozone Attainment Plan is the current ozone air quality plan required under
the Federal Clean Air Act. The state mandated regional air quality plan is the Bqy Area 2000 Clean
Air Plan. A project would be judged to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the regional air
quality plan if it would be inconsistent with the growth assumptions, in terms of population,
employment or regional growth in Vehicle Miles Traveled. The EIR will evaluate whether the
project would conflict with applicable air quality plans.
b) Air Quality Standards. Construction activity air quality impacts could be significant, due to
airborne particulate matter and construction vehicle emissions. The EIR will evaluate the extent of
this impact, and will recommend mitigation measures that will reduce impacts to a less than
significant level. In terms of mobile source emissions, and in the context of existing emissions in the
area, the project's incremental increase would be evaluated in the EIR.
c) Criteria Pollutants. The primary source of long term emissions associated with the proposed
Project would be from motor vehicles. Although office uses would not emit significant amounts of
air pollutants direcdy, the project would indirecdy attract motor vehicles that would generate
emissions. Mobile emissions associated with the project would incrementally increase regional
INITIAL STUDY
II
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 7
vehicular enusslons. The EIR will determine whether project related vehicular etnlSSlonS would
exceed significance thresholds for regional emissions.
d) Sensitive Receptors. For CEQA purposes, the BAAQMD defines a sensitive receptor as a
location where human populations, especially children, seniors, and sick persons are located and
where there is reasonable expectation of continuous human exposure. Project construction would
result in temporary increases in diesel particulate emissions due to operation of heavy equipment.
The Early Years Children's Center (a child care center) is located 400 feet east of the Project site.
The ErR will evaluate the Project's potential impacts on this sensitive receptor.
e) Objectionable Odors. The ErR will evaluate whether the project would be a source of
objectionable odors.
INITIAL STUDY
II
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 8
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No New
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly [ J']
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?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any [ [ J']
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?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally [ J']
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?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any [ J']
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances [ J'] [ ] [
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
n Conflict with the provisions of an adopted [ [ J']
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
a) - b) Special Status Species and Habitat. The project site does not contain special status
species habitat. The site has been developed and is in an urbanized state.
c) - d) Wetlands and Wildlife Corridors. The proposed project site does not contain wetland
areas. It is an area that is currently developed with urban land uses.
e) - f) Tree Preservation Ordinance. The project site is predominantly covered with asphalt and
a large industrial building. The existing vegetation consists of a line of approximately 20 trees of
varying heights, low shrubs and a lawn located along the site's East Grand Avenue frontage. Several
of the trees on site may be considered Protected Trees under the City of South San Francisco Tree
Ordinance. The EIR will evaluate the extent of the Project's impact on these trees.
INITIAL STUDY
II
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 9
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No New
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the Project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the [ J]
significance of a historical resource as defined
in S15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the [ J]
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to S 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique [ J]
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those [ J]
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
a) Historical Resources. The project site is developed with a large 1960s era industrial building,
which is not eligible for designation on a Register of historic buildings.
b) Archaeological Resources. According to the City of South San Francisco General Plan, South
San Francisco's coastal location, and its rich history as a center of industry, makes the existence of
prehistoric and historic archaeological resources likely. It is possible that buried prehistoric resources
may be found in the City, although currendy there is insufficient data to predict that they may be
found at the project site, especially because the site has been previously disturbed. If archaeological
resources are discovered on site, these resources shall be handled according to Section 7050.5 of the
California Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This would
be a condition of any project approval.
c) Geologic/Paleontological Features. There are no unique geologic or paleontological features
associated with the project site.
d) Human Remains. There are no known human remalnS that would be disturbed by the
proposed project. As mentioned before, most of the project site has already been disturbed by urban
development. No formal cemeteries have been located on the project site.
INITIAL STUDY
II
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 10
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact Significant SignifICant with Significant No New
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
VI. 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 [ ,f] [
delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? [ ,f] [ ] [ ]
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including [ ,f] [ ] [ ]
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides? [ ] [ ] [ ,f] [ ]
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of [ ,f] [ ] [ ] [ ]
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is [ ,f] [ ] [ ] [ ]
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of roadway improvements, and potentially
result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in [ ,f] ]
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting [ [ ,f]
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water?
a) Seismic Impacts. The Project site is located in a seismically active area and may be subject to
strong ground shaking during the lifetime of the Project, similar to all development in the region.
Seismic shaking could induce settlement of loose, unconsolidated sediments, and differential seismic
setdement could occur on the site. The EIR will identify potential seismic impacts that would affect
the Project, and will recommend mitigation measures that can be implemented to reduce impacts to
a level of less than significant.
b) Erosion. The Project site is predominandy urbanized, with only a portion of the area's soils
exposed, including small areas used for landscaping. However, impacts could occur due to
construction activity that disturbs the soil and is not properly protected from wind and rain erosion.
INITIAL STUDY
II
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 11
Best Management Practices could be used to mitigate the potential impacts of soil erosion on the
site. The EIR will evaluate these impacts and provide detailed mitigation measures that would reduce
these impacts to a level of less than significant.
c) Unstable Soils. The Project would result ill development that would require grading,
excavation, or other modifications to the soil or geology which could increase the potential for soil
instability on the site. The EIR will provide additional description of the geologic and soils condition
of the site and recommend mitigation measures for any potential impacts.
d) Expansive Soils. A large portion of the city, primarily east of U.S. 101, is underlain by deposits
of Bay mud up to 80 feet deep in some places. Associated development hazards include shrink-
swell, setdement, and corrosivity. Seismic hazards include earthquake wave amplification and
liquefaction. Development in the City's lowland zone where the project site is located often requires
engineering solutions to address soil constraints and the increased risk of geologic and seismic
hazard in this area. The EIR will evaluate in more detail the potential impacts associated with
expansive soils at the project site, and will recommend measures to mitigate these impacts.
e) Septic Tanks. The proposed Project would not involve the use of septic tanks. Proposed
Project buildings would be connected to sanitary sewer infrastructure.
INITIAL STUDY
II
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 12
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No New
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -
Would the Project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the [ J']
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the [ J']
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous ] [ [ J']
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list [ J'] [ [
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?
e) For a Project located within an airport land use [ [ [ [ J']
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?
n For a Project within the vicinity of a private ] [ J']
airstrip, would the Project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
Project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere [ J']
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk [ J']
of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
a) Transport, Use or Disposal of Hazardous Materials. Land uses at the site under the
proposed Project would involve office/research and development related activities, which may be
expected to involve the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. The EIR will
evaluate the extent of this potential impact and recommend mitigation measures.
INITIAL STUDY
II
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 13
b) Hazardous Materials Release. Land uses proposed for the Project site may involve activities
that would potentially lead to hazardous materials upset or accident conditions. In terms of past
uses on the site, a records search investigation will be performed for the site to determine whether
hazardous materials releases have occurred there and what that would portend for redevelopment of
the site.
c) Hazardous Materials Near Schools. The proposed Project site is located near a pre-school.
The EIR will identify any potential hazardous materials impacts on this school.
d) Hazardous Materials List. EIR preparation will include a records search to identify whether
hazardous materials are located on the Project site. If there is evidence of hazardous materials
presence, the EIR will evaluate its potential impacts and will recommend measures to mitigate these
impacts.
e) - g) Airport Land Use Plan, Emergency Response Plan. The Project site is located about
1.5 miles north of the San Francisco International Airport. The Project site is already developed,
and the proposed Project would replace buildings that are already on the site. Because the proposed
buildings would not be more than four stories tall, there would be no impact associated with the
Project.
h) Wildland Fires. The Project site is already developed with urban land uses. Therefore, no
wildland fIre danger impacts would be associated with the proposed Project.
INITIAL STUDY
II
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 14
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No New
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
Project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste [ J] ] [
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or ] [ J] [
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)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern [ J]
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 [ [ J] ]
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?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would [ J"]
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
D Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? [ [ ] [ J"] [ ]
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard [ [ ] [ ] [ J]
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area [ [ [ J]
structures, which would impede or redirect flood
flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk ] [ [ J]
of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? [ J"]
a) Water Quality Standards. It is possible that the Project would have an impact on water quality
during its construction phase. Demolition of the existing building, grading, and Project construction
INITIAL STUDY
II
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 15
activities would disrupt the Project site and disrupt soils and demolition debris to storm water
runoff. The ErR will evaluate the extent to which water quality would be affected, and would
recommend measures to reduce the Project's impact.
b) Groundwater Supply. The Project would not have a significant impact on groundwater
recharge rates at the Project site, since a majority of the site's surface area is impervious, and is
paved over with concrete, asphalt, or covered with building structures.
c) - f) Alteration of Drainage Patterns. Some localized changes in drainage patterns could occur
as a result of the Project, as a result of grading and excavation activities undertaken during
construction. However, these drainage pattern changes would be considered minor in the context
of drainage patterns in the area.
g) - j) Flood Hazards, Seiche, Tsunami. The Project site is not located within a 100 year flood
zone and would not be susceptible to tsunami damage.
INITIAL STUDY
II
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 16
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No New
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the Project:
a) Physically divide an established community? [ [ [ J']
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, [ [ [ J']
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?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation [ [ J']
plan or natural community conservation plan?
a) Divide Established Community. The Project would involve construction of an office/research
and development facility located on an already urbanized site. The Project would not divide an
established community.
b), c) Conflict with Policies or Plans. The Project would require a Use Permit for a 500,000
square foot office development. The ErR will evaluate the Project's impacts on existing plans and
policies.
INITIAL STUDY
II
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 17
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
x. 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?
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?
[
[
[ ]
[ J']
[ J']
a), b) Mineral Resources. 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.
INITIAL STUDY
II
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 18
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No New
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
XI. NOISE - Would the Project:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise [ ,f] [
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of [ ,f]
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient [ [ ,f]
noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels
existing without the Project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in [ [ ,f] [
ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity
above levels existing without the Project?
e) For a Project located within an airport land use [ ,f] [
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?
D For a Project within the vicinity of a private ] [ ,f]
airstrip, would the Project expose people
residing or working in the Project area to
excessive noise levels?
a), b) Excessive Noise or Vibration. During construction, noise levels at the Project site would
exceed current levels, due to the operation of construction equipment. The EIR will recommend
noise attenuation measures to be implemented during construction, in order to reduce construction
noise impacts. It is not expected that the Project would produce excessive vibration, since pile
driving is not proposed for the Project site.
c), d) Ambient Noise Levels. Current ambient noise perceived at the Project site comes mainly
from nearby automobile traffic. Ambient noise levels would increase during the Project's operation
period, due to the increase in automobile traffic traveling to and away from the site. However, this
increase is not expected to be substantial, and overall operational noise levels on the site would be
less than those emitted during past site operations, which included substantial truck and railroad car
traffic noise.
e), f) Airport Land Use Plan. The Project site is located about 1.5 miles north of the San
Francisco International Airport. Flights leaving from and arriving at the airport can occasionally be
heard at the Project site. However, this noise can be mitigated to a less than significant level
INITIAL STUDY
II
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 19
through adherence with State Noise Insulation Standards in Title 24 of the California Code of
Regulations.
INITIAL STUDY
.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 20
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No New
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the Project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, [ [ J']
either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing [ [ J']
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, [ J']
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
a) Substantial Population Growth. The project would not lead to substantial population growth.
Though it would be expected that some future users of the project site would decide to live within
the City of South San Francisco, their numbers would be considered less than significant.
b), c) Displace People and Housing. The project would not displace any residents or housing
units.
INITIAL STUDY
II
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 21
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially less Than less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No New
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
XIII. 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? [ [ [ J']
ii) Police protection? [ [ [ J']
iii) Schools? [ [ [ J']
iv) Parks? [ [ [ J']
v) Other public facilities? [ [ [ J']
a)i) Fire Protection. The South San Francisco Fire Department provides residents and businesses
fire suppression, emergency medical service, code enforcement, fire investigation and public
education, with a staff of 85 and a minimum on duty daily staff of 20 persons. The EIR will
evaluate what impact the project would have on the Department's ability to serve the City.
a)ii) Police Protection. Police protection is provided by the City of South San Francisco Police
Department, by a total of 122 employees, including 80 sworn officers. The Department is generally
able to respond to high priority calls within two to three minutes. These times are within the
department's response time goals. The EIR will evaluate what impact the project would have on
police protection services in the City.
a)iii) Schools. The City of South San Francisco is served by the South San Francisco Unified
School District. It is possible that some users of the project site would relocate to the City, thereby
generating a small student population increase. However, because the project would not involve
construction of new residences, it is not expected that the school district would experience a
significant growth in student population.
a)iv) Parks. The proposed project would not place a significant demand on the City's public parks.
Though some users of the project site would use the City's parks, this use would be considered less
than significant.
INITIAL STUDY
.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 22
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No New
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
XIV. RECREATION -
a) Would the Project increase the use of existing [ [ [ J'] [
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
b) Does the Project include recreational facilities [ [ [ [ J']
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
a), b) Recreational Facilities. The proposed project would not place a significant demand on the
City's public parks. Though some users of the project site would use the City's parks, this use would
be considered less than significant. In addition, Project implementation would include establishment
of a public open space area, resulting in a beneficial recreational services impact.
INITIAL STUDY
II
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 23
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No New
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
XV. TRANSPORTATIONfTRAFFIC - Would the Project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial [ ,f]
in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity
of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion
at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a [ ,f] ]
level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, [ [ ,f]
including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design ] [ ,f]
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ,f]
D Result in inadequate parking capacity? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ,f]
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ,f]
programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
a) Traffic Increase. Implementation of the proposed project would result in a traffic increase
corresponding to 500,000 square feet of new office space. The level of traffic associated with the
Project could be considered significant. The ErR will further evaluate this impact.
b) Congestion Management Agency LOS Standards. Project related traffic could lead to a
decrease in Level of Service standards for the area. The ErR will further evaluate potential Levels of
Service impacts in the project area.
c) Air Traffic Patterns. The project would not have an impact on air traffic patterns in the area.
d) Design Hazards. The ErR will evaluate whether the project would lead to any hazards resulting
from project design features.
e) Inadequate Emergency Access. The proposed project would have to be designed in a manner
that allows free and clear circulation for emergency vehicles that would respond to an emergency on
INITIAL STUDY
II
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 24
site. Proposed circulation patterns for the site will be evaluated in the EIR, in the context of the
need for emergency access.
f) Parking Capacity. The EIR will evaluate whether the proposed project includes parking
capacity commensurate with its demand for parking.
g) Policy, Plan Conflicts. The traffic analysis for the EIR will determine whether the proposed
Project would conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative
transportation.
INITIAL STUDY
II
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 25
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No New
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the
Project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of [ J']
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new [ J']
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new ] [ J']
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve [ J'] [
the Project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater [ [ J']
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?
~ Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted [ J']
capacity to accommodate the Project's solid
waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes [ J']
and regulations related to solid waste?
a), b) Wastewater. The Wastewater Treatment Plant is joindy owned and operated by the cities of
South San Francisco and San Bruno, and recendy underwent expansion designed specifically to
provide the treatment capacity needed for growth. The sewage of both cities is treated, as is
wastewater from Cohna and the Serramonte portion of Daly City. The project would not exceed the
wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, since uses on the
site would be office related and the wastewater produced by d1.e project would not be of a quality
that the plant could not treat.
c) Storm Drainage. Periodic flooding occurs in South San Francisco, but is confined to certain
areas along Colma Creek. Colma Creek handles much of the urban runoff generated in the city;
since South San Francisco is higWy urbanized, runoff levels are high and there is increased potential
for flood conditions during periods of heavy rainfall. The principal flooding problem in the city is an
inadequate culvert and channel system where Colma Creek runs under the Southern Pacific Railroad
INITIAL STUDY
II
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 26
(SPRR) line. Peak flood flows in Colma Creek back up and pond east of the tracks, and water moves
away from the creek along city streets. However, the project site is not located in the vicinity of the
creek and would not be susceptible to flooding during a 100-year storm.
d) Water Supply. South San Francisco has two water suppliers. The California Water Service
Company Peninsula District (CWSC) serves that portion of the city east of Interstate 280, which
represents the majority of South San Francisco's area. The Company's current contract with the San
Francisco Water Department (SFWD) enticles the City to 42.3 MGD per year. An additional 1.4
MGD can be pumped from groundwater. Water use in the City has increased steadily, and at a rate
faster than increases in the number of users. The EIR will evaluate the project's impact on South
San Francisco's water supply.
e) Wastewater Capacity. Though not expected to occur, the EIR will evaluate whether the
project would cause the wastewater treatment plant to exceed its capacity.
f), g) Solid Waste. Solid waste is collected from South San Francisco homes and businesses and
then processed at the Scavenger Company's materials recovery facility and transfer station. Materials
that cannot be recycled or composted are transferred to the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill, near
Half Moon Bay. Browning-Ferris Industries, owner of the Ox Mountain Landfill, has a permit for
forward expansion to the Corinda Los Trancos Canyon at Ox Mountain. When the permit expires in
2016, either Corinda Los Trancos Canyon will be expanded further or Apanolio Canyon will be
opened for fill. The project would place a less than significant impact on landfill capacity.
INITIAL STUDY
II
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 27
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No New
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE-
a) Does the Project have the potential to degrade [ J'] ] [
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?
b) Does the Project have impacts that are [ J'] ] [
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.)
c) Does the Project have environmental effects, [ J'] ]
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
a) Environmental Quality. Project implementation could lead to development that adversely
affects the environment in terms of impacts to various CEQA issue topics, as discussed in this
Initial Study. Mitigation measures, including existing permit requirements, policies, and development
practices will be described in the EIR. Nonetheless, the Project cannot guarantee that impacts will
be completely avoided or mitigated.
b) Cumulative Impacts. It is possible that the Project could have cumulative impacts related to
air quality and traffic. These potential impacts will be described in the EIR, and mitigated to the
extent feasible.
c) Adverse Effects on Human Beings. Human beings could be affected by a variety of impacts
described above. The expectation is that most, but perhaps not all impacts will be mitigated through
the implementation of mitigation measures and adherence to applicable policies and plans. Policy
makers and decision makers will have to balance the potential benefits of the Project against
potential impacts as they consider whether to approve, modify, or reject the Project, following EIR
preparation and full public disclosure of impacts.
INITIAL STUDY
.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 28
ApPENDIX B
APPENDIX TABLE B-1
LEVEL OF SERVICE
CONTROL DELAY RELATIONSHIP FOR
ALL-WAY STOP CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS
Level of Service
Averaqe Control Delav Per Vehicle (in seconds)
A
0-10
B
> 10 -15
C
> 15 - 25
D
> 25 - 35
E
F
> 35 - 50
> 50
Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move up time to first in line at the intersection,
stopped delay as fIrst car in queue, and fmal acceleration delay.
Source: Highwqy Capaciry Manua12000, Transportation Research Board.
APPENDIX TABLE B-2
LEVEL OF SERVICE
AVERAGE CONTROL DELAY RELATIONSHIP FOR
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL
(SIDE STREET STOP SIGN CONTROL) INTERSECTIONS
Level of Service
Averaqe Control Delay Per Vehicle (in seconds)
A
B
C
0-10
> 10 -15
> 15 - 25
D
> 25 - 35
E
> 35 - 50
F
> 50
Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move up time to first in line at the intersection,
stopped delay as first car in queue, and fmal acceleration delay.
Source: Highwqy Capaciry Manual 2000, Transportation Research Board.
APPENDIX TABLE B.3
WARRANTS FOR PROVISION OF LEFf TURN LANES
Intersection Channelization Guide
Highway Research Program, Report #279. TRB, November 1985.
'..
"'"
VA
.. >
>
i ~
:> ~
0 :)
> >
~ z
~ "
~
~ ;;
0 >-
>
-
VOl.UME I VP" I
"'"
I I
Z . LANE ROAO
ICQ
UFT.TUR" tIUAT';'(Hf
."'UlAHtto 110......
I I
I !
lU'T '""""S U\I Y A
NOTE WHEN Vo <.00 VPH (dun... ....... A lEFT-TURN lANE 1S NOT NORMAllY
WARRANTED UNlESS THE ADVANCING VOlUME IV.1 IN THE SAME DIRECTION AS THE
LEFT -TURNING TRAFFIC EXCEEDS.OO VPH IV, >.00 VPHI
2t'OO I' I
4-LANE
UNDIVIDED ROAD
I
I
I
I
I
~ 1500
o
>
LEFT. TURK LANE
WARRAKTED
>S(I)
~
~
~
c
>
~
;;;
~
;;
...
~
:;)
~
:> 1000
.
>
"
z
.;;
o
...
...
o 500
...
'OQ
VL
20 25
VOLUME (VPHl
VOLUME I vrH 1
APPENDIX TABLE B.4
PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT #3
(Urban Area)
600
J:
Q.
> 500
.
J:
I- ()
W c( 400
w 0
a: a:
I- Q.
(/) Q.
a: c( 300
o w
z ::
- :l
:: ...
0 200
>
J:
52
J: 100
0
400 500 600 700 800
2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) OR 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR)
*
*
900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH
* NOTE
150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET
APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER
THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE
Source: Year 2003 Manual or Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Federal Highway Administration
r
~ Caltrans Urban Area Peak Hour Volume Warrant #3
~RANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
APPENDIX TABLE B-5
Accounting of C/CAG Off-Peak Trip Credits
,.:,.. .............., .......; ..... '.' ........ ;..,' . ",\_;i--"'Y ,',.-."..".;.',r, ....'.'..
;"<i-IJ~-,,'Q.r' .....;.'.. ,< 'C!C~'.nl'di;i"'" ..... ..-...../".c-
n OLLL...... .'_' '., .-,"'.:'>
Bicycle Parking -long-Term (Class I)
Bicycle Parking - Short-Term (Class II)
.: ."""Credit
" ...,.'"
: Ratio "-Credit
Total Bicycle Storage 45 0.33 15
Carpool and Vanpool Ridematching Service 1 0 0
Designated Employer Contact 1 5 5
Direct Route to Transit 1 0 0
Free Parking for Carpool and Vanpools 100% 0 0
Guaranteed Ride Home (assumes 4 tenants) 4 1 4
Information Boards/Kiosks 4 5 20
Passenger Loading Zones 1 5 5
Pedestrian Connections 1 5 5
Preferential Carpool Parking 150 2 300
Preferential Vanpool Parking 3 7 21
Promotional Programs 1 0 0
Showers/ Clothes Lockers 8 10 80
Additional Credit for combination with bicycle lockers 1 5 5
Shuttle Program (assumes 8% ridership -108 employees) 108 1 108
Additional Credit for Guaranteed Ride Home program 108 1 108
Transportation Management Association Participation 1 5 5
.m:W,';\imi......!',j:";.I.(,j."',n..j;,\.i\,,i'j...;subt6tai'b'f;,CldAGipe~~;'trip~;Ci~clit~ai:.;:,Y. "_.C.,-f 1'-,'. ,'. ':'...':,' /:',:;-68t-<'
Additional TDM Measures
Bicycle Connections 1
Future Transit Facilities/Bus Shelter 1
On-site amenities (Exercise facility, restaurant) 3
Additional Credit for combination of any 10 elements 1
Annual Employee Commute Survey 1
Campus Transportation Coordinator 1
Transportation Fair 1
'._. - - - .";,,., .., . '_-,.''-,',)'',~,Suhtotal'of'Addiij6rtalMea.~1.1t~S 'i'.'Xi.",
..(, . ", ',";Yo:r6JaLC1G.AG;P.e~1,{''frip's'Credifea,.... :.:
5
o
1
5
1.5
20
5
5
o
3
5
1.5
20
5
....,...,..... ,.,'.34:5:
.';715:~t