HomeMy WebLinkAbout195 North Access ParkSFO ISMND
CITYOF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
195 NORTH ACCESS ROAD,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
DRAFTINITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PREPARED FOR:
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT- PLANNING DIVISION
315 MAPLE AVENUE,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA 94083
PREPARED BY:
ALLISON KNAPP CONSULTING
AllisonKnappConsulting.com
September 9,2013
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
DRAFT
INITIAL STUDY
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Submitted to:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
GOVERNORS OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
P.O. BOX 3044
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044
Submitted by:
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
MS.CATHERINE BARBER,SENIOR PLANNER
315 MAPLE AVENUE,
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94083
SEPTEMBER 9, 2013
TABLEOFCONTENTS
CHAPTERPAGE
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1Initial Study and Legislative Framework 1-1
1.2Project Applicant/Team/Contact1-3
1.3Documents Incorporated by Reference1-3
1.4City of South San Francisco Project Review Process 1-4
1.5Standard Conditions of Approval Required by Law Addressing Envir1-5
Issues
1.6Environmental Factors Potentially Affected1-13
1.7Lead Agency Determination 1-13
CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1Project Location and Setting 2-1
2.2Project Site Characteristics 2-4
2.3Proposed Project2-5
2.4General Plan and Zoning 2-8
2.5Required Entitlements 2-8
CHAPER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
3.1Aesthetics 3-2
3.2Agricultural and Forest Resources 3-7
3.3Air Quality 3-9
3.4Greenhouse Gas Emissions3-21
3.5Biological Resources 3-28
3.6Cultural Resources 3-42
3.7Geology and Soils 3-46
3.8Hazards and Hazardous Materials3-54
3.9Hydrology and Water Quality 3-56
3.10 Land Use and Planning 3-71
3.11 Mineral Resources 3-72
3.12 Noise3-75
3.13 Population and Housing 3-81
3.14 Public Services 3-82
3.15 Recreation 3-84
3.16 Transportation and Traffic 3-85
3.17 Utilities and Service Systems3-106
3.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance/ Summary of Findings 3-110
3.19 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program3-115
APPENDIX A
1 KBE Air Quality Assumptions and Methodologies
2 KBE CalEMod
3 Furgo West Geotechnical Report, 2003
4 Furgo West Geotechnical Report, February 12, 2013
5 Furgo West Geotechnical Report, July 15, 2013
6 CSA Peer Review Geotechnical, November, 2012
7 CSA Peer Review Geotechnical, March 22, 2013
8 Crane Traffic Study, 2012
9 Crane Traffic Study/Figures, 2012
LIST OF FIGURES
CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1Project Location 2-2
2.2Proposed Project2-3
2.3Project Area 2-3
2.4Bay Trail 2-5
CHAPTER 3: TRAFFIC SECTION
3.16 All Figures 3-96 -105
1
I
NTRODUCTION
1.1IS/LF
NITIAL TUDYEGISLATIVE RAMEWORK
This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the Cali
Act (CEQA), which can be found in the California Public Resource
et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines found in California Code of Regulations Title 14, C
(CCR) Section 15000 et seq., as amended. This Initial Study iden
environmental impacts associated with demolition, grading, construction and future occupancy
of the Project which includes any reasonably foreseeable impacts associated with the Project in its
entirety. CEQA (PRC Section 21065) defines a Project as:
An activity which may cause either a direct physical change in t
reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environme
the following:
a)An activity directly undertaken by a public agency.
b)An activity undertaken by a person which is supported, in whole
through contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of a
or more public agencies.
c)An activity that involves the issuance to a person of a lease, p
certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more agencie
The Applicant is requesting entitlement approvals to expand an existing parking facility at 195
1
North Access Road, South San Francisco, CA. The existing Park SFO facility, constructed in
2001 and expanded in 2007, contains approximately1,306 parking spaces in a seven level
2
parking structure with approximately 629 additional spaces on an adjacent surface lot. The
proposed project would expand Park SFO by removing the adjacent paved surface parking lot
and constructing a seven level structure that would park an addi1,600 vehicles and connect
to the existing seven-level parking structure. The proposed project would result in an
interconnected and expanded parking structure that could park up to 3,194 vehicles with an
Park SFO was constructed in 2001 after undergoing environmental, legislati
1
and at that time, redevelopment agency, of South San Francisco.
permit modification.
The plans submitted by the applicant (Bull Stockwell Allen Archi
2
and 599 on the adjacent surface lot. A parking survey conducted
1,306 spaces in the garage and 629 on the surface lot. Various other w
PARKSFO-ISP1-1
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C1:I
HAPTER NTRODUCTION
additional 361spaces on the remaining portions of the surface lot for a total of 3,555 parking
spaces.
The proposed project requires design review and modification to the existing conditional use
permit to expand the parking structure. The project would also require an administrative waiver
to the roof-top landscaping requirements contained in Section 20.330.010.L.8 of the Zoning
Code.
The proposed project (2013 Project) meets criteria b and c , identified above and therefore
requires environmental review. Preparation of an environmental a
environmental determination is required prior to or simultaneously with entitl
Environmental review does not constitute Project approval, but is an independent analysis of
potential Project impacts and mitigation measures. The Lead Agency may, after review of the
entirety of the record, find that the environmental analysis is
or conditionally approve the Project based upon environmental anmerits review.
The Lead Agency for this document is the City of South San Francsco. The Planning
Commission will deliberate and take action on the 2013 Project entitlements and environmental
documentation. These actions will take place in legally-noticed public hearings.
This Initial Study, City Project Number: P12-0048, ND12-0003, UPM12-0003 and DR-0022 is
for the 2013 Project identified 195 North Access Road in South San Francisco, California
(APNs: 015-180-020 and 015-173-160).
Total site area is approximately seven acres (6.96). The site aincludes the 5.71 acre parcel
supporting the existing parking garage (2001 Project)and the adjacent 1.25 acre parcel currently
containing surface parking (2007 Project). The 2007 Project would be demolished, re-graded
and reconstructed with a seven-level parking structure. Some demolition of the north wall of
the 2001 Project would be necessary to connect the two structures. The existing vertical
entrance and exit ramps would be expanded to provide access to the expanded facility (referred
to as the 2013 Project). New stairs and a lobby with two elevators are proposed as part of the
2013 Project. Drive aisles would be constructed and connected to allow vehicles to flow
between the new and existing facility. The 2013 Project architecture is proposed to be similar to
and compliment the existing facility.The totality of these actions, as well as the daily operations
of the expanded facility, constitutes the 2013 Project.
P1-2PARKSFO-IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C1:I
HAPTER NTRODUCTION
1.2 PA/T/C
ROJECT PPLICANTEAMONTACT
PAAT
ROJECT PPLICANT ND EAM
The Project applicant and owner is R.E.S.T, represented by Mr. R
development team consists of International Parking Design; Bull Stockwell Allen architects; and
Smith + Smith landscape architects.
The contact for the Project is:
Mr. Robert E. Simms
237 Harbor Way
South San Francisco, CA 94080
(650) 871-6137
LAEC
EAD GENCY AND NVIRONMENTAL ONSULTANT
The Lead Agency for this Initial Study is the City of South San . The administrative
record for the 2013 Project is on file at the Citys Planning Division. The followison has
been assigned as the custodian and Case Planner/Project Manager
Ms. Catherine Barber, Senior Planner
Department of Economic and Community Development-Planning Division
315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080
(650) 877-8535
The Environmental Document was prepared by:
Allison Knapp Wollam, Environmental Consultant
ALLISON KNAPP WOLLAM CONSULTING
345 Vicente Street, San Francisco, CA 94127
(415) 902-3238
The environmental consulting team consists of Allison Knapp Wollam Consulting, KB
Environmental Engineering for the air quality and hazard risk assessments, Environmental
Collaborative for the biology assessment and Crane Transportation Group for the traffic and
circulation.
1.3 DIBR
OCUMENTS NCORPORATED Y EFERENCE
PER
REVIOUS NVIRONMENTAL EVIEW
1997 Initial Study /Mitigated negative Declaration PARK SFO, Jerry Haag Consulting, February 1997.
PARKSFO–ISP1-3
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C1:I
HAPTER NTRODUCTION
G
EOLOGY
Updated Geotechnical Investigation Report 195 North Access Road , South San Francisco, California, Furgo
West, March 2003 and February 12, 2013).
Geotechnical Peer Review, 195 North Access Road, South San Francisco, California, Cotton Shires
Associates,November 21, 2012 and March 22, 2013.
T
RAFFIC
Traffic Impact Report, Park SFO, Long Term Parking Expansion, Crane Transportation Group
September 13, 2012
.
1.4CSSFPR
ITY OF OUTH AN RANCISCO ROJECT EVIEW
P
ROCESS
As a matter of law, the Project is required to comply with feder
regulations. The following regulations are verified as satisfied and incorporated into the Project
as a matter of demolition, grading and /or building permit issuance. As such, these requirements
are considered a part of the Project, not a separate and distinc
City of South San Francisco project processing requires that app
reviewed by the Citys Technical Advisory Group (TAG). TAG is c
from Planning, Building, Police, Fire, Engineering, Parks and Recreation, and Water Quality
Control. TAG review identifies changes and additions that are required in a projec
with local, state and federal laws that are implemented through
Planning Division, subsequent to TAG review, issues a letter to fying the
changes required in Project plans and supporting materials necessary to comply with p
laws pursuant to site development, construction and land use. T
the plans and supporting documentation or the application is not
processed. Revised plans and documentation are submitted to the
routed again to all affected City departments and divisions; aga
light of their earlier comments and requirements. The process results in an application that can
be certified complete as well as identifying the Conditions of
required should the Project be approved. Many of these COAs impl
mitigations that were historically identified through the environmental re
Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA) and now have become a part o
requirements, through its general plan, special, area, municipal districts, or
memoranda of understanding (i.e., its police power).
After a project application is complete it is subject to environ
review through and by the Planning Commission and/or City Council, depending upon the type
of project, as defined by the Municipal Code of South San Franci
identified through staff review of the project, and any addition
public review process become required of the project as a matterf law. Prior to the City issuing
a building, grading and/or demolition permit all City department
above) review the project plans for compliance with their identi
P1-4PARKSFO-IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C1:I
HAPTER NTRODUCTION
through the public review process. Permits are not issued by th
authorization from City staff or in absence of the requirements
Project plans.
1.5 SCAR
TANDARD ONDITIONS OF PPROVAL EQUIRED BY
LAEI
AW DDRESSING NVIRONMENTAL SSUES
The following COAs limit environmental impacts and are required through the City of
South San Franciscos standard review and permitting procedures.
measures are not separately identified as mitigation measures.
aspects of an approved project, the Projects conditions of approval could not be altered
without additional City review and approval, which could entail subsequent or
supplemental CEQA review.
Failure of the Applicant to meet the required measures and/or elements of their Project
description relating to environmental issues, such as LEED measu
Programs may obviate this environmental document and require subsequent o
supplemental CEQA review as the Project as proposed coupled with the required
conditions of approval is the baseline from which environmental impac
for the Project.
1.A
ESTHETICS
ALG:Signage is required to be reviewed by staff, and in some
ESTHETICS IGHT AND LARE
instances the by Design Review Board and the Planning Commission. Lighting, size, color,
placement, design and compatibility with surrounding land uses i
through this process. The Citys sign regulations are intended t
appearance, protect from visual clutter and blight, protect property values and enhance
community appearance, minimize diversion of vehicle operators a
health, property and public welfare. Potential environmental impacts and the need or lack
thereof for environmental clearance is also addressed and undertaken as a part of the Sign
Permit procedure (Chapter 20.360 South San Francisco Municipal C-Zoning). The Planning
Division implements and monitors this requirement.
Projects are reviewed by the Citys Design Review Board consisting of professional architects
and landscape architects. The Planning Commission, and in some cases the City Council, adds
design elements to projects. Projects that are within a state o
addressed through the CEQA process.
2.AQ
IR UALITY
AQDC:All construction projects are required to comply with the Bay
IR UALITY UST ONTROL
Area Air Quality Management Districts (BAAQMD) dust control mea
are levied by the Engineering Division as a condition of building permit issuance and are
monitored for compliance by staff and/or special City Engineering and/or Planning inspectors.
The measures include all the Basic Fugitive Dust Emissions Reduction Measures, Basic Exhaust
PARKSFO–ISP1-5
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C1:I
HAPTER NTRODUCTION
Emissions Reduction Measures and some of the Additional Fugitive Dust Emissions Reduction Measures
identified by the BAAQMD May, 2011. The City requires Projects
a)Water all active construction sites at least twice daily.
b)Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to
maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
c)Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved
access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction s
d)Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and stagin
at construction sites.
e)Sweep streets daily (with wet power vacuum sweepers) if visible soil material is carried
onto adjacent public streets at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is
prohibited.
f)Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previous
graded areas inactive for ten days or more).
g)Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiled
materials.
h)Install sandbags or other erosion-control measures to prevent silt runoff to public
roadways.
i)Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
j)Watering should be used to control dust generation during the br
k)Cover all trucks hauling demolition debris from the site.
l)Use dust-proof chutes to load debris into trucks whenever feasible.
m)Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materia
the wind.
n)All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with
manufacturers specifications. All equipment shall be checked b
and determined to be in proper running order prior to operation.
o)Diesel powered equipment shall not be left inactive and idling f
minutes, and shall comply with applicable BAAQMD rules.
p)Use alternative fueled construction equipment, if possible.
q)All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
P1-6PARKSFO-IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C1:I
HAPTER NTRODUCTION
r)All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as
possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after
soil binders are used.
s)Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when n
reducing the maximum idling time to five (5) minutes (as required by the
airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2484 of the Ca
regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction
points.
t)Post a visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact a
regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take c
24 hours. The Air District phone number shall also be visible tith
applicable regulations.
AQTAC: The potential for toxic air contaminants (asbestos
IR UALITY OXIC IR ONTAMINANTS
and lead based paint) to be released into the environment is reg
the Building Divisionin compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 during Demolition. Any
applicant requesting a building or demolition permit involving a
containing asbestos (defined as a building constructed prior to
(defined as a building constructed prior to 1960) is required to-Permit from the
BAAQMD. The J Permit is required to be posted on the job site a
can be fined by the BAAQMD and may be shut down by the Citys Buildi
Through this process, the BAAQMD and the City Building Division ensure that a
lead based paints are handled, removed, encapsulated and dispose
prevailing law requisite to protect the environment, the people rby
sensitive receptors. The process typically requires surveys and
asbestos by licensed contractors certified in the handling metho
environment and public health and safety. The process also prov
supervision to insure compliance.
AQVE: The potential for air quality degradation from vehicle
IR UALITY EHICLE MISSIONS
emissions is regulated to some extent by Section 20.400.003 of the South San Francisco Code.
Table 20.400.003 in the Zoning Ordinance establishes specific program require
project generating one hundred or more vehicle trips per day or a project seeking a floor area
ratio (FAR) bonus. The required alternative mode (mode shift) use for all projects is twenty-
eight percent below standard trip rates modeled for the project without TDM measures place.
Projects with an increased FAR are required to increase their alternative mode us
The Planning Division implements and monitors this requirement.
3.GS
EOLOGY AND OILS
GST18-1-BUBC: All construction projects
EOLOGY AND OILS ABLE NIFORM UILDING ODE
are required to comply with the Uniform Building Code. Projects
Volume 2 Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code are required to comply with the
construction specifications to limit potential damage due to liquefaction. This requirement is
PARKSFO–ISP1-7
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C1:I
HAPTER NTRODUCTION
enforced and monitored by the Engineering Division. Compliance
Code is also implemented and monitored by the Building Division.
GSGR:The City Engineering Division also requires
EOLOGY AND OILS EOTECHNICAL EPORTS
geotechnical reports as a part of the permit package for project
land, demolition and rebuilding and additions to buildings that
loading. The geotechnical reports are required to be prepared by
geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist. The reports add
specifications for the Project including grading, site drainage,
specifications and placement and building design. The reports
geotechnical consultant and are modified as recommended by the C
Geotechnical approval is required prior to issuance of a building per
professional of record is required to sign all project drawings
consultant provides construction inspections, oversight and monie City. The
Engineering Division implements and monitors this requirement.
4.HWQ
YDROLOGY AND ATER UALITY
HWQ:The following is a summary of applicable requirements
YDROLOGY AND ATER UALITY
in Provisions C.3.b.ii and C.3.c.i.2 of the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional
Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permi
Permit or MRP ). The full text may be downloaded at
www.flowstobay.org/ms_municipalities.php.
All projects that are required to treat stormwater will need to t-specified amount
of stormwater runoff with low impact development methods. These
harvesting and reuse, infiltration, evapotranspiration, or biotr
(filtering stormwater through vegetation and soils before discha
will be allowed only where harvesting and reuse, infiltration an
at the Project site. Vault-based treatment will not be allowed as a stand-alone treatment
measure. Where stormwater harvesting and reuse, infiltration, or evapot
infeasible, vault-based treatment measures may be used in series with biotreatment example,
to remove trash or other large solids. (see Provision C.3.c.i.2 of the MRP.)
Projects that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of
auto service facilities, retail gasoline outlets, restaurants, and/or surface parking will be required
to provide low impact development treatment of stormwater runoffies
to uncovered parking that is stand-alone, or included as part of any other development project,
and it applies to the top uncovered portion of a parking structu
uncovered portion is connected to the sanitary sewer (see Provis
all other land use categories, 10,000 square feet is the regional threshold for requiring low impact
development, source control, site design, and stormwater treatment,
have the authority to require treatment to the maximum extent pr
The new requirements are built into the following standard requiments.
HWQSRP
YDROLOGY AND ATER UALITY TORMWATER UNOFF REVENTION
(O): All Projects are required to comply with the San Mateo Countywid
PERATIONAL
P1-8PARKSFO-IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C1:I
HAPTER NTRODUCTION
Water Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP), an organization of
Association of Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo County holding a
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Discharge permi
implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for new devel
as part of its storm water management program, as levied through standard City CO
requirements are implemented and monitored by the Engineering an
Divisions.
The measures address pollution control and management mechanismstivities,
e.g. structure construction, material delivery and storage, soli
subcontractor training. Stormwater pollution prevention measure
and operations in order to prevent pollution due to Project occupancy. Typical storm water
quality protection measures include:
a)Walking and light traffic areas shall use permeable pavements wh
pervious pavements include pervious concrete, porous asphalt, tubrick pavers,
natural stone pavers, concrete unit pavers, crushed aggregate (gravel
mulch.
b)Parking lots shall include hybrid surfaces (pervious material fo
medians with biofilters (grassy swales), and landscaped infiltration basins as
feasible.
c)Landscape design shall incorporate biofilters, infiltration and
into the site plan as feasible.
d)Outdoor work areas including garbage, recycling, maintenance, st
applicable storm water controls include siting or set back from drainage paths and wate
ways, provision of roofing and curbs or berms to prevent run on
has the potential to generate contaminated run off, structural t
contaminant removal (such as debris screens or filters) shall be
design.
e)Roof leaders and site drainage shall be filtered and directed to
system and harvesting of rainwater shall occur.
f)Drainage from paved surfaces shall be filtered through vegetated
strips before discharge to the Citys storm drain system.
HWQSRP
YDROLOGY AND ATER UALITY TORMWATER UNOFF REVENTION
(C): The City of South San Francisco requires through COAs, Project
ONSTRUCTION
compliance with the State Water Quality Control Boards general permitting r
requires the applicant to secure a Construction Activities Storm
a Notice of Intent (NOI) and prepare and obtain approval of a Stution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The state issues a Waste Discharge Ide
days of receipt of a complete NOI and SWPPP. The applicant is t
of the NOI and SWPPP to the City of South San Franciscos Technical Services Supervisor
within the Water Quality Control Plant of the Public Works Depar
PARKSFO–ISP1-9
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C1:I
HAPTER NTRODUCTION
building and/or grading permits. The requirements are implement
Quality Control personnel. Typical construction stormwater protection measures include:
a)Identify all storm drains, drainage swales and creeks located ne
prevent pollutants from entering them by the use of filter fabri
wattles, slope hydroseeding, cleaning up leaks, drips or spills immediately, use dry
cleanup methods to clean up spills, use of berms, temporary ditc
reduce the velocity of surface flow.
b)Place rock bags at all drain inlets to filter silt and along curlter water
before the drain inlets.
c)Place straw wattles and hydroseed the sloped areas.
d)Place straw matting at the temporary sloped areas for erosion co
e)Place drain systems to filter and then drain into drain inlets.
f)Use silt fencing with straw mats and hand broadcast seed for erosion control.
g)Construct temporary drainage systems to filter and divert water
h)Construct temporary rock and asphalt driveways and wheel washers
streets from dirt and mud.
i)Use part and full time street sweepers that operate along public streets and
j)Cover all stockpiled soils to protect from erosion. Use berms ar
k)Cover and protect from erosion plaster, concrete and other powde
amounts of suspended solids.
l)Store all hazardous materials (paints, solvents, chemicals) in a
containment regulations and cover during wet weather.
m)Use terracing to prevent erosion.
n)Through grading plan review and approval, phase grading operatio
areas during wet weather, limit vegetation removal, delineate cl
easements, sensitive or critical areas, trees, drainage courses
unnecessary disturbance and exposure. Limit or prohibit grading
th
season, October 15 to April 15.
o)Prevent spills and leaks by maintaining equipment, designating s
such activities that are controlled and away from water courses
maintenance off-site or in designated areas only.
P1-10PARKSFO-IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C1:I
HAPTER NTRODUCTION
p)Cover and maintain all dumpsters, collect and properly dispose o
wastes, clean up paints, solvents, adhesives and all cleaning so
and salvage appropriate wastes and maintain an adequate debris disposal schedule.
q)Avoid roadwork and pavement stormwater pollution by following ma
instructions.
5.N
OISE
NIAN: The City of South San Francisco regulates noise exposure
OISE NTERIOR MBIENT OISE
through state law and their General Plan and East of 101 Area Pl
Code (CBC) Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 2.35 of the California Code
known as Title 24, contains acoustical requirements for interior
for multi-family residential land uses. Title 24 contains requirements fo
hotels, motels, apartment houses, and dwellings other than detac-family dwellings
intended to limit the extent of noise transmitted into habitable spaces. The standard specifies
the extent to which walls, doors, and floor-ceiling assemblies must block or absorb sound in
between units and the amount of attenuation needed to limit nois
standard sets forth an interior noise level of 45 dBA (CNEL or L) in any habitable room with
dn
all doors and windows closed and requires an acoustical analysis
units have been designed to meet this interior standard where su
subject to noise levels greater than 60 dBA (CNEL or L). Title 24 requirements are enforced
dn
as a condition of building permit issuance by the Building Divis
The City, through its General Plan, adopted the Noise Guidelines of the State Department of
Health Services in their Noise Element (1999). Table 9.2-1, Land Use Criteria for Noise Impacted
Areas, contained in the Noise Element of the General Plan (page 280) gu
based upon noise thresholds and acoustical analysis and mitigati
Plan (page 279) also guides and mitigates development in light o
implements the Federal Aviation Administration adopted noise con
aircraft noise insulation program. Figure 9-1 of the General Plan Aircraft Noise and Noise
Insulation Program (page 279) identifies the noise contours and program area. The
Area Plan requirement for interior ambient noise for commercial,
L, echoing state law. Residential land uses are prohibited. The Noise Guide
eq
implemented by the Planning Division through new project review.
NEAN: The City of South San Francisco regulates exterior noise
OISE XTERIOR MBIENT OISE
levels through the South San Francisco Municipal Code (Section 8.32.030). The Municipal Code
regulates noise pursuant to land use and time of day. Lower dens
exposure (excluding vehicle horns and emergency vehicles) is res
A.M. and 60 db from 7 A.M. and 10 P.M. Higher density residential
restricted to 55 dB from 10 P.M. to 7 A.M. and 65 db from 7 A.M.
uses are restricted to 70 dB anytime of the day. These noise st
through enforcement actions (i.e., citizen complaint and governm
Department through its Code Enforcement Officer implements these
PARKSFO–ISP1-11
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C1:I
HAPTER NTRODUCTION
Construction noise is also regulated through the Municipal Code
construction are exempt from the standards identified in the pre
to 8 A.M. to 8 P.M. Monday through Friday, 9 A.M. to 8 P.M. on S
P.M. on Sundays and holidays. The Building Division enforces an
Exceptions to the hours of construction may be granted by the Ch
P1-12PARKSFO-IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C1:I
HAPTER NTRODUCTION
1.6 EFPA
NVIRONMENTAL ACTORS OTENTIALLY FFECTED
This Initial Study evaluates the Project which is defined as tha
Applicant and as modified by the City of South San Franciscos standard COAs,
identified above. Therefore any impacts identified by the follo
those impacts that could occur above and beyond those that wouldthe
Citys standard permitting process and as such will require addi
additional environmental review.
Environmental factors that may be affected by the Project, as de
described herein, are listed below. Factors identified with shading have been determined to have
the potential for significant impacts and will be addressed in a-
shaded have been determined to be clearly insignificant and unlikely to. Factors identified
with shading have been determined to be potentially affected by the Project based on
discussion also provided in Chapter 3.
Aesthetics Hazards &Hazardous Materials Public Services
Agriculture & Forest Resources Hydrology and Water Quality Recreation
Air Quality Land Use and Planning Transportation
Greenhouse Gas Mineral Resources Utilities & Service Systems
Biological Resources Noise Cumulative Impacts
Cultural Resources Population &Housing
Geology &Soils
1.7 LA'D
EAD GENCYS ETERMINATION
On the basis of the analysis contained in Chapter 3:
I find that although the proposed Project could have a significa
X
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this casemitigation
measures have been identified and are required to be implemented that reduce
potential impacts to less than significant and these mitigations have been agreed
to by the Project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION wi
be prepared.
Chief Planner
PARKSFO–ISP1-13
NITIAL TUDYAGE
2
PD
ROJECT ESCRIPTION
2.1PLS
ROJECT OCATION AND ETTING
PLSLU
ROJECT OCATION AND URROUNDING AND SES
As described in Chapter 1 Introduction, the 2013 Project, on approximately seven acres (6.96),
consists of a 5.71 acre parcel supporting the existing parking garageconstructed in 2001 and the
adjacent 1.25 acre parcel currently containing surface parking constructed in 2007. The 2007 parcel
1
is owned by the City of South San Francisco and leased to Mr. Roms, the Project sponsor.
The 2013 Project would demolish the 2007 Project and construct a seven-level parking structure
connecting to the existing 2001 Project.
The site is located in the East of 101 Planning Area, in the sou
North Access Road. North Access Road and San Bruno Canal are immediately south of the site.
South of North Access Road is another parking structure. San Francisco International Airport is
property is 200 feet south of the site with its main operations approximately 1,300 feet further south.
San Francisco Bay is directly east, the City of South San Francisc
the north and an aviation fuel tank farm is to the west. The site has access from South Airport
Boulevard, I-280 to 380 to North Access Road and U.S. 101 to North Access Road (see Figures 2.1
Project Location and 2.3 Project Area).
SPH-EC
ITE LANNING ISTORYXISTING ONDITIONS
The City received a development application in 1997 that trigger
entitlement review to construct the existing Park SFO facility. The 1997 review resulted in the City
adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Signi
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for site development and. Amendments to the
1999 General Plan, East of 101 Area Plan and Zoning Ordinance to designate and zone the site as
Mixed Industrial (MI) to allow a parking facility that includes , and
parking on the unused dry docks were also approved. Three of the dry docks are leased from the
City and one is owned by the Project sponsor. Other actions included authorization and execution
of a development agreement and land lease agreements; a lot line adjustment; and use permit and
design review approvals, with conditions of approval. The project was approved in April, 1998 and
The 2013 Project is the demolition of the 1.25-acre surface parking lot paved in 2007 and construction of a sev-level
1
parking structure connecting to the parking structure constructed in 1998. The Projec
entire seven acre site. Potential 2013 Project impacts consider
Project plus the 2013 Project.
PARKSFO-ISP2-1
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C2:PD
HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTION
constructed in 2001 (2001 Project). The 2001 Project also included relocation of portion of the Bay
Trail and construction of a park (+/-32,000 square feet) on the southern-most dry dock which is
owned by the Project sponsor. The old dry docks, five in total,
fingers (see Figure 2.1).
Mr. Simms, the Project sponsor, received approvals in 2007 to ad
parking lot onto land owned by the City adjacent to the north the 2001 Project. The parcel
(colloquially known as the Tillo Property) was used by the City
composting sludge during their facility upgrade from 1999-2001, and since 2001, was unused
property. In 2003 the City deemed the land as surplus and in 2007 Mr.
approvals for the expansion of paved surface parking onto this p
The 2013 Project, the subject of this analysis, would require demolition of pave on the Tillo
Property, new grading and site preparation, emplacement of foundations a
the parking structure. The 2013 Project does not propose to alter or disturb the existing use of the
old dry docks. The 2013 Project does not propose to encroach bay-ward beyond the line of the
existing parking garage (see Figure 2.2 Proposed Project).
Area of 2013 Expansion
(Also referred to as
2007 Project Site)
FIGURE 2.1
PROJECT LOCATION
E101ALUH
AST OF REA AND SE ISTORY
Land uses in the East of 101 Area have witnessed a change in land use over the years. The East of
101 Area was part of the first industrial development in South Spproximately 100
years ago. Since then, the area has undergone many transformati
such as steel manufacturing, and meat packaging gave way to indu
distribution uses that came to dominate the area in the 1950s an
P2-2 PARKSFO-IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C2:PD
HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTION
modern office buildings and life science campuses mark the third use change in
the area which are predominately located in the central and nort
The Project area, located in the southern portion of the East of
industrial and manufacturing uses, big box retail, airport-related parking and transport and freight
forwarding. Industrial, warehousing, freight forwarding and airp-related parking uses are
permitted in the East of 101 south of East Grand Avenue (pps 110
General Plan, 1999). San Francisco International Airport, airport-related parking services and
infrastructure designed to move motor vehicles (major arterials
dominate the Project area (see Figure 2.3 Project Area).
FIGURE 2.2
PROPOSED PROJECT
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Shell Oil Tank Farms
SFO Maintenance Building
Project Site
FIGURE 2.3
PROJECT AREA
PARKSFO-ISP2-3
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C2:PD
HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTION
2.2PSC
ROJECT ITE HARACTERISTICS
SD
ITE ESCRIPTION
The site is relatively level and approximately 11 feet above mea(MSL). The site includes
four dry docks extending into the bay. The site is underlain by Fran
sandstone, shale and serpentine. Artificial fill and alluvial d
the site (Furgo West, 2003). Research on envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov does not indicate hazardous or toxic
issues associated with the property although there may be monitoring wells on the property in
connection with monitoring nearby properties (website accessed December 5, 2012). Chapter 3,
Section 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials describes site conditions in more detail. Luis
DaSilva South San Francisco Fire Marshal did not identify hazardou
with the property (memorandum June 25, 2012). The Chief Planner, Ms. Susy Kalkin, concurs with
these findings. See Figure 2.1 Project Location which shows the existing site and area conditions.
BCDC(BCDC)BT
AY ONSERVATION AND EVELOPMENT OMMISSION AY RAIL AND
BA
AY CCESS
The City, in 1998 amended the East of 101 Area Plan in part to relocate a portion of the planned-for
San Francisco Bay Trail (Bay Trail) along with the first entitlements for Park SFO. BCDC in
1996/97 approved a trail alignment for San Francisco International Airport (SFO) realigning the Bay
Trail entirely west of the SFO terminating at the comer of South Airport Boulevard and North
Access Road. The rerouting requested by Mr. Simms and approved by the City in 1, resulted in
connecting the two trail segments and provided a direct route back to the shoreline north of the
2
SFO and the Project site (see Figure 2.4 Bay Trail). A regional view of the Bay Trail may be
located on www.abag.ca.gov/bayaarea/baytrail/map.html.
Mr. Simms constructed a 32,000 square foot public park on the southern-most dry dock as part of
the 1998 Project. The Bay Trail is just south of the park. The realignment realized in the late 1990s
provides a public park, Bay Trail links north of the Project are
experience by avoiding the odoriferous activities of the Water Q as noted in the
City 1997 staff reports.
2
Prior to the Citys amendment the Bay Trail was planned to leave
northerly parallel to the dry docks (through the Project site) adge
the canal and connect further to northern portions of the City.
P2-4 PARKSFO-IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C2:PD
HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTION
FIGURE 2.4
BAY TRAIL
2.3PP
ROPOSED ROJECT
The Project Sponsor is requesting various approvals (see 2.5 Project Entitlements) to demolish the
2007 surface parking lot and construct a seven-level549,626 square foot parking structure. The new
structure would connect to the existing seven-level 477,048 square foot parking structure (see
Figure 2.2 Proposed Project) comprising the 2013 Project. The total area of the expanded parking
structure would be 1,026,647 square feet. The 2013 Project proposes to plant a minimum of eight
poplar trees around the perimeter of the site.
The 2013 Project does not propose to comply with Citys Zoning Code Section 20.330.010.L.8
requiring rooftop landscaping on parking structures. Plantings are prescribed to be placed a
minimum dimension of 24 inches in width around the perimeter of . The application
materials state that the owners previous experience with plante
roof has been extremely negative. According to Mr. Simms the irrigation systems have been
difficult and expensive to maintain and water leaks have caused
cars within the structure. The damage to cars has resulted in cl
The Project would include an unspecified amount of electric car chApplication
materials indicate that the 2001 and 2007 Projects include a shuttle bus fleet that provides
transportation between Park SFO and the airport. The shuttle bu
(CNG). CNG is a cleaner burning alternative transportation fuel
gasoline and diesel. The 2013 Project would continue and expand the CNG running shuttle service.
Application materials indicate the Project would be illuminated by light-emitting diode (LED) lights.
LED lights draw less energy than halogen orincandescent lighting and are task oriented thus
limiting off-site spill of light. Solar panels were installed on the roof of the 1998 Project in the
Summer of 2013.
PARKSFO-ISP2-5
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C2:PD
HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTION
PCA
ROPOSED IRCULATION AND CCESS
Direct access and circulation to the 2013 Project site would remain unchanged. Customer and
shuttle bus access would be derived from the two existing drivewThe
Main access of the site is at the curve in North Access Road with a second access point on the
eastern side of the parking structure (see Figures 2.1 and 2.2). The eastern access is largely unused
and includes a gate restricting access. Parking capacity would increase from 1,901 to 3,194 spaces.
PUCH
ROPOSED TILITY ONNECTIONS AND YDROLOGY
The 2013 Project would continue to connect to the existing utility lines
Utility lines on the 2013 Project site would be reconfigured to accommodate the new site plan. A
stormwater quality control plan is required and shall address C-3 and C-6 permitting specifications,
rainwater harvesting, use of recycled water, capture, treatment
other requirements outlined in Chapter 1, Introduction Section 1.5.4, Chapter 3.8 Hydrology
and Water Quality and a July 3, 2012 memorandum from Mr. Rob Lecel, Water Quality Control
Plant coordinator.
DC
EMOLITION AND ONSTRUCTION
Project construction is expected to take approximately 16 months. There would be three main
phases of construction: (1) demolition, excavation, and foundati
vertical structure forming and construction, and (3) finishing.
to take approximately four (4) months each, with the second phase taking approximately ei
months.
Typical construction equipment would include backhoes, concrete
trucks, excavators, front end loaders, pickup trucks and forklif
equipment would generate noise levels ranging from 75 dBA to 85
work would be limited to the hours of 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, five (5) days a week, with occasional
deliveries on Saturday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM. A possible exception to this would be to
accommodate concrete pours which requires a consistent and const
pour is completed. Typically, concrete pours would occur on Thursdays or Fridays to take
advantage of weekend downtime allowing the concrete to adequately cure before construction
resumes on the following Monday. Should Saturday pours be necessary, the activity would occur
between the hours of 8:30 AM and 5:00 PM. These proposed hours of construction are in
conformance with the Citys noise ordinance outlined in Chapter 1, Introduction, Section 1.5.5
3
which limits weekday construction from 8 AM to 8 PM.
3
Construction noise is regulated through the Municipal Code (8.32
to 8 P.M. Monday through Friday, 9 A.M. to 8 P.M. on Saturdays ad 10 A.M. to 6 P.M. on Sundays and holidays. The
Building Division enforces and monitors these regulations. Exce
the Chief Building Official.
P2-6 PARKSFO-IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C2:PD
HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTION
The first major phase of construction (demolition, excavation an
involve excavation, off haul of asphalt and excess soil, and import of rebar and concr
structural foundation. Earth moving equipment would be on-site to support foundation
construction. Demolition on the site would include removal and in
the area where the expansion is proposed. The area would encompass the building footprint plus
approximately 10 feet outside of the footprint; an area of appro
abandoned building pads or other subsurface impediments within t
would also be removed.
Site grading would involve excavation for the structures founda
would be performed in a manner to minimize the generation of dus
Quality Management Districts (BAAQMD) Tier 1 and 2 methods identifie Chapter 1,
Introduction, Section 1.5.2. The Engineering Division requires and monitors compliance with t
BAAQMD measures. Soil would be excavated down to bedrock over the footprint of the proposed
structure for placement of spread footings. The distance from t
approximately 10 to 15 feet over most of the site. Off-haul of asphalt would likely occur over a two
week period and would result in an average of six truck trips per day. Off-haul of excess soil would
occur over a longer period and may result in three to four truck
The heaviest construction traffic days during the first major co
foundation concrete pours, when approximately 50 concrete trucks
course of the workday. Concrete trucks would be scheduled so th
concrete trucks on site at a time. Approximately six concrete poned for the
foundation. On approximately six separate occasions during this-trailers
would deliver the foundation rebar to the site.
During the second major phase of construction, deck and vertical
would include forming and construction of the parking decks and ve
columns). The heaviest traffic days would be for forming and co
Concrete pours would typically occur every Thursday over the eight month period (or approximately
32 days). Equipment required on-site during to construct the parking decks would include concret
pumping equipment and approximately 60 concrete trucks over the
addition, delivery of rebar would occur two days per month, typi
include two semi-trucks with flatbed trailers. Vertical (column and wall) pourswould also occur on
32 separate days with each pour requiring approximately 25 concr
the course of a work day, typically a Tuesday.
The last construction phase involves construction of exterior and interior finishes, stair and elevat
installation, painting, stall striping, and other closeout activ-site during this
period would be typically limited to forklifts and trucks delivering finish mate
report noted the existence of serpentine rock in several of the
occurring material in some types of serpentine rock. Excavated material containing asbestos fibers
may need to be disposed of as hazardous waste and would be required to comply with the J-Permit
PARKSFO-ISP2-7
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C2:PD
HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTION
regulations of the BAAQMD outlined in Chapter 1, Introduction, Section 1.5.2. The demolition
and construction activities are included in the air quality analysis (see Section 3.2 Air Quality).
2.4GPZ
ENERAL LAN AND ONING
GPD
ENERAL LAN ESIGNATION
The Project site is within the area subject to the provisions of-Area
of the City of South San Franciscos General Plan. The General Plan designa
Mixed Industrial uses, and gives the following summary:
This designation is intended to provide and protect industrial l
of manufacturing, industrial processing, general service, warehousing, storage and
distribution and service commercial uses. The maximum floor are
increase to 0.60 for development seeking a FAR bonus with a Tran
Demand Management Program in compliance with the Zoning OrdinancTable
2.2-1 (page 32 General Plan) footnote (1) states that commercial par
are excluded from the FAR restrictions.
ZC
ONING LASSIFICATION
The Project site is zoned Mixed Industrial (MI) and is consistent with the General Plan
designation. The MI District provides for a wide range of manufacturing, industrial processing,
general service, warehousing, storage and distribution and servi
use or produce substantial amounts of hazardous materials or gen
pollutants are not permitted. The maximum floor area is 0.4, wi
development providing specified off-site improvements save for structured commercial parking as
noted above. A complete list of permitted and conditional uses is identified in .002
of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (HTTP://Qcode.us).
2.5RE
EQUIRED NTITLEMENTS
LAR
EAD GENCY EQUIREMENTS
The Applicant has applied for adjudicativeand administrative actions as identified below.
A
DJUDICATIVE
Modification to Conditional Use Permit to expand the parking fac.
Design Review approval.
M
INISTERIAL
Grading and Encroachment permits to work in the public right-of-way (Engineering
Division).
P2-8 PARKSFO-IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C2:PD
HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTION
Building permits (Building Division).
Waiver of the requirement to landscape the perimeter of rooftop
Division).
OARP
THER GENCY EQUIRED ERMITS
J - Permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
Local and State approval of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (South San Francisco
Water Quality Control Plant and State Water Resources Board).
Bay Area Conservation and Development Commission (review and pot
California Department of Fish and Game (review and potential permit).
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (review and potential
PARKSFO-ISP2-9
NITIAL TUDYAGE
3
EC
NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
EC
NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
The following checklist is consistent with CEQA Guidelines, Appe
response indicates that the Project would not result in an envir
of interest, either because the resource is not present, or the Project does not h
cause an effect on the resource. A response indicates that, while there may
be potential for an environmental impact, the significance of th
established thresholds and/or that there are standard procedures
apply to the Project and hence no mitigation is required, or tha
significant impact, feasible mitigation measures are available a and proposed
. A
by the Project to reduce the impact to a level of
indicates that the Project could exceed established thresholds, no mitigation is
currently proposed or identified and therefore the impact will be analyzed in an environmental
impact report. A indicates that although the impact would
be considered significant, measures are identified and required
less than significant.
Citations for this chapter are contained within the relevant dis
As noted in Chapter 2, the existing parking structure (2001 Project) underwent
environmental review in 1997. This 2013 Initial Study identifies mitigation measures that
carry forward from the 1997 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
ones that do not carry forward. The 2001 Project, 2007 Project demolition and construction
of the 20013 Project will be the complete 2013 Project going forward.
PARKSFO-ISP3-1
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
3.1A
ESTHETICS
PotentiallyLess Than Less Than
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
SignificantSignificant SignificantNo
Determination of Environmental Impact
with
Impact Impact Impact
Mitigation
I. AESTHETICS Would the Project:
X
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
X
c)Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
1997 IS/MND
One mitigation measure, Mitigation Measure 14, wasidentified in the February, 1997 Initial
Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (1997 IS/MND). Mitigation Measure 14 requires a
lighting plan to ensure that all exterior fixtures would be downcast or equipped with cut-off
lenses to prevent spill of unwanted light onto adjacent properti
resources. Mitigation Measure 14 is superseded by 2013 Biology Mitigation 3, as well as the
Citys zoning ordinance and Area Plan requirements (see lighting discussion in c, above and
Section 3.5 Biological Resources).
S
ETTING
PS
ROJECT ITE
The site is located in the East of 101 Planning Area, in the sou
North Access Road. North Access Road and San Bruno Canal are immediately south of the site.
South of North Access Road is another parking structure. San Fr
(SFO) property is approximately 200 feet south of the site. San Francisco Bay i
City of South San Francisco wastewater treatment facility is to
tank farm is to the west (see Figures 2.1 Project Location and 2.3 Project Area in Chapter
2).
The Project area largely consists of industrial and manufacturin uses, big box retail, airport-
related parking and transport and freight forwarding. SFO, airport-related parking services,
major arterials and surface connector streets dominate the Proje Figure 2.3 Project
Area in Chapter 2).
P3-2 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
Prior to 2001, the 1.25 acre Project site supported industrial land uses, shi
and freight forwarding, and from 2001-2003 was used as a composting area for the Citys Water
Quality Control Plant. In 2007, the property owner received appe City to pave the
Project site and provide surface parking that is part and parcel
that was constructed in 2001. Therefore, the Project site has been paved and used for a surface
parking lot as part of the Park SFO facility since 2007.
SSF
OUTH AN RANCISCO
South San Franciscos urban character is one of contrasts within
San Bruno Mountain to the north, the ridge along Skyline BoulevaUS 380 to the
south, and the San Francisco Bay to the east provide the City with distinctive edges. T
contained in almost a bowl like fashion by hills on twosides. The Citys terrain ranges from the
flatlands along the water to hills east and north. Hills are vi
Sign Hill and San Bruno Mountain in the distance are visual land
topography is rolling, resulting in distant views from many neig
City is relatively small, extending approximatelytwo miles in a north-south direction and about
five miles from east to west. South San Franciscos industrial
character, especially in its eastern parts. Almost 20 percent o
occupied by industrial and warehousing uses.
E101A
AST OF REA
NEGA:Land uses in the East of 101 Area have witnessed a
ORTH OF AST RAND VENUE
change in land use over the years. The East of 101 Area was part
development in South San Francisco about 100 years ago. Since t
many transformations. Pioneering industrial uses, such as steel
packaging gave way to industrial parks, including warehousing an
dominated the area in the 1950s and 1960s. The emergence of modern office buildings and
science campuses in the 1980s marks the third major wave of land.
SEGA: The southern portion of the East of 101 Area, where the
OUTH OF AST RAND VENUE
Project is located retains more of a relationship to the older industrial
Francisco. Heavier industrial uses, such as ship repair, have gone by the wayside t
with a wide range of manufacturing, industrial processing, general service, warehousing, storage
and distribution, and service commercial uses. Dry docks are replaced with public
airport-related parking. The southern area of the East of 101 is where most of South San
Franciscos industrial uses are now located; a policy direction contained in the 1999 general plan.
The Citys zoning ordinance prohibits industries that use or pro
hazardous materials or generate noise, odor, or other pollutants.
PP
ROPOSED ROJECT
The Project would remove a surface parking lot and construct a seven-level parking structure
connecting to the existing Park SFO facility. The Project would not encroach towards the Bay
but would be located north of the existing Park SFO parking gara-
PARKSFO–ISP3-3
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
most dry dock was constructed and the Bay Trail was relocated as part of the 1998 Project. The
Park SFO The site is 11 feet above mean sea level (MSL) (see Chapter 3.7 Geology and Soils).
RF
EGULATORY RAMEWORK
DRB
ESIGN EVIEW OARD
As identified in Chapter 1.5.1, the Project is required by law to undergo review by the Citys
Design Review Board. Changes in design may be identified by the Board and may also be
identified by the Planning Commission. Design review regulates
architecture, urban design and lighting.
GP
ENERAL LAN
The South San Francisco General Plan identifies maximum heights for structures with respect to
potential aircraft hazards as well as areas with special scenic The Project site is
between the 150 and 175 foot height contour airport-related height limit restriction
(Http://ialp.airplanonline.com). The Project would be 100 feet in height at its highest point
which includes the light poles at the roof top parking level. The building itself would be 80 to
90 feet including the stairwells and elevator. The Project woul50 feet below the maximum
permitted height, measured from ground level.
The Project site is not located within a scenic vista or scenic . The Project site is
identified as being visible from at least one viewpoint (Figure 2-4 Viewshed, South San Francisco
General Plan, page 36 and General Plan Background Report).
E101APDE
AST OF REA LAN ESIGN LEMENT
In 1995, the East of 101 Area Plan established goals and policies for the East of 101 Area. The
policies contained in the Plans design element apply to develop
Project area (page 53, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999).
The stated goals of the Area Plans design concept are to promote quality design, to promote a
functional, safe and attractive environment, preserve the charac
heritage, protect public investment and land values, protect the
facilitate evaluation of individual development proposals through the use of the Area Plans
design guidelines.
The Area Plan design element sets area-wide design policies for streetscape, parking, loading and
access, site design and open space, landscaping and lighting, fe
design, signage and rooftop mechanical equipment. Additionally,Area Plan sets more
specific guidelines for individual land use categories. For the
include specific requirements for street trees, landscape buffers, avoidance of blank walls,
building orientation toward the street, design guidelines, parking lot and shrubs.
P3-4 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
I
MPACTS
a) Scenic Vistas
Significance Criteria: For the purpose of assessing impacts of a proposed project on scenic vistas,
the threshold of significance is exceeded when a project would result in the obstruction of a
designated public vista, or in the placement of an arguably offe-appearing
project within such a vista. Any clear conflict with a general plan policy or other adopted
planning policy regarding scenic vistas would also be considered
environmental impact.
The Project is not located within a formally designated public v
obstruction of a formally designated public vista. Additionally
with an adopted planning policy regarding scenic vistas. Therefo
b) Scenic Resources and Scenic Routes
Significance Criteria:For the purposes of assessing impacts of the Project on scenic r
threshold of significance is exceeded by any Project-related action that would substantially
damage scenic resources (i.e., trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state [or
local] scenic highway).
The Project would not be visible from a state or local scenic highway. The Project site does not
contain historic buildings or trees or significant rock outcropp
c) Visual Character
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it
substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality o
The visual character of new projects must conform to the design principles and policies set f
in the East of 101 Area Plan Design Element. The design principles and policies, identified in
Policy DE-57 of the East of 101 Area Plan, applicable to the Project include:
Streetscape. Street trees are required to be planted every fifty (50) feet. The Project
shows a row of poplar trees along the southeast and southwest elconceptual
landscape plans and architectural plans). Additional landscape improvemen
by Biology Mitigation 2.
Footpaths and Sidewalks. The design guidelines call for sidewalks and footpaths and a
clear connection between the street and building. The Project is a parking structure that
would include clearly delineated pedestrian walkways, and provides access to the Bay
Trail and views of the Bay.
Landscape Buffers. The Project proposes to retain the existing landscape edges
approved in 1998/99 and 2007. Landscaping is shown along all pe
and within surface parking areas.
PARKSFO–ISP3-5
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
Building Orientation. The Project would not alter the orientation of the building
which clearly relates to North Access Road.
Massing of Walls. The Design Guidelines discourage blank walls in expanses greater
than 30 feet that are visible from the public right-of-ways. The Project does not
propose blank walls.
Lighting. A statement provided with the applications materials indicates tha
would be task orientated. Section 3.5 Biological Resources addresses lighting in more
detail, including the Citys regulatory requirements and identif Biology Mitigation 3
to assure that lighting remains on site and does not negatively
Building Design and Height. The Project architecture is designed to conform with
the existing structure. The Citys Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed and approved
the Project on July 17, 2012. The DRB recommended subdrains and trenching, to
minimize salt water intrusion to promote the success and longeviar trees.
Building and Roof Materials. All types of building materials are permitted in the
Light Industrial category provided they are of high quality. The building materials match
the existing structure and the roof would provide parking.
Parking Lot Landscaping. Adequate landscaping is encouraged in parking lots. The
perimeter of the project and the surface parking areas are lands
would add to the landscaping.
The Project would be located in an area whose visual characteristics consist largely of big-box
retail, light industrial and airport-related parking. The Project complies with the East of 101 Area
Plan Design Guidelines andis compatible with the existing land use and architecture of the.
d) Light or Glare
Significance Criteria:Project related creation of any new source of substantial light
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area would be regarded as a significant
environmental impact.
Implementation of Biology Mitigation 3, the Citys zoning ordinance and East of 101 Area Plan
requirements (see lighting discussion in c,
above and Section 3.5 Biological Resources).
Finding: The Project would not have an impact on the aesthetics or scenic qualsite
or in the area. There would be no individual or cumulative impacts with respect ,
visual quality or light and glare associated with the Project with implementation of Biology
Mitigation 2.
P3-6 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
3.2AFR
GRICULTURAL AND OREST ESOURCES
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Significant Significant Significant No
Determination of Environmental Impact
with
Impact Impact Impact
Mitigation
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California
Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In
determining whether impacts to forest resources,
including timberland, are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to the information
compiled by the California Department of Forestry and
Fire Protection regarding the states inventory of forest
land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project
and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and the
forest carbon measurement methodology provided in
the Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air
Resources Board. Would the Project:
X
a)Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract?
X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning
of, forest land (as defined in the Public Resources
Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by
Public Resources Code section 4526) or timberland
zoned Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
X
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use
or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
1997 IS/MND
No mitigation measures were identified in the 1997 IS/MND.
S
ETTING
Prior to 2001, the 1.25 acre Project site supported industrial l
and freight forwarding, and from 2001-2003 was used as a composting area for the Citys Water
Quality Control Plant. The Project site has been paved and used
of the Park SFO facility since 2007.
PARKSFO–ISP3-7
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
I
MPACTS
a, b and e) Farmland Impacts
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it
in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use, conflict with current zoning for
agricultural use or the provisions of a current Williamson Act c
environmental changes that could result in the conversion of farml
uses to non-agricultural uses.
The Project site contains no farmlandand as such would not involve the conversion of
Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Pr
Resources Agency. The Project site is not in Williamson Act Con
c, d and e) Forest Land Impacts
The site is not zoned for timberland production or in use as suc
Use of the site for airport-related parking would notcause rezoning of forest land (as defined in
the Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defi
section 4526) or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defi
section 51104(g)).
Finding: Prior to 2001, the 1.25 acre Project site supported industrial l
warehouse and freight forwarding, and from 2001-2003 was used as a composting area for the
Citys Water Quality Control Plant. The Project site has been p for surface
parking as part of the Park SFO facility since 2007. The Project would not adversely affect any
existing agricultural operations as none exist on the site. The Project would not impact
agricultural resources individually or cumulatively and is not i
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), or in Williamson Acontract. The site is not
zoned for timberland production or in use as such, and would not cause rezoning of forest land
(as defined in the Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timb
Resources Code section 4526) or timberland zoned Timberland Prod
Government Code section51104(g)).
P3-8 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
3.3AQ
IR UALITY
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions forPotentially Less Than LessThan
Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant Significant No
Impact with Impact Impact
Mitigation
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 X
the applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute X
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net X
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
attainment under an
project region is non-
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions, which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial X
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X
substantial number of people?
1997 IS/MND
One mitigation measure was identified in the 1997 IS/MND. Mitigation Measure 7 from the
1997 IS/MND does not apply to the 2013 Project. The followingair quality analysis evaluates
the whole of the Project which includes the existing2001 Project as background conditions and
the 2013 Project. The analysis contained herein is compliant with current agency, state
guidelines and law and City regulatory requirements, as identified below which is considerably
more detailed and defined that that required in 1997.
Air Quality Modeling and Assessment
This air quality analysis was conducted by Mr. Mike Ratte of KB Environmental Consultants, air
quality specialists. This air quality analysis was performed using methodologies and assum
recommended within the Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Air
1
Quality Guidelines (dated June 2010, updated in May 2011, and revised in May 2012). This
1 The Air Districts June 2010 adopted thresholds of significance were challenged in a lawsuit. On Marc
County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the Air Dis
thresholds. The court found that the adoption of the thresholds was a project under CEQA and ordered the Air Dist
examine whether the thresholds would have a significant impact o
use. The court did not determine whether the thresholds are or a
The court issued a writ of mandate ordering the District to set e Air
District had complied with CEQA. The courts order permits the Air District to develop and disseminate these CEQA
PARKSFO–ISP3-9
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
section describes existing air quality as well as air pollutant
operation of the proposed Project. Pursuant to the City of Soutct review
Chapter 1, Section
process, Air Quality Conditions of Approval (as described in 1.5.2) that are
required to be implemented as part of the Project are also addre
Air quality pollutants included in the analysis comprise carbon reactive organic
compounds (ROG), nitrogen dioxide (NO), sulfur dioxide (SO), particulate matter equal to or
22
less than 10 micrometers (coarse particulates or PM10)and partic
than 2.5 micrometers (fine particulates or PM2.5). Diesel particulate matter (DPM) from
2
construction equipment exhaust and asbestos/serpentine rockfugitive dust from construction
and grading activities are of particular concern with regard to health risk s (HRAs).
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are also addressed within Section 3.4.
S
ETTING
C
LIMATE
The peninsula region of the Bay Area Air Basin (Bay Area) extend
San Jose to the Golden Gate. The Santa Cruz Mountain range exte
peninsula, with elevations exceeding 2,000 feet at the south end, and gradual
elevation of 500 feet in South San Francisco, where it terminate
end of the peninsula and because most of the topography of San Fs less than 200 feet
in elevation, the marine air layer is able to flow across most o
3
relatively cool and windy.
Meteorological data collected at the San Francisco International
approximately two miles south of the Project site, are represent
conditions. Average maximum and minimum winter (i.e., January)
and 42 ºF, respectively, whereas average summer (i.e., July) max
temperatures are 72 and 54 ºF, respectively. Precipitation at SFO average
4
inches per year.
Guidelines, as long as they do not implement the thresholds of s
thresholds for air quality analysis has been subject to judicial
BAAQMDs Revised Draft Options and Justification Report (October
BAAQMD recommended thresholds. Therefore, the City of South San
thresholds are appropriate for use in this analysis.
2 In 2002, the California Air Resources Board adopted an Asbestos
quarrying and surface mining operations. New emission control measures, such as dust suppressants apply to activities suc
road construction and road maintenance, construction, grading, a
naturally-occurring asbestos/serpentine rock. Geologic mapping does indica
the project site.
3
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. October 4, 2010, Bay A
http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Communications-and-Outreach/Air-Quality-in-the-Bay-Area/Bay-Area-Climatology.aspx,
accessed February 4, 2012.
4 Western Regional Climate Center, Local Climate Data Summaries for San Francisco International Air.
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/clilcd.pl?ca23234, accessed February 4, 2012.
P3-10 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
Annual average wind speeds throughout the peninsula range from f
(mph). The east side of the mountains has a westerly wind patte
local topographic features. During stable atmospheric conditions a topographic feature
measuring a few hundred feet rise in elevation will induce flow
feature. This phenomenon can change the wind directional pattern by as much as 90 degrees
over short distances. Areas on the east side of the peninsula o
surface layer, induced by upslope flow on the east-facing slopes and by the bay breeze on
mornings without a strong pressure gradient. The bay breeze is rarely seen in th
5
because the stronger sea breeze dominates the flow pattern.
SR
ENSITIVE ECEPTORS
People that are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution
include children, elderly, and those that suffer from certain illnand land uses
including schools, convalescent homes, and hospitals are considered to be
air pollution. Residential areas are also considered sensitive
usually stay home for extended periods of time, which results in
pollutants.
BAAQMD considers the relevant zone of influence for an assessmen
areas within 1,000 feet of the project boundary. There are no sensitive receptors within 1,000
feet of the Project boundary. Residential land uses are approximately 3,300
the west of the Project site (west of Route 101 and north of Interstate 380) and 4,050 feet (0.75
miles) to the southwest of the Project site (west of Route 101 and south of Interstate 380). The
closest school is Belle Air Elementary which is 1.1 miles (approximately 6,000
Project site. San Francisco International Airport (SFO) is located approximately 1,300 feet to the
south of the Project site (although airport-owned property is wiroject site).
RF
EGULATORY RAMEWORK
CP
RITERIA OLLUTANTS
The BAAQMD monitors and regulates air quality pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act, as
amended, and the California Clean Air Act. The BAAQMD also adop
on stationary sources of air pollutants through its permit and i
BAAQMD responsibilities include monitoring air quality, preparat
responding to citizen air quality complaints. The BAAQMD has al CEQA Air
Quality Guidelines, to assist lead agencies in evaluating air quality impacts of p
proposed in the Bay Area.
5 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. October 4, 2010, Bay Agy
http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Communications-and-Outreach/Air-Quality-in-the-Bay-Area/Bay-Area-Climatology.aspx,
accessed February 4, 2012.
PARKSFO–ISP3-11
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
CAQ
URRENT IR UALITY
The BAAQMD operates a regional monitoring network of ambient con
pollutants. Currently, the criteria pollutants of most concern
particulate matter. The monitoring station closest to the Project site is in San Francisco on
Arkansas Street. This air quality monitoring station monitors l
in the form of PM10 and PM2.5, CO, NO, and SO).
22
Air Quality Table 1 summarizes the most recent three years of data published by the
BAAQMD for the San Francisco, Arkansas Street air monitoring sta
seven and a half miles to the north of the Project site. The federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard was
exceeded twice in 2011, three times in 2010 and once in 2009. No other State or federal air
quality standards were exceeded during the three year period.
Therefore, the Bay Area is currently designated nonattainment -hour
and 8-hour) ozone standards, for the state PM10 standards, and for state and national (annual
average and 24-hour) PM2.5 standards. The Bay Area is designated attainment
unclassified with respect to the other ambient air quality sta
AIR QUALITY TABLE 1
AIR QUALITY DATA SUMMARY
6
SAN FRANCISCO, ARKANSAS STREET, CA, 2009 2011
Pollutant Standard Days Standard Exceeded
2009 2010 2011
Ozone State 1Hour0 0 0
Ozone Federal 8Hour0 0 0
Ozone State 8Hour0 0 0
PM10Federal 24Hour 0 0 0
PM10State 24Hour 0 0 0
PM2.5Federal 24Hour 1 3 2
Carbon Monoxide State/Federal0 0 0
8Hour
Nitrogen Dioxide State 1Hour0 0 0
Sulfur Dioxide State 24-Hour 0 0 0
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Annual Bay Ar
http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Communications-and-Outreach/Air-Quality-in-the-Bay-Area/Air-Quality-Summaries.aspx,
2012.
I
MPACTS
This section addresses each of the Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact outlined within the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines.
Relevant significance criteria are outlined and evaluated, includ
and computations, where necessary per each category. Significance findings are highlighted
6
2012 data will not be available until March/April, 2013.
P3-12 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
where applicable. Detailed methodology results can be found with Appendix A to this
document.
a)Conflicts with the Current Air Quality Plan
Significance Criteria: Any project that would not support the goals of the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air
Plan (CAP) would not be considered consistent with the 2010 CAP.
On September 15, 2010, the BAAQMD adopted the 2010 CAP. The 201
updates the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy in accordance with the requirements of the California
Clean Air Act (CCAA) to implement all feasible measures to reduc
strategy to reduce ozone, particulate matter, air toxics, and GH
integrated plan; and establish emission control measures to be a
2010 through 2012 timeframe. The primary goals of the 2010 Bay
Attain air quality standards;
Reduce population exposure and protecting public health in the
Reduce GHG emissions and protect the climate.
The recommended measure for determining Project support of these
BAAQMD-approved CEQA thresholds of significance. Therefore, if approva
would not result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts after the application of all
feasible mitigation, the Project would be considered consistent All
Project air quality impacts addressed within this document have
significant or less than significant after mitigation therefore (see following discussion),
.
b and c) Violation of Standards and a Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if
BAAQMDs construction and/or operational mass emission threshold
and/or if appropriate air pollutant control measures are not imp
CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommend that cumulative air quality effects from criteria air
pollutants also be addressed by comparison to the mass daily and
thresholds were developed to identify a cumulatively considerabl
regional air quality impact.
Air quality impacts are associated with both construction and op
rules and regulations govern certain aspects of the constructionojects and relate to
portable construction equipment (e.g., gasoline- or diesel-powered engines used for power
generation, pumps, compressors, and cranes), architectural coati
materials. Project construction and operation impacts are discu
sections.
PARKSFO–ISP3-13
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
CRI
ONSTRUCTION ELATED MPACTS
The parking facility expansion would remove surface parking and 549,626 square
foot expansion to park an additional 1,300 cars, for a total of 3,194 parking
spaces. The construction would occur over a 16 month period. Chapter 2 Project
Description provides further information on Project phasing and constructio
Project construction would generate short-term emissions of criteria pollutants, including
fugitive dust and equipment exhaust emissions. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
recommend quantification of construction-related exhaust emissions and comparison of those
emissions to significance thresholds. Therefore, thisanalysis includes quantification of
construction emissions and comparison of the emissions to the BA
significance thresholds. The CalEEMod (California Emissions Est
quantify project construction emissions of criteria pollutants (see Appendix A for emissions
estimate assumptions).
Air Quality Table 2 provides the estimated short-term construction emissions that would be
associated with the Project and compares those emissions to the
construction exhaust emissions. The average daily construction perio
compared to the BAAQMD significance thresholds. All constructio-related emissions would
be below the BAAQMD significance thresholds.
AIR QUALITY TABLE 2
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA POLUTANT EMISSIONS
(pounds per day)
Emission SourcesROG NOx PM10 PM2.5CO
Construction 21.8 40.1 2.44 2.44 30.6
Significance Thresholds 54 54 8254---
Significant Impact?NoNo No No No
Notes: Refer to Appendix A for all emission assumptions.
BAAQMDs CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provides a number of Construction Mitigation Measures
(related to fugitive dust and exhaust emissions) for constructio
the Project through the Citys standard review and approval procedures (see Introduction,
Chapter 1, Section 1.5.2). All construction emissions would be below the BAAQMD
significance thresholds with the implementation of these measure
OI
PERATIONAL MPACTS
The CalEEMod was used to estimate emissions that would be associ
heating, water heating, and landscape maintenance emissions expect
implementation the Project. The Project would demolish a surface parking l
seven-level 549,626 square foot parking structure connecting to the exven-level 477,048
square foot parking structure.
P3-14 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
The Project would increase on-site parking from 1,901 up to 3,194 spaces through expansion of
the parking garage (on property currently used for surface parki
would be 2,833 garage spaces and 361 surface parking spaces. Operational emission
with the additional vehicle traffic were estimated. The daily t
7
1.2 per 1,000 square foot per day). Twenty-five percent of the trip generation is related to the
shuttle bus fleet, which transfer passengers from the facility t
The Project would include an unspecified amount of electric car The existing
project includes a shuttle bus fleet that provides transportatiobetween Park SFO and the
airport. The shuttle buses run on compressed natural gas (CNG).
alternative transportation fuel, having fewer emissions than gas
would continue and expand the CNG shuttle service. Application materials indicate the Project
would be illuminated by light-emitting diode (LED) lights. LED lights draw less energy than
halogen or incandescent lighting and are task oriented thus limisite spill of light.
Estimated operational daily and annual emissions that would be a
presented in Air Quality Tables 3 and 4 and are compared to BAAQMDs thresholds of
significance.
AIR QUALITY TABLE 3
PROJECT DAILY OPERATIONAL CRITERIA POLUTANT EMISSIONS
(pounds per day)
Emission Sources ROGNOx PM10PM2.5 CO
Operation8.96 4.34 0.19 0.1925.8
Significance Thresholds 545482 54---
Significant Impact? No No No No No
Notes: Refer to Appendix A for all emission assumptions. Values reflect rounding.
AIR QUALITY TABLE 4
PROJECT ANNUAL OPERATIONAL CRITERIA POLUTANT EMISSIONS
(tons per year)
Emission Sources ROGNOx PM10PM2.5 CO
Operation1.580.75 0.04 0.04 4.61
Significance Thresholds 101015 10---
Significant Impact? No No No No No
Notes: Refer to Appendix A for all emission assumptions. Values reflect rounding.
The BAAQMD has identified preliminary screening criteria for determining wh
emissions would be exceeded. The screening criteria provide a c
whether the implementation of the Project would result in CO emi
significant. The methodology includes the following:
7 Based upon trip generation rates found at commercial airports in
Manual (9th Edition - 2012), pm peak hour trip generation is about 5.6 to 6 percent of daily generation.
PARKSFO–ISP3-15
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
Project is consistent with an applicable congestion management p
by the county congestion management agency for designated roads
regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans.
The project traffic would increase traffic volumes at affected i
than 44,000 vehicles per hour.
The project traffic would increase traffic volumes at affected i
than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is
substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge unde
street canyon, below-grade roadway).
The two signalized intersections at the South Airport Boulevard/I-380 interchange as well as the
North Access Road/I-380 end of freeway intersection just south of the site are curre
operating at Levels of Service (LOS) A and B during AM and PM co
conditions. All three analysis intersections would have LOS A or B during the AM and PM peak
8
hour operation in the year 2015 with the addition of Project tra. Two of the three analysis
intersections would have LOS A or B during the AM and PM peak hour operation in the year
2035 with the addition of Project traffic. In addition, the South Airport Boulevard/North
Access Road/I-380 westbound on-ramp intersection would maintain LOS B during the AM
peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour operation with the addition of Project t
The additional traffic would not exceed the screening criteria based on the size of the facility, the
anticipated resultant traffic volumes, and the anticipated LOS a
.
CI
UMULATIVE MPACTS
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommend that cumulative air quality effects from
criteria air pollutants also be addressed by comparison to the B
significance thresholds. Project-related emissions would be below the thresholds with
implementation of the measures the City requires by law (see Introduction, Chapter 1, Section
1.2.2) as shown in Air Quality Tables 2 through 4.
d) Impacts to Sensitive Receptors
Significance Criteria: The significance of impact to sensitive receptors is dependent
of contracting cancer from exposure to carcinogenic toxic air contaminants (TACs) such as
DPM, or of having adverse health effects from exposure to non-carcinogenic TACs. A project
is considered to be significant if the incremental cancer risk a
For cumulative analysis of cancer risk, BAAQMD recommends that the risks from a
within a 1,000 foot radius of the source or receptor be assessed
8 The trip generation and intersection levels of service are from -specific traffic analysis conducted by Crane
Transportation Group and discussed in Section 3.16 Transportatio
P3-16 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
increased risk threshold of 100 in one million. The non-cancer hazard index significance
threshold of 1.0 is defined in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. For cumulative
analysis of non-cancer hazard index, BAAQMD requires that the hazards from all s
a 1,000 foot radius of the source or receptor be assessed and coto a cumulative hazard
index threshold of 10.
The BAAQMD has established a separate significance threshold for
health as emissions of PM2.5 are associated with health risks.
3
BAAQMD significant threshold for PM2.5 impacts is an average annual increase of 0.3 µg/m.
For cumulative analysis, BAAQMD recommends that the PM2.5 concen
sources within a 1,000 foot radius of the receptor be assessed a
3
threshold of an average annual increase of 0.8 µg/m.
CR
ANCER ISK
Cancer risk is defined as the lifetime probability of developing
carcinogenic substances. Cancer risks are expressed as the chan
cancer, for example, ten cancer cases among one million people e
Following HRA guidelines established by California Office of Env
Assessment (OEHHA) and BAAQMDs Health Risk Screening Analysis Guidelines, incremental
cancer risks were calculated by applying toxicity factors to modeled TAC concentrations i
to determine the inhalation dose (milligrams per kilogram of bod-day]).
See Appendix A for details.
Construction Related Impacts
As a result of construction activities (with implementation of the measures the City requires by
law), the unmitigated maximum cancer risk for a residential-adult receptor would be 0.18 per
million and for a residential-child would be 2.0 per million.
Operational Related Impacts
The maximum cancer risks from the Project operations for a resid-adult receptor would be
0.30 per million and for a residential-child would be 0.15 per million with implementation of the
measures the City requires by law.
Total Project Impacts
The maximum cancer risks from the Project construction and opera(with implementation
of the measures the City requires by law), the unmitigated maximum cancer risk a residential-
adult receptor would be 0.30 per million and for a residential-child would be 2.0 per million with
implementation of the measures the City requires by law.
PARKSFO–ISP3-17
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
N-CHI
ONANCER EALTH MPACTS
Both acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) adverse health impacts unrelated to cancer are
measured against a hazard index (HI), which is defined as the ra
exposure concentration from the Project to a published reference exposure level (REL) that
could cause adverse health effects. The RELs are published by OEHHA based on
epidemiological research. The ratio (referred to as the Hazard -
carcinogenic substance that affects a certain organ system is added to produce an overall HI for
that organ system. The overall HI is calculated for each organ
highest-impacted organ system is greater than 1.0, then the impact is co
significant.
The chronic reference exposure level for DPM was established by
3
5 g/m. There is no acute REL for DPM. However, diesel exhaust does
other compounds, which do have an acute REL. Based on BAAQMDs
acrolein emissions are approximately 1.3percent of the total DPM emissions. The acute REL
93
for acrolein was established by the California OEHHA as 2.5 g/m.
The chronic HI would be 0.01.
The acute HI would be 0.01.
PM2.5 Concentration
Dispersion modeling was also used to estimate exposure of sensit-related
concentrations of PM2.5. Because emissions of PM2.5 are associa
BAAQMD has established a separate significance threshold to protublic health. The
BAAQMD guidance requires inclusion of PM2.5 exhaust emissions on
fugitive dust emissions are addressed under BAAQMD dust control
by law to be implemented into Project construction, see Introduction, Chapter 1, Section
1.5.2). The unmitigated maximum annual PM2.5 concentration as a result
3
construction would be 0.02 µg/m.
Cumulative Impacts
The BAAQMDs CEQA Air Quality Guidelines include standards and methods for determining
the significance of cumulative health risk impacts. The method e
health risk requires the addition of the health risks from permi
in the vicinity of a project (i.e., within a 1,000-foot radius of the source, also considered the zone
P3-18 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
of influence for a health risk analysis), then adding the health risks of the Project impacts to
determine whether the cumulative health risk thresholds are exce
The BAAQMDs CEQA Air Quality Guidelines include standards and methods for determining
the significance of cumulative health risk impacts. The method for determining cumulative
health risk requires the tallying of health risk from permitted
vicinity of a project (i.e., within a 1,000-foot radius of the source or new receptor), then adding
the Project impacts to determine whether the cumulative health risk thresholds are excee
BAAQMD has developed a geo-referenced database of permitted emissions sources throughout
the San Francisco Bay Area, and has developed the Stationary Source Risk & Hazard Analysis Tool
(dated May, 2011) for estimating cumulative health risks from per
sources are located within 1,000 feet of the Project.
BAAQMD has also developed a geo-referenced database of roadways throughout the San
Francisco Bay Area and has developed the Highway Screening Analysis Tool (dated May 2011) for
estimating cumulative health risks from roadways. BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines also
require the inclusion of surface streets within 1,000 feet of thaily
10
traffic (AADT) of 10,000 or greater. Route 101 is located approximately 2,000 feet to the west
of the project site. Upon review of nearby roadways, no nearby
Air Quality Table 5 lists the BAAQMD-permitted facility and major roadways within 1,000 feet
of the Project. Air Quality Table 5 also shows the cumulative cancer risk, hazard impact, and
3
PM2.5 concentrations (in µg/m) associated with these facilities (developed by BAAQMD), as
well as the Project.
AIR QUALITY TABLE 5
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Site # Facility Type AddressCancer Hazard PM2.5
RiskImpact Concentration
5876South San Francisco-San 195 Belle Air
11.3 0.01 0.05
Bruno Water QualityRoad
13863 City of SSF Water Quality 477 South
1.72 0.0006 <0.01
Plant Airport Blvd
6329Sing Tao Newspaper215 Littlefield
- - -
Ave
G10732 Costco Wholesale479 South
0.85 0.0003
Airport Blvd
10926 NRI 436 South
- - -
Airport Blvd
10 BAAQMD County Surface Street Screening Tables, May 2011 and CEHTP Traffic Linkage Service
Demonstration, http://www.ehib.org/traffic_tool.jsp
PARKSFO–ISP3-19
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
Site # Facility Type AddressCancer Hazard PM2.5
RiskImpact Concentration
1703Inter-City Cleaners 438 South
26.5 0.0706 -
Airport Blvd
Permitted Sources Total 40.40.08 0.05
Project 2.0 0.01 0.02
Grand Total 42.40.09 0.07
Significance Thresholds 100100.3
Significant Impact? NoNo No
e) Odor Impacts
Significance Criteria: The BAAQMDs significance criteria for odors are more subject
based on the number of odor complaints generated by a project.
considers any project with the potential to frequently expose me
objectionable odors to cause a significant impact. Projects tha
a new receptor farther than the applicable BAAQMD-established screening distances from an
existing receptor or odor source, respectively, would not likely
An odor source with five more confirmed complaints per year aver
considered to have a significant impact on receptors within the
Typical odor sources of concern include wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfill
stations, composting facilities, petroleum refineries, asphalt b
manufacturing facilities, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, ats,
and coffee roasting facilities. Diesel-fueled construction equipment would generate some odors
associated with diesel exhaust; however, these emissions typical
unlikely to affect a substantial number of people. The Project o
facility, which would not be expected to create or increase odor
Finding: The Project would not result in a significant impact to air quality and would not result
in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria nonattai
precursors, PM10, and PM2.5). The annual PM2.5 concentration due to implementation of the
33
Project would be 0.02 µg/m below the BAAQMD threshold of 0.3 µg/m, and hence is
considered less than significant. The Citys building permit procedure captures the BAAQMD
permitting regulations, as well as BAAQMDs recommended emissionThe
Project would be below the daily and annual operational criteria
not result in significant or cumulative impacts. Odor impacts associated with construction and
operation of the Project would be less than significant.
The Project would be below the thresholds of significance for he The chronic HI
would be 0.01 well below the BAAQMD threshold of 1 and the impact of the Proje
therefore be less than significant. The acute HI would be 0.01.
the BAAQMD threshold of 1 and the impact of the Project would theref
significant.
The cumulative impacts are below the BAAQMD significance threshoGiven that the
Project would not result in increased health impacts exceeding t-level thresholds, the
P3-20 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
Project would also not result in a cumulatively considerable con
and hazard impacts, resulting in a less than significant cumulative air quality impact.
3.4GGE
REENHOUSE AS MISSIONS
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Significant Significant Significant No
Determination of Environmental Impact
with
Impact Impact Impact
Mitigation
III. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would
the Project:
X
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
1997 IS/MND
AB 32 was adopted in 2006 therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 1997
IS/MND pertaining to GHG.
S
ETTING
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as greenh
capture heat radiated from thesun as it is reflected back into the atmosphere, much like a
greenhouse does. The accumulation of GHGs has been implicated a
global climate change. Primary GHGs include carbon dioxide (CO), methane (CH), and
24
nitrous oxide (NO), ozone, and water vapor.
2
Although the presence of the primary GHGs in the atmosphere are ,
2
CH, and NO are also emitted from human activities, accelerating the rate
42
compounds occur within earths atmosphere. Emissions of CO are largely by-products of fossil
2
fuel combustion, whereas methane results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices
and landfills. Other GHGs include hydrofluorocarbons, perfluoro
hexafluoride, and are generated in certain industrial processes.
11
reported in carbon dioxide-equivalent measures (COe).
2
There is international scientific consensus that human-caused increases in GHGs have and will
continue to contribute to global warming. Potential global warming impacts in California may
include, but are not limited to, loss in snow pack, sea level ri
more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought
likely to include a global rise in sea level, impacts to agricultur
12
changes in habitat and biodiversity.
11
Because of the differential heat absorption potential of various
dioxide-equivalents, which present a weighted average based on each gass heat absorption (or global warming ) potential.
California Climate Change Portal. Frequently Asked Questions ab
12
http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/publications/faqs.html. Accessed June 17, 2012.
PARKSFO–ISP3-21
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
California Air Resources Board (CARB) estimated that in 2006 Cal
13
484 million gross metric tons of COe (MMTCOe), or about 535 million U.S. tons. CARB
22
found that transportation is the source of 38 percent of the states GHG emissions, followed by
electricity generation (both in-state and out-of-state) at 22 percent and industrial sources at
20 percent. Commercial and residential fuel use (primarily for heating percent
14
of GHG emissions. In the San Francisco Bay Area, fossil fuel consumption in the
transportation sector (on-road motor vehicles, off-highway mobile sources, and aircraft) and the
industrial and commercial sectors are the two largest sources of
accounting for approximately 36percent of the San Francisco Bay Areas 95.8 MMTCOe
2
15
emitted in 2007. Electricity generation accounts for approximately 16 percent of the San
Francisco Bay Areas GHG emissions followed by residential fuel percent, off-road
16
equipment at 3 percent and agriculture at 1 percent.
RF
EGULATORY RAMEWORK
The following regulations and guidelines are applicable to GHGs alifornia.
EOS-3-05
XECUTIVE RDER
In 2005, in recognition of Californias vulnerability to the eff
Schwarzenegger established Executive Order S-3-05, which set forth a series of target dates by
which statewide emissions of GHGs would be progressively reduced, as follows:
By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels;
By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and
By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
AB32CGWSA
SSEMBLY ILL ALIFORNIA LOBAL ARMING OLUTIONS CT
In 2006, the California legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (California Health and Safety
Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500, et seq., or AB 32), also known as the Global Warming
Solutions Act. AB 32 requires CARB to design and implement emission limits, regulations, and
other measures, such that feasible and cost-effective statewide GHG emissions are reduced to
1990 levels by 2020 (representing a 25 percent reduction in emissions).
In June 2007, CARB directed staff to pursue 37 early actions for
under AB32. The broad spectrum of strategies to be developed, including
Standard, regulations for refrigerants with high global warming
protocols for local governments to facilitate GHG reductions, an
serious threat of climate change requires action as soon as poss
California Air Resources Board (ARB), California Greenhouse Gas-2006 by Category as Defined in the
13
Scoping Plan. Available Online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/tables/ghg_inventory_scopingplan_
2009-03-13.pdf. Accessed June 17, 2012.
Ibid.
14
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Base
15
Updated: February 2010. Available Online at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/
Emission%20Inventory/regionalinventory2007_2_10.ashx. Accessed June 17, 2012.
Ibid.
16
P3-22 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
In addition to approving the 37 GHG reduction strategies, CARB d
evaluate early action recommendations made at the June 2007 meeting, and to report back to
CARB within six months. CARB suggested a desire to attempt to p
emissions reductions in California in the near-term. Since the June 2007 CARB hearing, CARB
staff has evaluated all 48 recommendations submitted by stakeholders and several internally-
generated staff ideas and published the Expanded List of Early Action Measures To Reduce Greenhouse
17
Gas Emissions In California Recommended For Board Consideration.
Pursuant to AB 32, CARB adopted a Scoping Plan in December 2008, outlining measures to
meet the 2020 GHG reduction limits. In order to meet these goals, California must reduce its
GHG emissions by 30 percent below projected 2020 business as usual emission levels o
18
15 percent from todays levels.The Scoping Plan estimates a reduction of174 MMTCOe
2
(about 191 million U.S. tons) from the transportation, energy, agriculture,
global warming potential sectors (see GHG Emissions Table 1). CARB has identified an
19
implementation timeline for the GHG reduction strategies include Some
measures may require new legislation to implement, some will req
already been developed, and some will require additional effort
Additionally, some emissions reductions strategies may require t
under CEQA.
AB 32 requires CARB to establish a statewide GHG emissions cap f
emission levels, as well as to adopt regulations by January1, 2008 that identify and require
selected sectors or categories of GHG emitters to report and ver
emissions, and CARB is authorized to enforce compliance with the 32,
CARB was also required to adopt a statewide GHG emissions limit by January 1, 2008
equivalent to the statewide GHG emissions levels in 1990, which
CARB established this limit, in December 2007, at 427 MMTCOe. This is approximately
2
30 percent below forecasted business-as-usual emissions of 596 MMTCOe, and about
2
10 percent below average annual GHG emissions during the period of
California Air Resources Board (CARB), Expanded List of Early Ac
17
California Recommended For Board Consideration, October 2007. Available Online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccea/
meetings/ea_final_report.pdf. Accessed June 17, 2012.
California Air Resources Board (CARB), Californias Climate Plan 27, 2010. Available Online at:
18
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/facts/scoping_plan_fs.pdf. Accessed June 17, 2012.
California Air Resources Board (CARB), Scoping Plan Measures Imp28, 2010. Available
19
Online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/sp_measures_implementation_timeline.pdf. Accessed June 17, 2012.
PARKSFO–ISP3-23
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
GHG EMISSIONS TABLE 1
GHG REDUCTIONS FROM THE AB 32 SCOPING PLAN SECTORS
20
GHG Reductions
GHG Reduction Measures By Sector (MMTCOe)
2
Transportation Sector 62.3
Electricity and Natural Gas 49.7
Industry 1.4
Landfill Methane Control Measure (Discrete Early
1
Action)
Forestry 5
High Global Warming Potential GHGs 20.2
Additional Reductions Needed to Achieve the GHG
34.4
Cap
Total 174
Other Recommended Measures
Government Operations 1-2
Agriculture- Methane Capture at Large Dairies 1
Methane Capture at Large Dairies1
Additional GHG Reduction Measures
Water 4.8
Green Buildings26
High Recycling/Zero Waste
Commercial Recycling
Composting
9
Anaerobic Digestion
Extended Producer Responsibility
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing
Total 42.8-43.8
Notes: GHG = greenhouse gas; MMTCOe = million gross metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents
2
On January 1, 2011, CARB was required to adopt rules and regulations
technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission reductions. AB 32 permits the use of
market-based compliance mechanisms to achieve those reductions. By Janury 1, 2012, the rules
and market mechanisms adopted by CARB took effect and are legallThe cap-and-
trade measure went into effect on January 1, 2013. Full implementation of AB32 and
timeline may be subject to legal challenges.
AB 32 also anticipates that local government actions will result in reduc
CARB has identified a GHG reduction target of 15 percent from current levels for local
governments themselves and notes that successful implementation local
governments land use planning and urban growth decisions becaus
Ibid.
20
P3-24 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
primary authority to plan, zone, approve, and permit land develo
population growth and the changing needs of their jurisdictions.
The CARB Scoping Plan relies on the requirements of SB 375 to implement the carbon
emission reductions anticipated from land use decisions. SB 375 was enacted to align local land
use and transportation planning to further achieve the states GB 375
requires regional transportation plans, developed by Metropolita
incorporate a sustainable communities strategy in their region
that would achieve GHG emission reduction targets set by CARB. SB 375 also includes
provisions for streamlined CEQA review for some infill projects -oriented
development. SB 375 would be implemented over the next several years and the Met
Transportation Commissions 2013 RTP would be its first plan sub375.
SB 97 required the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to amend t
Guidelines to address the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions o
response, OPR amended the CEQA Guidelines to provide guidance for analyzing GHG
emissions. Among other changes to the CEQA Guidelines, the amen
to the CEQA Initial Study Checklist to address questions regardi
emit GHGs.
CEQAGR
ALIFORNIA NVIRONMENTAL UALITY CT UIDELINES EVISIONS
In 2007, the California legislature passed SB 97, which required amendment of the CEQA
Guidelines to incorporate analysis of, and mitigation for, GHG e
to CEQA. The California Natural Resources Agency adopted these amendments on
December30, 2009, and they took effect March 18, 2010, after review by t
Administrative Law and filing with the Secretary of State for in
The CEQA Guideline revisions include a new section (Section 15064.4) that specifically
addresses the significance of GHG emissions. Section 15064.4 calls for a good-faith effort to
describe, calculate or estimate GHG emissions; Section15064.4 further states that the
significance of GHG impacts should include consideration of the
would increase or reduce GHG emissions; exceed a locally applica
and comply with regulations or requirements adopted to implement
local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. Th
project may be found to have a less than significant impact if i
that includes specific measures to sufficiently reduce GHG emiss 15064(h)(3)).
Importantly, however, the revised guidelines do not require or r
methodology or provide quantitative criteria for determining sig
CGBSC
ALIFORNIA REEN UILDING TANDARDS ODE
The Green Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11, better
known as CALGreen), requiring all new buildings in the state to
environmentally responsible, took effect on January 1, 2011. Th
are targeted to achieve major reductions in GHG emissions, energy co
to create a greener California. CALGreen requires that every ne
California:
PARKSFO–ISP3-25
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
Reduce water consumption by 20 percent
Divert 50 percent of construction waste from landfills
Install low pollutant-emitting materials
Requires separate water meters for nonresidential buildings ind
use
Requires moisture-sensing irrigation systems for larger landscape projects
Requires mandatory inspections of energy systems (e.g., heat furnace, air conditioner
mechanical equipment) for nonresidential buildings over 10,000 s
that all are working at their maximum capacity and according to
BAAQMD
AY REA IR UALITY ANAGEMENT ISTRICT
The BAAQMD is the primary agency responsible for air quality reg
San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. As part of their role in air
prepared CEQA air quality guidelines to assist lead agencies in evaluating air quality impacts of
proposed projects and plans. The guidelines provide procedures
quality impacts during the environmental review process consiste
The CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provide CEQA thresholds of significance for operational
GHG emissions from land use projects for the first time. The BA
GHG thresholds from construction activities, but recommends that
in relation to meeting AB 32 GHG reduction targets. OPRs amendment
Guidelines as well as BAAQMDs CEQA Air Quality Guidelines and thresholds of significance
have been incorporated into the analysis of potential GHG impactoject.
CSSF
ITY OF OUTH AN RANCISCO
The City of South San Francisco does not have an adopted plan or
GHG emissions, although many of the Citys policies and ordinanc-such as one of the regions
most aggressive TDM programs-achieve the same objective. Currently, the City is preparing a
community-wide comprehensive Climate Action Plan (CAP). The CAP will prov
policies, and programs to reduce GHG emissions, climate change a
goals of AB 32 and SB 375. In preparation of the CAP, the City
Operations Emissions Inventory, a community-wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, and
has recently adopted a Bicycle Master Plan. Although the general plan did not specify policies
and programs designed to reduce GHG emissions, many of the Plan
this objective by promoting development that is less reliant on
City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance Update (December 17, 2009), South San
Francisco emitted approximately 527,000 tons of CO2e in 2005 fro
half of which were from transportation.
I
MPACTS
a) Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Significance Criteria: The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines identify a project specific
threshold of either a bright-line threshold of 1,100 metric tons of COe per year or an efficiency
2
threshold of 4.6 metric tons of COe per year per service population (i.e., the number of
2
P3-26 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
residents plus the number of employees associated with a new development) as resulting in a
cumulatively considerable contribution of GHG emissions and a cu
Alternatively, a project that is found to be consistent with a Q
than significant impact to global climate change. This analysis
COe per year significance criterion.
2
CalEEMod was used to quantify GHG emissions associated with Proj
(for informational purposes), as well as long-term operations associated with natural gas space
and water heating, electricity, landscape maintenance, and vehic
The Project would include an unspecified amount of electric car The existing
project includes a shuttle bus fleet that provides transportatio
airport. The shuttle buses run on CNG. CNG is a cleaner burnin
fuel, having fewer emissions than gasoline and diesel. The Proje
the CNG running shuttle service. Application materials indicate
illuminated by LED lights. LED lights draw less energy than hal
and are task oriented thus limiting off-site spill of light.
Estimated construction GHG emissions that would be associated with the Project
in GHG Emissions Table 2. The estimated construction GHG emissions are 736 metric tons.
As indicated, 30-year amortized annual construction related GHG emissions would betric
tons. Of note, there is no BAAQMD CEQA significance threshold f-related
GHG emissions.
.
GHG Emissions Table 2 also provides the estimated operational GHG emissions that would
be associated with the Project.
.
GHG EMISSIONS TABLE 2
PREFERRED PROJECT RELATED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Emission Source
GHG COe Metric Tons Per Year
2
Construction (30-year amortized)25
Operations 838
BAAQMD Bright line Threshold 1,100
Potentially Significant? No
Notes: Refer to Appendix A for all emission assumptions.
b) Potential Conflicts with an Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regul
The City of South San Francisco currently does not have an appli
regulation regarding the reduction of GHG emissions. The City has established a baseline
government and community-wide inventory of GHG emissions. The Project would result in a
significant impact if it would be in conflict with AB 32 State g
PARKSFO–ISP3-27
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
The assumption is that AB 32 will be successful in reducing GHG emissions and reducing the
cumulative GHG emissions statewide by 2020. The State has taken
project individually could have a major impact (either positivel
concentration of GHG
Finding: The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cpact with
respect to GHG emissions.
3.5BR
IOLOGICAL ESOURCES
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Significant Significant Significant No
Determination of Environmental Impact
with
Impact Impact Impact
Mitigation
V. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the
Project:
X
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
X
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
US Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
P3-28 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
1997 IS/MND
One mitigation measure was identified in the 1997 IS/MND. Mitigation Measure 10 from the
1997 IS/MND does apply to the 2013 Project, and is superseded by Biology Mitigation 1. The
1997 mitigation required:
All lighting on the Project shall be directed inward and downwar
and away from the Bay. This mitigation is enhanced to comply with current regulations f
and restated in 2013 Biology Mitigation 3.
Buffer/landscaped setback areas shall be provided as follows, as
of the bank: a minimum of 30 feet from the easterly tips of all
five feet from the sides of the fingers. This mitigation shall continue to be maintained for the
Project for the life of the Project unless modified by future environmental review compliant wi.
Shuttle pick up and drop off areas shall be precluded from the e
fingers areas. This mitigation shall continue to be required and maintained for the Project for the life of
the Project unless modified by future environmental review compliant with CEQA.
Human activity should be restricted from the end of each of the
disturbance in the canal area. Signs shall be posted at the end
prohibiting further access and describing the sensitivity of theldlife habitat. This
mitigation shall continue to be required and maintained for the Project for the life of the Projectunless
modified by future environmental review compliant with CEQA.
Bank stabilization of the fingers shall be accomplished in a manwhich does not
disrupt wetland or tidal mudflat areas adjacent to the fingers. This mitigation shall continue
to be required maintained for the Project for the life of the Projectunless modified by future environmental
review compliant with CEQA.
1997 Mitigation Measure 10 is modified by 2013 Biology Mitigation 3:
The landscape buffer shall be planted with native vegetation, in
Plantings shall be maintained by the Project sponsor for a perio
installation. As noted in Biology Impact 3, some of the bank areas are not well maintained and
invasive exotic plants are becoming established in violation of -7 policy
and the 1997 IS MND mitigation measure.
Biological Assessment
The biological assessment and analysis was prepared by Jim Martin of En
Collaborative.
S
ETTING
VWH
21
EGETATION AND ILDLIFE ABITAT
The Project site is largely developed with an existing parking struc
parking, with limited landscaping around the perimeter of the finger projections of the form
drydocks that extend into the San Bruno Canal. Landscape planti
21 The analysis in this section is based upon the work and research
Martin is a biologist.
PARKSFO–ISP3-29
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
native species installed around the edges of the paved parking a
plantings at the ends of the fingers are primarily native species such Baccharis
pilularis), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), and coffeeberry (Rhamnus californica), although scattered
tufts of non-native invasive pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana) have become established in several
locations. Both pampas grass and highly invasive French broom (Genista monspessulana) occur
along the north bank of San Bruno Creek, just south of the exist
and the landscape plantings along the canal-side of the paved Bay Trail (see Figure 2.4 in
Chapter 2) segment adjacent to the site. These planting areas are in poor cond
exposed concrete rubble, and very little visible soil necessary
establishment.
The site boundaries extend down the slope of each of the finger -marsh
zone of the tidelands of San Bruno Canal. The mid-marsh zone along the shoreline of the
fingers, between the unvegetated mudflats and open water of San Bruno Canal and the uplands
that are not under tidal influence, supports native pickleweed (Salicornia virginica), with gum plant
(Grindelia stricta) and salt grass (Distichlis spicata) at higher elevations. Most of the former
drydocks are now exposed mudflats during low tides.
The upland areas of the site provide only marginal habitat for s
suburban areas. However, the adjacent tidelands support scattere
saltmarsh and mudflats, which are highly sensitive habitat. The
species of invertebrates which provide foraging opportunities fo
willets, godwits, dowitchers, sandpipers, snipes, turnstones, an
of the adjacent turning basin provides foraging opportunities for grebes, corm
coots, gulls, kingfishers, terns, and pelicans.
The Project site is paved for surface parking with approximately
ornamental landscaping. Given the absence of essential habitat features, it appears unlikely t
22
the site supports any special-status plant or animal species. No occurrences of species with
special-status have been mapped in the Project vicinity by the California Natural Diversity Base.
A small population of the state and federally-endangered California clapper rail (Rallus longirostris
obsoletus) was reported in the salt marsh habitat of San Bruno Point in 1975. Suitable foraging
habitat for this species is absent in the scattered clumps of pickleweed along the lower elevations
of the fingers on the site. There remains a possibility that special-status bird and fish species
22
As defined further below under Regulatory Framework,special-status species are plants and animals that are legally
protected under the state and/or federal Endangered Species Acts
considered rare enough by the scientific community and trustee aegard
to protection of isolated populations, nesting or denning locati habitat. Species with
legal protection under the Endangered Species Acts often represere
wide ranging or highly sensitive to habitat disturbance and wher take of these
species.
A take as defined by the federal ESA means to harass, harm, pned or
endangered species. Harm is further defined by USFWS to inclulife due to significant
obstruction of essential behavior patterns (i.e., breeding, eatior
degradation. The CDFW may also consider the loss of listed specicy lacks statutory
authority and case law support under CEQA.
P3-30 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
known to occur in the bay may occasionally utilize the tidal are
essential habitat for breeding or roosting is absent in the upland portion of the site, and this
occasional activity should not pose a significant constraint to proposed improvement
JW
URISDICTIONAL ATERS
Although definitions vary to some degree, wetlands are generally considered to be areas that are
periodically or permanently inundated by surface or ground water
adapted to life in saturated soil. The Regulatory Framework below provides a detailed
discussion of the regulatory structure related to wetlands and jurisdictional waters.
The open waters of the former drydocks and San Bruno Canal are j
by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (Corps), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB),
and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). All modifications associated with the
Project would be located in upland areas at the existing paved parking lot, and would not affect
any jurisdictional wetlands or waters.
RF
EGULATORY RAMEWORK
Local, State, and federal regulations have been enacted to provide for the protection
management of sensitive biological and wetland resources. The following section outlines the
key local, State, and federal regulations that apply to these re
F
EDERAL
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is responsible for protection
freshwater organisms through implementation of the federal Endan
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA
Fisheries) is responsible for protection of anadromous fish and
Corps of Engineers (Corps) has primary responsibility for protec
of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Corps also regulates navigabl
U.S.C. 403) of the Rivers and Harbors Act.
S
TATE
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife(CDFW) are responsible for administration of
the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and for protection water bodies
through the Streambed Alteration Agreement process under Section
and Game Code.
Certification from the California Regional Water Quality Control
required when a proposed activity may result in discharge into navigable waters, pursuant to
Section 401 of the CWA and EPA Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Th
jurisdiction over waters of the State not regulated by the Corps-Cologne Act.
The following discusses in more detail how State and federal regulations address special-status
species, wetlands and other sensitive natural communities.
PARKSFO–ISP3-31
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
S-SS
PECIALTATUS PECIES
Special-status species are plants and animals that are legally protected
federal ESAs, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the California Fish3,
23
3503.5, 3511, 3513, 3515, and 4700), or other regulations. In addition, pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15380, special-status species also include other species that are considered
rare enough by the scientific community and trustee agencies to
particularly with regard to protection of isolated populations,
communal roosts and other essential habitat. Species with legal protection under the federal and
State ESAs often represent major constraints to development; particularly when they are wide
ranging or highly sensitive to habitat disturbance and where pro
in a take of these species.
WOWUS
ETLANDS AND THER ATERS OF THE NITED TATES
Although definitions vary to some degree, wetlands are generallyare
periodically or permanently inundated by surface or ground water
adapted to life in saturated soil. Wetlands are recognized as i
national level due to their high inherent value to fish and wild
and flood waters, and water recharge, filtration and purificatiounctions. The CDFW, Corps,
and RWQCB have jurisdiction over modifications to river banks, lakes, stre
other wetland features. Technical standards for delineating wetlands have been developed
the Corps and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), which generally define
wetlands through consideration of three criteria: hydrology, so
The CWA was enacted to address water pollution, establishing regulations
requirements regarding construction activities that affect storm water, dredge and fill material
operations, and water quality standards. The regulatory program requires that discharges to
surface waters be controlled under the National Pollutant Discha
(NPDES) permit program which applies to sources of water runoff, private developments,
public facilities.
Under Section 404 of the CWA, the Corps is responsible for regul
material into waters of the United States. The term waters inands and non-wetland
bodies of water that meet specific criteria as defined in the Co
three of the identified technical criteria must be met for an ar
under Corps jurisdiction, unless the area has been modified by human activity. In general, a
Special-status species include: designated (rare, threatened, or endange
23
designated (threatened or endangered) and candidate species for
to be rare or endangered under the conditions of Section 15380 oelines, such as
those identified on lists 1A, 1B, and 2 in the California NativeSociety (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of
California; and possibly other species which are considered sensitive due to limited distribution or lack of adequate information
permit listing or rejection for state or federal status, such asthose included on list 3 in the CNPS Inventory or identified as
California Species of Special Concern (SSC) by the CDFW. Speci
the California Endangered Species Act but are of concern to the ding populations and
other factors.
P3-32 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
permit must be obtained before fill can be placed in wetlands or
States. The type of permit is determined by the Corps depending
the purpose of the proposed fill.
Certain activities in wetlands or other waters are automatical
nationwide permit which allows filling where impacts are conside
nationwide permit simplifies the permit review process. Nationwide permits cover construction
and fill of waters of the U.S. for a variety of routine activiti
utility line crossings, streambank protection, recreational faciA
project must demonstrate that it has no more than a minimal adverse effect on the a
ecosystem, including species listed under the ESA to qualify for a nationwide permit. Typically
this means that there will be no net loss of either habitat acreage osulting in
appropriate mitigation where fill activities are proposed.
The Corps assumes discretionary approval over proposed projects
significant, requiring adequate mitigation and permit approval. the
Environmental Protection Agency's Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines,
demonstrate that the proposed discharge is unavoidable and is th
damaging practicable alternative that will achieve the overall phe 1990
Memorandum of Agreement between the EPA and Corps concerning the
Mitigation under the Guidelines prioritizes mitigation, with the
the second to minimize impacts, and the third to provide compensy mitigation for
unavoidable impacts.
Jurisdictional authority of the CDFW over wetland areas is estab
Fish and Wildlife Code, which pertains to activities that would
the channel, bed, or bank of any lake, river, or stream. The Fish and Wildlife Code
that it is unlawful to substantially divert or obstruct the natu
bed, channel or bank of any river, stream or lake without notifyncorporating
necessary mitigation, and obtaining a Streambed Alteration Agree
Resources Policy of the CDFW states that the Fish and Wildlife C
discourage development in or conversion of wetlands, unless, at um, project mitigation
assures there will be no net loss of either wetland habitat valu
responsible for commenting on projects requiring Corps permits u
Coordination Act of 1958.
In addition, the RWQCB is responsible for upholding state water
Section 401 of the CWA, projects that apply for a Corps permit f
material, and projects that qualify for a Nationwide Permit must
from the RWQCB. The RWQCB is also responsible for regulating we-
Cologne Act, which may include hydrologically isolated wetlands
Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Recent federal
limited the limits of Corps jurisdiction, but the RWQCB in some
jurisdiction over these features.
PARKSFO–ISP3-33
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
SNC
ENSITIVE ATURAL OMMUNITIES
Protecting habitat on an ecosystem-level is increasingly recognized as vital to the protection of
natural diversity in the State, in addition to species-oriented management. Protecting habitat on
an ecosystem-level is considered the most effective means of providing long-term protection of
ecologically viable habitat, and can include whole watersheds, ecosystems and sensitive natura
communities. Providing functional habitat connectivity between
sustaining healthy wildlife populations and allowing for the con
and animal species.
Although sensitive natural communities have no protected legal s
Endangered Species Acts, they are provided some level of protect
Guidelines identify potential impacts on a sensitive natural com
criteria, as shown in 3.5 Biological Resources v.b, above. As an example, a discretionary
project that is constructed on any riparian habitat, native gras
other sensitive natural community would normally be considered t
the environment. Further loss of a sensitive natural community
substantially diminishing habitat, depending on its relative abuf past
disturbance, and the anticipated impacts to the specific communi
be significant under CEQA, the potential impact would require mi
minimization of disturbance or loss, or some type of compensatory mitigation when
unavoidable.
LR
OCAL EGULATIONS
Several policies in the City of South San Francisco General Plan and the East of 101 Area Plan pertain
to the protection of sensitive biological and wetland resources.the
key policy documents and regulations that are applicable to the site.
City of South San Francisco General Plan
The Open Space and Conservation Element of the City of South San Francisco General Plan
contains a number of policies related to protection of sensitive biological and wetland resources
that are applicable to the site. The policies are:
7.1-G-1: Protect special status species and supporting habitats within So
Francisco, including species that are State or federally listed reatened,
or Rare.
7.1-G-2: Protect and, where reasonable and feasible, restore saltmarshes
7.1-I-2: As part of the Park, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Master Pla
institute an ongoing program to remove invasive plant species frecologically sensitive
areas, including Sign Hill Park, Colma Creek Linear Park, Bayfro
other City-owned open space, as depicted in Figure 7-1.
7.1-I-3: As part of development approvals on sites that include ecologica
habitat designated in Figure 7-2, require institution of an on-going program to remove
and prevent the re-establishment of the invasive species and restore the native spe
P3-34 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
7.1-I-4: Require development on the wetlands delineated in figure 7-1 to complete
assessments of biological resources.
7.1-I-5: Work with private, non-profit conservation, and public groups to secure funding
for wetland and marsh protection and restoration projects.
East of 101 Area Plan
The East of 101 Area Plan was adopted by the City of South San Francisco in July 1994. The
Area Plan includes a Conservation Element that contains policies intended
enhance natural resources in the East of 101 Area. Policies rel:
Policy CON-1: Prior to construction of development projects on sensitive res
lands the City shall require an applicant to conduct a formal we
project site The results of the wetlands delineation shall be ma
project specific impacts associated with sensitive habitats
Policy CON-2: The City shall require that developments comply with all appli
and federal laws and regulations regarding protection and replac
Policy CON-4: The City shall take all feasible measures to preserve any sensitive plant
and animal species that occur in the East of 101 Area.
Policy CON-5: Prior to receiving approval for construction activities or oth
disturbances on undeveloped land in the East of 101Area project t
environmental analyses to evaluate the site-specific status of sensitive plant and animal
species
Policy CON-6: If sensitive plant or animal species would be unavoidably affect
proposed project the City shall require the project developer to
mitigation measures
Policy Con-7: New development adjacent to sensitive resource areas shall be re
incorporate the following measures into project design:
Shield lights to reduce off-site glare.
A buffer area of at least 100 feet in width shall be provided between known
sensitive resources and development area. Encroachments into the 100-foot buffer
area may be allowed on a case-by-case basis as follows:
Buildings which have a water oriented theme and which further th
o
goals of allowing or encouraging public access to the Bay or inlan
waterways;
Development located adjacent to inland waterways;
o
Accessory parking from adjacent development;
o
Development on the fingers portion of the planning area.
o
Any encroachment into the 100-foot buffer must receive approval of the City, Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and the Californi
Department of Fish and Game, and shall only be permitted if supp-
specific biological assessment prepared by a qualified biologist. Mitigation measures
PARKSFO–ISP3-35
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
identified through the biological analysis shall be attached as
encroachment approvals.
Landscape all on-site buffer areas with native vegetation to screen habitat areas
from adjacent land uses.
Restrict entry to habitat areas through devises such as fencing lan
signage.
Ensure that run-off from development does not adversely affect the biotic values
of adjacent wetlands or other habitat areas.
Municipal Code
South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 13.30.020 defines a Protected Tree as one wit
circumference of 48 or more when measured 54 above natural gra
designated by the Director of Parks and Recreation as one of uni
public due to its location or unusual appearance, historical sig
of trees that the Director of Parks and Recreation has determine
others for survival.
I
MPACTS
a) Special-Status Species and Nesting Habitat
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant impact if were to result in a substantial
adverse effect on special-status species, as identified in 3.5 Biological Resources a, above.
Essential habitat for special-status species would not be affected by the Project. The addition to
the parking structure would be located adjacent to the open wate
San Bruno Canal, where special-status birds and fish may occasionally forage and disperse. The
Project would have no direct affect on this area and is not likely to di
and dispersal activity for these species.
Suitable nesting habitat for State and federally-listed bird species is absent on the site. However,
the few native shrubs along the perimeter of the fingers could be used for nesting
common bird species. These nests would be protected under the f in active
use. The MBTA prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory dance
with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior, including whole birds, parts of birds,
and bird nests and eggs. Construction activities during the bre
incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings or nest abandonment
A standard requirement is to either initiate construction during t-nesting season, which in
San Mateo County is September 1- January 31, or to conduct a nesting survey within seven days
prior to initial grubbing and construction to determine whether any active nests are present that
must be protected until any young have fledged and are no longer.
Protection of the nests, if present, would require that construction setbacks be provided during
the nesting and fledging period, with the setback depending on t, degree
to which the individuals have already acclimated to other on-going disturbance, and other
factors.
P3-36 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
In summary, suitable nesting habitat for State and federally-listed bird species is absent on the
site. However, the few native shrubs along the perimeter of the
nesting by more common bird species. These nests would be prote
MBTA when in active use. Disturbance of active nests would be considered a significant
impact. Biology Mitigation 1 would reduce this impact to less than significant.
BIOLOGY IMPACT 1:POTENTIAL PRESENCE OF ACTIVE BIRD NESTS IN
PROXIMITY TO CONSTRUCTION COULD RESULT
IN A TAKE OF A PROTECTED SPECIES
There is a remote potential for presence of active nests in close proximi
site. Construction activities could disturb or result in a take
BIOLOGY MITIGATION 1.A: Outside of Nesting Season: Vegetation and treeremoval
shall be scheduled to take place outside of the nesting season (
August 31) to avoid impacts to nesting birds;
or,
BIOLOGY MITIGATION 1.B: During Nesting Season: A qualified biologist (Biologist)
shall conduct a pre-construction nesting bird (both passerine and raptor) survey within seven
days prior to the commencement of construction if construction i
nesting season. The survey shall be within 300 feet of the limit
be performed by a Biologist. If no nesting birds are observed no
grading and ground breaking activities shall occur within one wehe survey to prevent take
of individual birds that could begin nesting after the survey.
Another nest survey shall be conducted if more than seven days est
search and the beginning of tree removal and construction activi
determine the disturbance-free buffer zone to be established around the nest tree(s) until the
young have fledged if active bird nests (either passerine and/or raptor) are observe
pre-construction survey.
A qualified biologist shall determine the radius of the requiredary
depending on the species, (i.e., 75-100 feet for passerines and 300 feet for raptors). The
dimensions of the zone shall be determined by a qualified biolog
California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Orange construction fencing, flagging, or other marking system shall be installed to delineate the
buffer area at the specified radius from nest location(s) within which no cranes or other
equipment associated with the parking structure construction shase of
the surface parking areas for parking and parking lot maintenanc
setback zone.
There would be no restrictions on grading or construction activities outside
buffer zone after the no-construction zone has been identified.
PARKSFO–ISP3-37
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
A survey report of findings verifying that any young have fledge
and approval by the Chief Planner at the City of South San Franc
initiation of any grading or other construction activities withiFollowing
approval by the Chief Planner, grading and construction in the n
b) and c) Jurisdictional Habitat
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant impact if it were to substa
sensitive natural communities or jurisdictional wetlands and Waters of the U.S. as identified in
Biological Resources 3.5 b-c, above.
The proposed parking structure improvements would all be located
directly affect any sensitive natural communities, jurisdictiona
former drydocks and the basin area of San Bruno Canal.
d) Native Fish and Wildlife Movement Opportunities and Native Wi
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to
interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corrid
native wildlife nursery sites.
The Project would expand the existing parking structure over an
The existing surface parking lot does not serve as an important
wildlife and the new structure is not expected to interfere substantially with native wildlife
corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. T
flight path of local birds, but they could continue to fly aroun
passing through the vicinity. Species common in the vicinity wo
open water habitat of the former drydocks and the basin area of
e) Local Policies and Ordinances
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it
conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biolog
preservation policy or ordinance.
Protected Trees
There are no Protected Trees on the site as defined by City ordinance. South San Francisco
Municipal Code Section 13.30.020 defines a Protected Tree as o
48 or more when measured 54 above natural grade; a tree or stand of trees designated by the
P3-38 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
Director of Parks and Recreation as one of uniqueness, importanc
location or unusual appearance, historical significance or other
Director of Parks and Recreation has determined each tree is dependent on
survival. There are no trees on the site which meet the Citys definition
no adverse impacts are anticipated.
Biological Study and Protection of Resources
As indicated in the Regulatory Framework discussion, the City of South San Francisco General Plan
and the East of 101 Area Plan contain policies relevant to the site and Project. Policies 7.1-G-1
and 7.1-G-2 of the general plan pertain to protection of special-status species and wetland
habitat. As discussed under criterion a and c, the Project woul
for special-status species or nearby wetland habitat associated with the San
Biology Mitigation 1 is identified to ensure Project construction does not disrupt and bird
nesting activity, in the remote instance new nests were establis
consistent with the intent of these goals. The biological asseshis
Initial Study preparation provides the review called for in Policy 7.1-I-4. The Project site is
located adjacent to wetlands but does not contain wetlands. Poli
to the Project as the Project would not affect these wetland areas and does not include any
restoration component.
Control of Invasive Exotics
General Plan Policies 7.1-I-2 and 7.1-I-3 pertain to invasive species controls from ecologically
sensitive habitat areas. The fingers and southern boundary of t
identified in Figure 7.1 Sensitive Biological Resources and Figu-2 Special Environmental
Studies Required for Development Proposals (pps 226 and 227, South San Francisco General Plan).
Pampas grass occurs in scattered locations on the site and both pampas grass and French broom
are spreading along the north bank of the San Bruno Canal just s
structure on the site. These invasive species, unless removed a
established, will eventually spread throughout the margins of th
wildlife habitat values in the area. Additionally, the soil imp
Tail segment in this location were poorly implemented, with conc
soil preventing the establishment of even ornamental shrubs in t
currently does not include any provisions to address the invasiv
site and the poor condition of some of the landscape plantings o
The East of 101 Area Plan also contains policies relevant to the site and Project. The bi
assessment conducted as part of this Initial Study preparation pes for the review called for
in East of 101 Area Plan Policies CON-1 and CON-5 and implements the biological review
required by Figure 7-2 of the General Plan. No wetlands would be affected by the Project, as
discussed above under criterion c, above. Therefore the ProjectPolicy
CON-2. No significant adverse impacts on special-status species are anticipated (as discussed
above under criterion a). The Project would not conflict with Policies CON-4 and CON-6.
Policy CON-7 includes standards for new development adjacent to sensitive habitat, including
the wetlands adjacent to the site, addressing requirements for n
PARKSFO–ISP3-39
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
new lighting, restrictions on entry, and controls on run-off. The policy states that the City will
review developments proposed within the 100-foot buffer area on a case-by-case basis. The
policy requires a biological assessment which is conducted throuinitial study and
implementation of identified mitigation measures, if warranted.Mitigation measures are
identified in this Initial Study to reduce biological impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Left unmitigated the spread of invasive exotic plant materials w
Implementation of Biology Mitigation 2 would reduce the spread of invasive species on the
site, provide for habitat enhancement through establishment of n
compliance with General Plan Policies 7.1-I-2 and 7.1-I-3. Implementation of Biology
Mitigation 2 would reduce Project impacts to less-than-significant with respect to habitat
quality and policy compliance.
BIOLOGY IMPACT 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS ON THE SITE ARE NOT IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN
FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN AND THE EAST OF 101
AREA PLAN POLICIES THAT DIRECT THE
PROTECTION OF HABITAT, REMOVAL OF INVASIVE
EXOTIC PLANTS AND PLANTING AND
MAINTENANCE OF NATIVE VEGETATION TO
PROVIDE ADEQUATE CONTROL OF INVASIVE PLANT
SPECIES AND SUCCESSFUL ESTABLISHMENT OF
NATIVE ENHANCEMENT PLANTINGS.
BIOLOGY MITIGATION MEASURE 2: The landscape plan for the Project shall be
revised to include an Invasive Species Removal Program , eliminating pampa
broom, and other invasive species listed as having a high or
Non-Native Plants that Threaten Wildlands in California according t
of the California Invasive Species Council (Cal IPC). All invas
the site and the adjacent segment of the Bay Trail along the nor
on the south side of the existing parking structure.
The landscape plan shall also be revised to include a Native Species Enhanceme; a
plan to provide for installation of additional native species in area
plantings are absent or performing poorly. Of particular concer
existing parking structure, between the concrete Bay Trail and t;
an area planted with non-native species that are performing poorly or dead. Concrete rubble
and non-organic fills shall be removed from the ground surface and a lay shall be
installed to a minimum depth of six inches to provide a growing
The entire area shall be planted with native creeping wildrye (Lticoides) installed from
plugs on approximately one-foot centers to provide a continuous groundcover. Any shrubs or
trees planted in this location shall be restricted to native species indigenous to the South San
Francisco area. All new native plantings shall be provided short-term irrigation for a minimum
of three years during the dry season to ensure successful establ
die shall be replaced during this establishment period.
All native plantings installed as part of the Native Species Enhancement Program shall be
monitored annually, for a period of three years, by a qualified landscape architect or biologist.
P3-40 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
The annual monitoring report shall summarize the condition of th
plantings, status of invasive species removal, and include recommendations for any corrective
work necessary. Copies of the annual monitoring reports shall beChief Planner
at City of South San Francisco Planning Division by December 31 of each reporting year. If
native enhancement plantings have not become successfully established or target invasive
species are still present on the site and adjacent corridor of t
required to submit a remedial enhancement plan and extend the moperiod and annual
reporting until successful establishment has been achieved.
A report of successful completion of the Native Species Enhancem
provided for review and approval by the Chief Planner of the City of South San Francisco at the
end of the three year monitoring period. The row of non-native Lombardy poplar proposed as
part of the Landscape Plan along the east side of the new parkin
screen the building in views from the east; however, the area between the row of poplar
plantings and shoreline of the drydock shall be planted exclusiv
enhance this area as part of the Native Species Enhancement Prog
Future landscape maintenance of the site shall include the routi
removal of any target invasive species identified in the InvasivThe
maintenance and monitoring shall include the native species enha
of the existing parking structure.
Lighting
The application materials note that lighting would be designed to mi
skyward and are silent on light seepage towards the Bay. Chapter 1, Legislative Framework,
Section 1.5.1 Aesthetics stipulate the Citys requirement to control off-site glare and light.
Municipal Code Section (Zoning) 20.300.008.4 also requires light to be shielded so as not to
produce obtrusive glare onto the public right-of-way or adjoining properties. Protection of the
Bay lands from an additional substantial light source, such as n-directed or unshielded light
associated with doubling the size of the existing parking struct
noted in the East of 101 Area Plan Policy CON-7 and left unmitigated could result in a significant
impact. Implementation of Biology Mitigation 3 would reduce the lighting impact to less-
than-significant.
BIOLOGY IMPACT 3: SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN LIGHT ONTO BAY
LANDS MAY REDUCE THE HABITAT VALUE OF THE
TIDAL AREA (WETLAND HABITAT) AND WOULD
CONFLICT WITH POLICY
CON-7.
BIOLOGY MITIGATION 3: All lighting in the new parking structure and any modifications
to existing lighting shall be shielded and oriented onto the site to prevent off-site illumination
and glare into the adjacent wetland habitat along San Bruno Canal and the former drydocks.
Resource Agency Review and Approval
PARKSFO–ISP3-41
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
As noted in Chapter 1, Legislative Framework, above in the Setting Section and identified in
East of 101 Area Plan Policy CON-7 the Project is required to obtain approval from the Bay
Conservation and Development Commission and the California Depar
prior to commencement of grading or construction. Eclipsing the
authority of these two agencies would be a significant impact. Implementation of Biology
Mitigation 4 would reduce the permitting and policy impact to less-than-significant.
BIOLOGY IMPACT 4: PROJECT COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION
PRIOR TO APPROVAL OR CONDITIONAL APPROVAL
FROM THE BAY CONSERVATION AND
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AND THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
LAW AND EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN POLICY CON:-7.
BIOLOGY MITIGATION 4: No building, grading or construction permit shall be issued by
the City in absence of written approvals/conditional approvals for the development analyzed in
this Initial Study by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the
Department of Fish and Game. Written approvals from the Bay Conservation and
Development Commission and the California Department of Fish and Game shall be provided
to the Chief Planner and Building Official prior to issuance of
construction permits for the Project. Any plan modifications re
agencies shall be incorporated into the Project plans and reviewed by
issuance of any demolition, grading on construction permits for
f) Approved Habitat Conservation Plans
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to
conflict with any Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community C
approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
No approved Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan
encompasses, governs or regulates the site.
Finding: Implementation of the Biology Mitigation 1 would reduce potential Project impacts
to nesting birds to less-than-significant. The Project would have no impact on any sensitive
natural communities or jurisdictional wetlands as it would be completely located in uplands, and
would not directly affect any sensitive natural communities, jurisdictional wetlands or open
waters of the former drydocks and the basin area of San Bruno Canal.
The Project would expand the existing parking structure over an
does not serve as an important movement corridor for native wild
expected to interfere substantially with native wildlife corrido
wildlife nursery sites. Species common in the vicinity would co
water habitat of the former drydocks and the basin area of San Bruno Canal.
P3-42 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
Implementation of Biology Mitigation 2 would reduce Project impacts to less-than-significant
with respect to habitat quality and policy compliance. Implementation of Biology Mitigation 3
would reduce the lighting impact to less-than-significant. Implementation of Biology
Mitigation 4 would reduce the permitting and policy impact to less-than-significant.
No approved Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan
encompasses, governs or regulates the site. Therefore the Project would not conflict with any
approved Habitat Conservation Plans and as such would have no im
The Project would have a less-than-significant impact with implementation of Biology
Mitigations 1-4. 1997 Mitigation 10 is not applicable to the 2013 Project and has been
redefined in Biology Mitigations 1 and 3.
3.6CR
ULTURAL ESOURCES
PotentiallyLess Than Less Than
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Significant Significant Significant No
Determination of Environmental Impact
with
Impact Impact Impact
Mitigation
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the
Project:
X
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
X
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
X
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
1997 IS/MND
Mitigation Measure 15 was identified in the 1997 ISMND requiringgrading
and/or construction activity should archeological artifacts be discovered during Pro
construction. Review of City planning and building files indicate that archaeological and
paleontological artifacts were not discovered in 1998/99 or 2007 when the grading and paving
for the surface parking area was conducted. Review of the geotechnical boring logs (Furgo,
2012) does not reveal the presence of culturally significant soiMitigation Measure
15 is not required for the 2013 Project.
S
ETTING
Prior to 2001, the 1.25 acre Project site supported industrial l
and freight forwarding, and from 2001-2003 was used as a composting area for the Citys Water
Quality Control Plant. The 2013 Project site was unused from 2003 to 2007. In 2007, th
property owner received approvals from the City to pave the 2013 Project site and provide
surface parking that is part and parcel to the existing Park SFO
PARKSFO–ISP3-43
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
1999. Therefore, the Project site has been paved and used for a surface parking lo
Park SFO facility since 2007.
RF
EGULATORY RAMEWORK
CEQA relies on the criteria identified in Title 14 California Co
Resources Code Section 4852.1 to identify if a building is appro
Register of Historical Resources (Determining the Significance of Impacts on Historical and
Unique Archaeological Resources, Section 15064.5 Title 14, Chapt
Regulations). In summary, these criteria include consideration of whether the building:
A.Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
California history and cultural heritage;
B.Associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
C.Embody the distinctive characteristics of type, period, region o
or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesse
values; or,
D.Yield or may be likely to yield, information important in prehis
A lead agency does not have to rely solely on the above criterioe the
appropriateness of a potential resource based upon age. Commonl
basis by which to consider a structures potential historic sign
detailed and rigorous analysis is required to determine actual or imagined significance
(Determining the Significance of Impacts on Historical and Uniqu
Section 15064.5 Title 14, Chapter 3, California Code of Regulati
I
MPACTS
a) Historic Resources
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it
a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
The Project would modify the northern elevation of the existing
constructing and connecting a seven-level parking structure where the paved surface parking lot
is currently located. The existing parking structure (Park SFO) was constructed in 1998 an
not considered an historic resource. The Project site is not identified on Figure 7-3 Designated
Historic Resources in the Citys General Plan (page 241). There are no historical resource
structures on the Project site. .
b - d) Archaeological Resources
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if i
a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeolo
§15064.5, directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologica
feature, or disturb any human remains, including those interred
P3-44 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
The Project site was graded and paved in 2007. There is no evidence of archaeological or
paleontological resources on the site as witnessed during previo
activities in 1999 and 2007 (City planning and building files anLinda Ajello, Associate Planner,
January 28, 2013). The boring logs taken in 2003 and 2013 by Furgo West, Inc (see S ection 3.7
Geology and Soils, below) does not indicate the presence of culturally significan
shell or artifact fragments.
.
Finding: The Project is located on a developed site and in a developed area. There is no
evidence of archaeological or paleontological resources on the s
grading and construction activities in 1999 and 2007 and in the boring logs. In light of Title 14
California Code of Regulations, Public Resources Code Section 48
resources on the entirety of the Project site. The Project would have no i
resources.
PARKSFO–ISP3-45
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
3.7GS
EOLOGY AND OILS
PotentiallyLess Than Less Than
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
SignificantSignificant SignificantNo
Determination of Environmental Impact
with
Impact Impact Impact
Mitigation
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the Project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
X
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
X
iv) Landslides?
X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the Project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
1997 IS/MND
Mitigation Measure 1 was identified in the 1997 ISMND requiring
and geotechnical report to the City, characterizing site conditions and identifying design
requirements. 1997 Mitigation Measure 1 is not required for thean updated
geotechnical characterization and design measures have been prov
Citys consulting geologists, summarized herein and included in Attachment A in its complete
form. Mitigation Measure 2 identified in the 1997 ISMND requiriand
implementation of an erosion and sedimentation control plan is n
measure in the 2013 Project; it is replaced by the Citys requirement to comply with NPDES and
C.3 regional board permitting regulations as a matter of law (se Section 3.9 Hydrology and
P3-46 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
Water Quality, subsection a for the exact requirements of the Project through entitlement
review and Chapter 1.5.4).
S
ETTING
PS
ROJECT ITE
The Project site is approximately seven acres in area (6.96). The existing Park SFO (2001
Project) parking garage sits on 5.71 acres adjacent to and south of the 1-acre site that would
support the parking garage expansion. The 1.25-acre site (2007 Project) is paved and used as
surface parking associated with the existing Park SFO parking ga As noted throughout this
document, prior to 2001, the 1.25 acre 2007 Project site supported industrial land uses, ship
repair, warehouse and freight forwarding, and from 2001-2003 was used as a composting area
for the Citys Water Quality Control Plant. In 2007, the property owner received approvals
from the City to pave the Project site and provide surface parking that is part and parcel to the
existing Park SFO facility that was constructed in 1998. Therefore, the Project site has been
paved and used for a surface parking lot as part of the Park SFO
The site is relatively level and surface the elevation is approximately 11 feet above mean sea level
(MSL) (Furgo West, Inc., March 2003, see below) San Francisco Bay is immediately east of the
Project. Although the 2013 Geotechnical Report prepared by Furgo West makes note of a
potential basement level parking area, this initial study analyzes an above grade parking structure
only consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Divisio
RF
EGULATORY RAMEWORK
The City Engineering Division requires geotechnical reports as a
projects to be constructed on vacant land, demolition and rebuil
that require grading and additional loading (see Chapter 1, Section 5). The geotechnical reports
are required to be prepared by a licensed geologist, geotechnical engineer or engineering
geologist. The reports address design and construction specificprojects including
grading, site drainage, utility and infrastructure design specif
design. The reports are peer reviewed by the Citys geotechnic
recommended by the Citys consultant.
A geotechnical investigation was conducted and a report prepared for the 2013 Project. The
report is incorporated herein by reference (Geotechnical Investigation Report REST Parking Facilities
South San Francisco, California, Furgo West, Inc., March, 2003and Geotechnical Study Update REST
Parking Facilities South San Francisco, California, Furgo West, Inc., February, 2013) (Geotechnical
Report). The Geotechnical Report was peer reviewed by the City
Cotton Shires Associates (CSA), Geotechnical Investigation REST Investments Parking Facilities,
November 12, 2012 and Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review REST Investments Parking Facilities,
March 22, 2013 and is incorporated herein by reference (both are included in Appendix A).
PSGEC
ROJECT ITE EOLOGY AND XISTING ONDITIONS
PARKSFO–ISP3-47
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
Seven subsurface borings were conducted in 2003 and again in 2012 to amaximum depth of 35
feet below ground surface (bgs) (Furgo West). The boring locations and logs are shown in the
Furgo West Report, attached in Appendix A of this initial study. Groundwater was not
encountered during the borings and for design purposes is assume
existing grade, or nine feet MSL. The 2001 Park SFO parking structure with a basement level
approximately seven feet below existing grade is supported on deep spread footings founded at a
depth of approximately 10 feet below existing grade (approximate which
would be connected to the proposed seven-level parking facility.
Site constraints or challenges include the presence of: 1) undocumented fills and alluvial soils of
various thickness over bedrock, 2) underground mixing basins, 3)-grade footings
associated with the existing Park SFO parking garage, 4) variati
San Francisco Bay. Specifically site reconnaissance revealed:
An abandoned surface building pad approximately 40 by 60 feetin dimension of
unknown thickness affecting the uniformity of the surface.
Two abandoned mixing basins approximately eight feet in depth an
by 90 feet in dimension. The bottom of the basin consists of 12ick reinforced
concrete slab overlain by undocumented fills consisting of mediu
and stiff clay at approximately eight feet below existing surfac.
Below the concrete slab approximately five feet of very stiff clcharacterized as natural
alluvial deposits was found before encountering Franciscan forma
depth of approximately 13 feet below existing grade or Elevation- one foot. The
Franciscan formation consists of weathered sandstone and shale e
maximum depth explored of 35 feet.
An abandoned surface building pad approximately 60 by 110 feet i
unknown thickness.
An existing 100 foot retaining wall east of the 2001 Project facing San Francisco Bay
with a total height of 12 feet (three feet above existing grade) supported on 36-inch
diameter drilled caissons spaced approximately eight feet center-to-center.
A dewatering building, approximate dimension 70 by 80 feet, prev
WPCP is located at the northwest corner of the site. Approximately four feet (depth) o
gravely fills, underlain by 12 feet of very dense sand and very
Franciscan bedrock at a depth of about 14 feet or Elevation four feet MSL was
encountered in this area.
The remaining areas of the 1.25 acre development area consists of approximately three to five
feet of undocumented sandy gravel fills underlain by up to nine
these clays are natural alluvial deposit. The competent Franciscan formation bedrock, with
standard penetration blow counts (N-SPT) exceeding 100 blows per foot was encountered at
depths of approximately 13 to 15 feet below existing grade, or aelevation of one to-three feet.
The Franciscan bedrock encountered in the borings generally consisted of severely weathered
sandstone, shale and serpentine.
Based upon the Geologic Map of the San Francisco South Quadrangl
Department of the Interior, United States Geological Society) th
formation bedrock (Kjs) consisting of interbedded sandstone, shale and serThe fresh
P3-48 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
bedrock, commonly medium dark grey in color, is hard and intact.
gray soft bedrock is severely weathered and or sheared. As mentioned above, artificial fill (Qaf)
and/or alluvial deposits (Qsr) overlay the Franciscanbedrock formation. The alluvial deposits
generally consist of sands, silts and clays derived from the nea.
The grading plan (Luk and Associates, July 9, 2013) indicates that approximately 6,118 cubic
yards of soils would be hauled from the site and 6,694 cubic yar-compacted and
reused on the site. Total grading would be approximately 12,187
SF
EISMIC AULTS
No active earthquake faults have been recognized within the imme
site and vicinity is believed to be free of active faults, the S
within a seismically active region. The dominant fault in this
located about 3.4 miles southwest of the site. Other active faults in the area include t
Gregorio fault located roughly 8.8 miles west-southwest, Monte Vista-Shannon is located 17.2
miles southeast, and the Hayward fault located on the order of 14.7 miles northeast. Additional
faults in the area that are not considered active include the Sa
roughly 2.2 and 3.3 miles southwest of the site, respectively.
The Hillside fault, a northwesterly-trending escarpment aligned with a zone of sheared rocks on
the knoll of Point San Bruno just south of Oyster Point, has also been mapped a short distance
from the Project site. Until the late 1990s this fault was cons purposes.
Subsequent geophysical studies conducted in the late 1990s usin-powered
deep-penetrating sonar system found no evidence suggesting that the H
active. Moreover, geologic observations of the Hillside fault e
on San Bruno Mountain did not detect any recognizable offsets of
current fault rupture hazard. Therefore, there is no evidence t
within geologically recent time; however, it may be possible for sympathetic movemen
imposed on this fault as a result of stress from major earthquak
San Andreas and Hayward faults.
The site is located three miles northeast of the active San Andr
fault zone lies 8.5 miles northeast and the Hayward fault zone l
Project site.
PARKSFO–ISP3-49
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
I
MPACTS
Seismic Hazards
Seismic hazards are generally classified as two types, primary a
hazards include surface fault rupture. Secondary geologic hazard
liquefaction, dynamic densification and seismically induced grou
i)Surface Fault Rupture
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to
expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse eff
rupture of a known earthquake fault.
There are no active faults underlying the site and the nearest os the San Andreas Fault,
located about three miles northeast. The hazard from fault rupturing on the site is considered to
be low(Furgo West, 2003). The Hillside fault is located nearby, but there is no evidence t
this fault has been active within geologically recent time. Ther
ii) Strong Seismic Ground Shaking
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it
expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse eff
seismic ground shaking.
Given that there are no active faults within the Project site, dic event is most
likely to occur from the secondary impact of strong seismic grou
nearby fault. Estimates of actual ground shaking intensity at a
according to the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale, which accounts for variables such as the size
and distance from the earthquake. For the Project site, Mercalli
earthquake-shaking intensity would vary depending upon where the seismic ev
For the Maximum Credible Earthquakes (MCE) along the nearby San Andreas and San
Gregorio faults (Richter Magnitude 7.9 and 7.4, respectively) th
violent and VIII, very strong , respectively, at the Project The site is located in Seismic
Zone 4 and the San Andreas, San Gregorio and Hayward faults are
faults (California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998).
Development of the Project would increase the number of structur
exposed to hazards associated with a major earthquake in the reg
buildings in the San Francisco Bay Area are built with the knowl
occur, and are required by law through the issuance of building to meet the California
Building Code (CBC) standards for seismic safety.
The 2010 CBC identifies the site within Site Class C (stiff soil. The geotechnical report
(Furgo West, February, 2013, page 6) contains the design criteria applicable to 2013 Project
P3-50 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
construction, in compliance with the 2010 CBC (see Appendix A). These requirements have
been reviewed by the Citys peer reviewer, Cotton Shires Associa
the site characterization and assessmentwith the exception of the mitigation measure identified
in c, below. The Project would be designed and constructed pursuant to the
matter of building permit issuance.
iii) Liquefaction
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it
expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse eff-
related ground failure, including liquefaction.
Liquefaction is a secondary seismic hazard involving saturated c
sediments located close to the ground surface. Liquefaction occ
decreases and pore pressure increases as a response to strong se
During the loss of strength, the soil becomes mobile, and can mo
vertically, if not confined. Soils most susceptible to liquefac
uniformly-graded, fine-grained sands.
The Project site is underlain by a non-saturated layer of medium dense to dense sand and gravel
encountered within the upper five feet of undocumented fills and will likely induce a minor
seismic settlement due to dynamic densification on the order of less than a quarter (1/4) inch
during a design seismic event. The non-saturated medium dense to dense sand and silty gravel,
along with the stiff clay and weathered rocks are not susceptiblThe
Geotechnical Report (Furgo West, March 2003) concludes that the liquefaction potential
necessary for liquefaction of materials under the Project site i low. Therefore,
iv) Landslides
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if i
expose people or structures to substantial hazards from landslid
A landslide is a mass of rock, soil and debris displaced down slope by sliding, flowing or falling.
The Project site is flat.
b) Erosion or Loss of Topsoil
Significance Criteria:The Project would result in a significant environmental impact if it were
result in substantial soil erosion or in the loss of topsoil.
In absence of the NPDES C-3 requirements implemented by the City as a condition of buildin
and grading permit issuance the Project would have a potential t
construction. These requirements are described in detail in Section 3.8: Hydrology and Water
PARKSFO–ISP3-51
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
Quality and in Chapter 1, Section 5.
c) Geologic Instability
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if l
geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become uns
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse.
The Geotechnical Report, based upon subsurface testing (maximum depth of 35 feet) found that
the site is located on Franciscan bedrock at a depth of 13 feet, a stable geologic unit. The site
does contain undocumented fill consisting of dense silty gravel
eight feet below existing grade, followed by five feet of very sl deposits.
The Applicant indicates that an intention to export approximatel6,118 cubic yards of material
and re-compact approximately 6,694 cubic yards of material from the site. The City Engineer
(Mr. Sam Bautista, May 7, 2013) and Cotton Shires Associates (March 22, 2013) have indicated a
concern with respect to site stability in absence of details reg-compacting of the soil.
Specifically Cotton Shires notes:
&concerns about the proposed use of undocumented fill materials
resistance or support of slabs-on-grade (even with the propped 12 inches of over
excavation). The Standard of Practice in the City is to remove
undocumented fill or to obtain support for new structures (inclu-on-grade
floors) with foundations that exceed through undocumented fill a
competent native materials. The Standard of Practice in the [c]ity also does not
include reliance on undocumented fill for passive resistance.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS IMPACT 1: REUSE OF IMPROPERLY COMPACTED
OR INCOMPETENT SOIL ON THE SITE
COULD RESULT IN UNSTABLE
CONDITIONS
GEOLOGY AND SOILS MITIGATION 1: A state licensed registered engineering geologist
and principal geotechnical engineer shall be on site during grad
supervise and inspect conditions and shall certify to the City t
compacted and emplaced to the Citys Standards or that all undoc
from the site prior to construction commencing.
d) Expansive Soils
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if loc
expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life or property.
P3-52 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
Project soils were identified as having a PI of 16 in the 2003 g
According to Cotton ShiresAssociates, the Citys geotechnical consulting firm, a PI of 16 is a
low plasticity level and suitable for the proposed development (Principal Engineering
Geologist, May 1, 2013). Issues related toexpansive soils typically occur when the PI exceeds 25
(op., cit).
e) Capability of Soils to Support Septic Tanks
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if involved
construction of septic systems in soils incapable of adequately
or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
The Project does not propose to build any new septic tank or alt
The Project site is connected to the citys sanitary sewer system.
Finding: There are no active faults underlying the site and the nearest one is the San Andreas
Fault, located about three miles northeast. The hazard from fau
considered to be low (Furgo West, 2003). Therefore, the Project
significant impact on exposing people or structures to danger from surface rupture of a known
earthquake fault. Conformance with the latest CBC would ensure
ground-shaking is reduced to a level of less than significant.
The Geotechnical Report concludes that the liquefaction potential necessary for liquefaction of
materials under the Project site is low. Therefore, the Project
impact with respect to liquefaction of subsurface materials. The
the Project site; therefore the Project would have no impact with respect to landslides.
Erosion control measures are required as a matter of law and as
to be less than significant.
The Project would have less than significant impacts with respect to a geologic unit becoming
unstable with implementation of Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure 1.
The Project would have no impact on soils due to septic systems
the Citys sanitary system. The Project would have a less than
expansive soils because it would be located on soils with a low
PARKSFO–ISP3-53
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
3.8HHM
AZARDS AND AZARDOUS ATERIALS
PotentiallyLess ThanLess Than
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
SignificantSignificant withSignificantNo
Determination of Environmental Impact
ImpactMitigationImpactImpact
VIII.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS Would the Project:
X
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
X
e) For a Project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the Project
result in a safety hazard for people residing
or working in the Project area?
X
f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the Project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
Project area?
X
g)Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
X
h) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
P3-54 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
1997 IS/MND
Mitigation Measure 11 in the 1997 IS/MND required the applicant to obtain letters from both
Santa Fe Pipeline and Shell Oil, indicating that sufficient cons
have been included as part of the construction plans and specifi
either facility. 1997 Mitigation Measure 11 is superseded by Hazards Mitigation 1.
S
ETTING
The site is located in the East of 101 Planning Area, in the sou
North Access Road. North Access Road and San Bruno Canal are im.
South of North Access Road is another parking structure. San Francisc
(SFO)is approximately 1,300 feet south of the site with their property beginning approximately
200 feet south of the site. San Francisco Bay is directly east, the City of South San Francisco
wastewater treatment facility is to the north and an aviation fu The
site has access from South Airport Boulevard, I-280 to 380 to North Access Road and U.S. 101
to North Access Road (see Figures 2.1 Project Location and 2.3 Project Area).
Prior to 2001, the 1.25-acre Project site supported industrial land uses, ship repair, w
and freight forwarding, and from 2001-2003 was used as a composting area for the Citys Water
Quality Control Plant. The site was unused from 2001 to 2007 when the City leased the
property to the Project sponsor. The Project site has been paved and used for a surface parking
lot as part of the Park SFO facility since 2007.
The 2013 Project would demolish the surface parking lot and cons-level 549,626
square foot parking structure connecting to the existing seven-level 477,048 square foot parking
structure constructed in 1998. The 2013 Project would increase on-site parking from 1,901 up
to 3,194 spaces. After completion, there would be 2,833 garage spaces and 361 surface
spaces.
There are no sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the Project boundary. Residential land uses
are approximately 3,300 feet (0.65 miles) to the west of the Project site (west of Route 101 and
north of Interstate 380) and 4,050 feet (0.75 miles) to the soutProject site (west of
Route 101 and south of Interstate 380). The closest school is Belle Air Elementary which is 1.1
miles (approximately 6,000 feet) from the Project site. San Francisco International Airport is
located approximately 1,300 feet to the south of the Project site (although airpo-owned
property is within 200 feet of the Project site).
RF
EGULATORY RAMEWORK
SSF
OUTH AN RANCISCO
The South San Francisco Fire Department (SSFFD) requires businesses using or transporting
hazardous substances to provide a Hazardous Materials Business P
and approval. SSFFD reviews development and entitlement applications, levies aenforces
code requirements for fire prevention and safety and conducts periodic inspections of business
activities.
PARKSFO–ISP3-55
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
Hazardous materials use, storage, and disposal would be governed
and permits at both the federal and state level.
F
EDERAL
Toxic Substances Control Act, administered by the EPA, Regulatio
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, administered by the Depa
Transportation, Regulation 49 CFR 171-177.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 4 USC 6901-6987.
Hazardous Waste Management Standards for Generators, Transporter
administered by EPA, 40CFR 260-2625.
S
TATE
California Hazardous Waste Control Act. California Health and Sa
Chapter 6.5.
California Hazardous Waste Management Regulations. California Administrativ
22. Social Security, Division 4. Environmental Health, Chapter 3
Occupation Safety and Health Act, 29 USC 651.
Workplace Exposure Limits, administered by Occupational Health and Safety
Administration. 29CFR 1900-1910.
California Occupational Safety and Health Act.
TSRM
YPICAL ITE EMEDIATION EASURES
Hazards Table 1 outlines the type of hazardous material impacts and standard and acceptable
remediation measures, typically leviedby the San Mateo Department of Environmental Health
(SMCDEH) as the lead permitting agency through various memoranda
federal and state agencies and local government.
I
MPACTS
a) and b) Hazardous Materials
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it we
a significant hazard to the public or the environment through th
disposal of hazardous materials or if it were to create a signifblic or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident co
of hazardous materials into the environment.
The Project is located in an area zoned for light industrial lannot
handle hazardous materials as a course of conducting business op. There are no
sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the Project boundary. Residential land uses are
approximately 3,300 feet (0.65 miles) to the west of the Project site (west of Route 101 and
north of Interstate 380) and 4,050 feet (0.75 miles) to the soutProject site (west of
Route 101 and south of Interstate 380). The closest school is Belle Air Elementary which is 1.1
miles (approximately 6,000 feet) from the Project. SFO main operations are located
P3-56 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
approximately 1,300 feet to the south of the Project (although airport-owned property is within
200 feet).
HAZARDS TABLE 1
STANDARD REMEDIATION PRACTICES
MediaHazardous Approach
Materials
Reuse on Site (if concentration is less than 100 ppm).
Soil Remediation (ex-situ) Fuels
Haul and Dispose at appropriate landfill.
Capping and vapor barrier.
Treat on site (see below).
Consult the SMCEHD for requirements.
Soil Remediation (ex-situ) VOCs (gasoline
Haul and Dispose.
fuels, solvents)
Aeration requires a notification to BAAQMD, daily
volumes are limited.
Vapor Stripping apply vacuum system to covered
piles, notify BAAQMD.
Bioremediation - apply bio-treatment materials,
moisture and work soil piles.
Thermal Desorption various vendors provide mobile
treatment units.
Capping and vapor barrier.
Consult BAAQMD and SMCEHD for requirements.
Soil Remediation Inorganics
Haul and Dispose.
Chemical Stabilization.
(ex-situ) (metals)
Sorting reduce waste volume by screening to target
contaminant particle size.
Consult SMCEHD for requirements.
Soil Remediation VOCs
Soil Vapor Extraction apply vacuum to vapor wells,
notify BAAQMD.
(in-situ)
In-situ chemical oxidation.
In-Situ Vitrification use electricity to melt waste and
surrounding soils.
Consult SMCEHD for requirements.
Soil Remediation SVOCs
Bioremediation saturate soils with bio-treatment
materials.
(in-situ)
Chemical Stabilization saturate soils with chemicals to
immobilize contaminants.
In-Situ Vitrification.
Capping .
If contaminants are detected in the 20 foot below
Groundwater - Investigation All
ground surface soil sample an additional boring should
be completed to groundwater.
Analyze sample for contaminants detected in soil.
Report results to the SMCEHD and consult on
remedial alternatives.
Consult BAAQMD and SMCEHD for requirements.
Groundwater Remediation VOCs
Pump and Treat pump from wells, treat and discharge
treated water.
Air Sparging inject air to volatilize contaminants and
create aerobic groundwater conditions suitable for
natural bioremediation. Generally applied in
PARKSFO–ISP3-57
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
MediaHazardous Approach
Materials
conjunction with Soil Vapor Extraction to control
released volatiles.
Bioremediation inject bio-treatment materials into
affected groundwater.
Chemical Oxidation inject oxidation chemicals into
affected groundwater.
Consult BAAQMD for requirements.
Groundwater Remediation SVOCs
Pump and Treat.
Bioremediation.
Chemical Oxidation.
Consult BAAQMD for requirements.
Groundwater Remediation Inorganics
Pump and Treat.
Chemical Immobilization inject chemicals to
precipitate or chemically fix contaminants to soil
particles.
Operational Impacts
Any hazardous materials incident on the site would first be resp
Francisco Fire Department. As with all development and entitlement review applications, and as
described in Chapter 1, project plans are routed to various City Departments for review a
comment. These departments include the Planning and Building Di
Water Quality Control, Engineering, Police and Fire. The South San Francisco Fire Department
(Fire Marshal, Luis DaSilva in a letter to applicant and Ms Linda Ajello, Associate Planner, June
25, 2012) reviewed the plans for the Project and is requiring the following as conditions of
approval:
1.Fire sprinkler system shall be central station monitored per Californ
1003.3.
2.Install a standpipe system per NFPA 14/SSFFD requirements under
check and permit.
3.Install exterior listed horn/strobe alarm device, not a bell.
4.Elevator if provided shall not contain shunt-trips.
5.At least one elevator shall be sized for a gurney the minimum si
with the CFC.
6.Fire alarm plans shall be provided per NFPA 72 and the City of S
Municipal Code.
7.Provide fire extinguishers throughout the building.
8.All Non parking space curbs to be painted red to local Fire Code
9.Access road shall have all weather driving capabilities and supp
75,000 pounds.
10.Road gradient and vehicle turning widths shall not exceed maximu
engineering department.
11.Provide fire hydrants; location and number to be determined.
12.Provide fire hydrants with an average spacing of 400 feet betwee
13.The fire hydrants shall have a minimum fire flow of 3000 gallons per minute at 20
pounds per square inch residual pressure for duration of four (4) hours.
P3-58 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
14.All buildings shall provide premise identification in accordance
section 15.24.100.
15.Provide Knox key box for each building with access keys to entry
electrical/mechanical rooms, elevators, and others to be determi
16.The minimum road width is 20 feet per the California Fire Code.
17.Local Fire Code and vehicle specifications and templates availab
http://www.ssf.net/depts/fire/prevention/fire_permits.asp
18.All buildings shall have Emergency Responder Radio Coverage thro
compliance with Section 510 of the California Fire Code.
The Project through the entitlement process and routine inspection i
to operate under all applicable federal, state and local guideli
impact of the Project with regards to hazardous waste would
Construction
The Project sponsor did not submit civil drawings, or a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
(Phase 1 ESA), as apart of the application materials. Civil drawings show the location of utility
and other easements, such as off-and on-site monitoring wells, underground fuel lines and right-
24
of-ways. Shell Oilowns and operates a fuel tank farm adjacent to and northwest of
Project. Review on the National Pipeline Mapping System (www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov) indicates
25
that Shell Oil and Santa Fe pipelines may cross the 2013 Project site (viewed on January 29,
2013). The mapping system is a macro-based service and as such shall not be deemed
completely reliable for the location of pipelines and other underground utilities; civil drawings or
a Phase I ESA would provide this information.
Review of Geotracker (https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/) accessed on January 29, 2013
indicates that there are two closed hazardous spill sites on the2001 Project site, but none on the
2013 portion of the Project. One was an underground storage tank which leaked gasoline and
was closed in 1992. The other was a sump that contained volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
The site was closed and the monitoring wells destroyed in 2011. SMCDEH Director Dean
Peterson issued a notice of case closure on August 8, 2011.
Geotracker also indicates that some off-site monitoring wells from the Shell Oil Tank Farm may
be located on the 2013 Project site. The wells appear to be northw2001 Project
parking structure, on the 2013 Project portion of the site along. The
architectural drawings do not show the location of the wells and civil drawings were not
provided. The location of the monitoring wells and access thereto, must be shown on civil
drawings to assure as-built conditions allow access to the wells. Absence of access t
monitoring wells would be a significant impact.
24 Map Viewer identifies Deborah Price at (713) 241-2035 as the contact person for Shell Oil. Local records indicat
Hansen at (650) 761-1424 is the contact.
25
Map Viewer identifies Mark Jensen at (714) 560-4862 as the contact person for Santa Fe pipelines.
PARKSFO–ISP3-59
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
Grading, emplacing foundations and construction on the 2013 Project site could result in a
significant impactif activities were to rupture gasoline and fuel pipelines or monitoring wells.
Construction over fuel line easements would preclude maintenance or emergency repair.
Implementation of Hazards Mitigation Measure 1 would reduce impacts to less than
significant.
HAZARDS IMPACT 1: PROJECT PLANS DO NOT INCLUDE CIVIL
DRAWINGS THAT INDICATE THE LOCTION OF
POTENTIAL ON- AND OFF-SITE MONITORING
WELLS, GAS AND FUEL PIPELINES, UTILITY
EASEMENTS, OTHER EASEMENTS AND ACCURATE
PROPERTY LINES. CONSTRUCTING OVER THESE
TYPES OF FACILITIES WITHOUT PROVIDING
PROPER ACCESSS FOR MAINTENANCE WOULD BE A
SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. MOREOVER, GRADING AND
FOUNDATION EMPLACEMENT COULD RUPTURE
PIPELINES RESULTING IN A LEAK OR OTHER
HAZARDOUS CONDITION.
HAZARDS MITIGATION 1: The Applicant, contractor or Project sponsor shall provide
civil engineering (wet stamped by a California licensed civil engineer) drawings identifying all
utility and access easements as well as the location of all unde, including
monitoring wells and fuel lines and property lines, prior to issuance of any grading, demolition
or building permits by the City. Project construction plans shawiththe access
requirements for underground utilitymaintenance. Santa Fe Pipeline and Shell Oil
representatives shall be contacted and provided an opportunity to review the 201
to assure adequate access is provided for their facilities. Written confirmation of their review,
approval and/or modifications shall be provided to the City prior to issuance of any grading,
demolition or construction permits. The construction drawings shall be altered as necessary to
provide adequate access and depending upon the magnitude of alteration may require the
Project to undergo subsequent design and entitlement review.
Prior to beginning any underground excavation or drilling work, shall outline the
location using white paint (for paved surfaces), flags, stakes, or whisker.
The contractor shall then contact USA North at (800) 227-2600 for a dig ticket at least two
working days prior to the start of excavation work so that underility owners can clear
the location of underground utilities or mark the location of th
area footprint. Facilities that are in conflict with the excavat
and protected before power equipment is used. The dig ticket shall be kept active until the
completion of underground work. The contractor shall contact th
inspect the flagging and marking required by this mitigation measure prior to initiating any
underground excavation or drilling work.
c) and d) Hazardous Materials Presence
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to emit
hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous mat
within a quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, or if i
P3-60 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuan
65962.5 ( Cortese List ).
There are no existing or proposed schools or day care centers or
of the 2013 Project site. As noted above, residential land uses are approximately 3,300 feet (0.65
miles) to the west (west of Route 101 and north of Interstate 38
the southwest of the Project (west of Route 101 and south of Int
is Belle Air Elementary which is 1.1 miles (approximately 6,000 feet) from the Project site.
e) and f) Safety Hazards Due to Nearby Airport or Airstrip
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it
within an airport land use plan (or, where such a plan has not b
a public airport or public use airport), if it would result in a
working in the Project area; or if it were located within the vi
would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working i
The 2013 Project site is located 200 feet from SFO property and approximately 1,300 feet from
SFO operations and within the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commissions(ALUC)
jurisdiction. The ALUC allows development within ALUC boundaries, provided that
development is below a prescribed height limit. The City, in concert with the ALUC and in
coordination with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), established height limits in the South
San Francisco General Plan in compliance with the ALUC and FAA. The South San Francisco General
Plan indicates the maximum height for the Project is below the 160.9 contour. SFO has a
website that provides additional height information. The 2013 Project site is between the150
and 175 foot height contour airport-related height limit restriction as noted on SFOs website
(Http://ialp.airplanonline.com).
The maximum height of the Project, including the light poles on the roof level would be 100
feet. The building itself would be 80 to 90 feet in height including the stairwells and elevator.
The Project would not encroach in the 150 -175 foot zone.
.
g) Conflict with Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it
implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emer
emergency evacuation plan.
There are no emergency response or evacuation plans in effect in The
Project is required to have Emergency Responder Radio Coverage throughout in compliance
with Section 510 of the California Fire Code (Fire Marshal, Luis DeSilva letter to Planning
Department, June 25, 2012), see a and b above.
PARKSFO–ISP3-61
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
h) Exposure of People or Structures to Wildland Fires
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it
expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injur
There is no wildland in the vicinity of the Project site or area.
.
Finding: The Project through the entitlement process and routine inspection is
matter of law to operate under all applicable, federal, state and local guidelines governing
hazardous waste. The Project would have no impact from the emiss
materials or wastes on schools or from any environmental contami
listed on the Cortese List. The impact of the Project with regards to hazardous materials would
be less than significant with respect to operational activities. The Project would have a less than
significant impact on the potential to emit hazardous materials
implementation of Hazards Mitigation 1.
There are no existing or proposed schools or day care centers or
of the Project site.
The Project would be 100 feet in height including the light polearking level.
The building itself would be 80 to 90 feet including the stairwe
would be 50 feet below the lowest range of the maximum permitted height determined by the
ALUC and FAA.
There are no emergency response or evacuation plans in effect in the Project vicinity. Therefore
the Project would have no impact on the implementation of any ad
plan or emergency evacuation plan. The South San Francisco Fire
of initiating a study to identify offensive capabilities in the Project area. T
required through conditions of approval to provide a fair share
departments study and improvements.
There is no wildland in the vicinity of the Project site or area. The Project would have no
impact with respect to wildland fires.
P3-62 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
3.9HWQ
YDROLOGY AND ATER UALITY
PotentiallyLess ThanLess Than
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
SignificantSignificant withSignificantNo
Determination of Environmental Impact
ImpactMitigationImpactImpact
IX.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY —Would the
Project:
a)Violate any water quality standards or waste X
discharge requirements?
b)Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
X
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
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 X
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
X
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
f)Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
X
g)Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard X
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 X
structures, which would impede or redirect flood
flows?
i)Expose people or structures to a significant risk X
of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee ordam?
j)Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
X
1997 IS/MND
Mitigation Measure 3 identified in the 1997 ISMND requiring a hydrological analysis i
required for the 2013 Project because it is replaced by the Citys standard conditions of approval
PARKSFO–ISP3-63
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
identified in Chapter 1 Section 1.5.4 and a, below. Mitigation Measure 4 requiring compliance
with the NPDES and RWQCB permitting processes is not required of the 2013 Project because
it is replaced and by the Citys conditions of approvalrequiring NPDES and RWQCB
compliance with more conservative measures (see Setting Section below and Chapter 1
Section 1.5.4).Mitigation Measure 5 requiring stormwater to be directed to the storm drain
system is not required because the 2001 Project is constructed and complies with this measure.
The 2013 Project is required to comply with the storm drain measure through the s
conditions of approvalthat are required by law (see Setting Section below and Chapter 1
Section 1.5.4). Mitigation Measure 6 requires the car wash water run-off to be directed to the
Citys sanitary sewer facility and the 2001 Project as built complies with this requirement.
Therefore the mitigation measure is implemented.
S
ETTING
Colma Creek, the Citys main natural drainage system, is a peren
about 16.3 square miles that trends in a roughly southeasterly d
City. The Colma Creek watershed is one of the three largest in
bounded on the northeast by San Bruno Mountain and on the west b
Boulevard. Dominant topographic features of the drainage basin
mountain ridges that diverge toward the southeast that are connet the
northern boundary of the area. The valley enclosed by the ridge
where it drains into San Francisco Bay.
Flooding potential is evaluated by use of the Federal Emergency Mapping Agency (FEMA)
Community Maps. South San Franciscos Community Panel Number is 0044E, Map
#06081C00H4E and dated October 16, 2012. Flood risk is based upon a one percent
annual chance of a 100 year flood, also known as the base flood,
one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year known as the Special Flood
Hazard Area (SFHA). SFHA areas include flood zones A, AE, AH, AO, AR, A99, V and VE.
The base flood elevation is the water surface elevation of the o
The Project site is 11 feet above MSL and located in a Flood Zone A (minimal flooding) and no
base flood elevation level has been determined. The site is adjacent to Flood Zone AE with a 10
foot base flood level elevation at this location. The Citys Building Official is the Flood
Administrator whom is responsible for ensuring that construction
regulations.
RF
EGULATORY RAMEWORK
F
EDERAL
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Storm Water Disc: As
identified in Chapter 1 Section 5.4, the City of South San Francisco is a member of the San
Mateo Countywide Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (STOPP
the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Discharge permit
STOPPP's goal is to prevent polluted storm water from entering c
Francisco Bay. The City requires the implementation of Best Man
P3-64 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
and Low Impact Development (LID) measures for new development an
of its storm water management program, as levied through standar
approval.
The City requires the implementation of BMPs and LID measures t
water quality in storm runoff from the Project site. In brief,
handbook address pollution control and management mechanisms for
structure construction, material delivery and storage, solid was
subcontractor training, etc. The handbook also provides directi
sedimentation as well as the establishment of monitoring program
of the measures. The City also requires an agreement with the a
permanent and on-going maintenance of water quality control improvements by the a
and/or project site owner(s). Refer to the Bay Area Storm Water
Association (BASMAA) Start at the Source Design Guidance Manual for St
Protection (available from BASMAA @ 510-622-2465 for a comprehensive listing of required
measures. Typical storm water quality protection measures are id Chapter 1, Section
1.5.4 of this document. The Citys requirements are in compliance with state and federal
and regulations that are designed to mitigate potential hydrological and stormwater impacts
associated with project construction and on-going operational activities.
SC
TATE OF ALIFORNIA
State Water Quality Control Boards General Permitting Requireme As identified
above and in Chapter 1 Section 1.5.4, the City of South San Francisco requires through
conditions of project approval, project compliance with the State Water Quality Control Boards
general permitting requirements which require the applicant to s
Storm Water General Permit, complete a Notice of Intent (NOI) an
approval of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Th
Discharge Identification number within 10 days of receipt of a c
applicant is then required to submit copies of the NOI and SWPPP
Francisco, Public Works Department Division of Water Quality, pr
and/or grading permits. The conditions of approval identified in the Introduction Chapter 1
Section 1.5.4 apply to the Project as a matter of law.These measures are required in order to
reduce water quality impacts to a less than significant level.
I
MPACTS
a) Violation of Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requi
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it ult
in any violation of existing water quality standards or waste di
The Project as a matter of law is required to comply with the St
Plan (SWPPP). The City requires the implementation of LIDs and
and construction as part of its storm water management program,
City conditions of project approval by the Water Quality Control
Department.Rob Lecel, Senior Environmental Compliance Inspector for the City of South San
PARKSFO–ISP3-65
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
Francisco reviewed the proposed plans and provided the following
dated July 3, 2012) pursuant to the Citys review procedures:
The following items must be included in the plans or are requirements of the Stormwater
and/or pretreatment programs and must be completed prior to the
1.A plan showing the location of all storm drains and sanitary sew
submitted.
2.Fire sprinkler test discharge line must be connected to the sanitary sewer.
3.Trash area(s) shall be covered and have a drain(s) that is conne
sewer.
4.The onsite catch basins are to be stenciled with the approved Sa
Stormwater Logo (No Dumping! Flows to Bay).
5.Install a separate water meter for landscaping.
6.Garage floors 1 through 6 drainage must be discharged to an oil/
properly sized (calculations must be submitted) with minimum liq
2000 gallons and it must be plumbed to the sanitary sewer.
7.The top floor drainage shall be discharged to the storm water system
Stormwater from the entire site must be included in the treatmen
Stormwater treatment systems must be designed to treat stormwate
entire site. Rainwater harvesting and infiltration feasibility will be used to the
maximum extent feasible. Storm water pollution preventions devices are to be
installed. Clustering of structures and pavement; directing roof runoff to v
areas; use of micro-detention, including distributed landscape-based detention; and
preservation of open space are preferred. Treatment devices must be sized according
Provision C.3.d Numeric Sizing Criteria for Stormwater Treatment
NPDES No. CAS613008.
8.The applicant must submit a signed Operation and Maintenance Information for
Stormwater Treatment Measures form for the stormwater pollution prevention
devices installed.
9.The applicant must submit a signed maintenance agreement for the
pollution prevention devices installed. Each maintenance agreement will require the
inclusion of the following exhibits:
a.A letter-sized reduced-scale site plan that shows the locations of the
treatment measures that will be subject to the agreement.
b.A legal description of the property.
c. A maintenance plan, including specific long-term maintenance tasks and a
schedule. It is recommended that each property owner be require
develop its own maintenance plan, subject to the municipalitys
Resources that may assist property owners in developing their maintenance
plans include the operation manual for any proprietary system purchased by
the property owner.
10.Applicant must complete the C.3 and C.6 Development Review Check
issuance of a permit and return to the Technical Services Supervisor at the WQCP.
11.Landscaping shall meet the following conditions related to reduc
on the Project site:
a.Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to tr
stormwater runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain, and
P3-66 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, pl
tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolonged exposure to
specified.
b.Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics
such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sun
prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use,
consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establis
c.Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and
incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent pract
d.Proper maintenance of landscaping, with minimal pesticide use, s
responsibility of the property owner.
e.Integrated pest management (IPM) principles and techniques shall be
encouraged as part of the landscaping design to the maximum exte
practicable. Examples of IPM principles and techniques include:
i.Select plants that are well adapted to soil conditions at the si
ii.Select plants that are well adapted to sun and shade conditions at the
site. In making these selections, consider future conditions wh
plants reach maturity, as well as seasonal changes.
iii.Provide irrigation appropriate to the water requirements of the
selected plants.
iv.Select pest-resistant and disease-resistant plants.
v.Plant a diversity of species to prevent a potential pest infesta
from affecting the entire landscaping plan.
vi.Use insectary plants in the landscaping to attract and keep
beneficial insects.
12.Source control measures must include:
•
Landscaping that minimizes irrigation and runoff, promotes surfa
infiltration where possible, minimizes the use of pesticides and
incorporates appropriate sustainable landscaping practices and pch as
Bay-Friendly Landscaping.
•
Appropriate covers, drains, and storage precautions for outdoor
areas, loading docks, repair/maintenance bays, and fueling areas
•
Covered trash, food waste, and compactor enclosures.
Plumbing of the following discharges to the sanitary sewer, subject to the local
sanitary sewer agencys authority and standards:
•
Dumpster drips from covered trash and food compactor enclosures.
•
Discharges from outdoor covered wash areas for vehicles, equipme
accessories.
13.A construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan must be sub
approved prior to the issuance of a permit.
14.A copy of the NOI filed with the state must be submitted to the
15.Plans must include location of concrete wash out area and locatiof
entrance/outlet of tire wash.
16.A grading and drainage plan must be submitted.
17.The applicant must file a Notice of Termination with the WQCP when the Project is
completed.
PARKSFO–ISP3-67
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
18.The applicant must pay sewer connection fee at a later time based on
flow, BOD and TSS calculations.
b) Deplete or Interfere Substantially with Groundwater
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it substantially
depletes groundwater supplies or interferes substantially with g
there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
The 2013 1.25-acre Project site is currently paved with minimal pervious surfaces consi
small landscape areas. The conceptual landscape plan indicates additional plant
perimeter of the 2013 Project and Biology Mitigation Measure 3 requires native landscaping
improvements. The Project would not increase or decrease imperv as
the expanded parking garage would be emplaced in an area current.
c) Alter Existing Drainage Patterns/Erosion and Siltation Effect
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it
substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site in
substantial erosion or siltation.
The Project would be built on a site previously developed in a suburban, industrial area. The
Project is required to comply with current NPDES and SWPPP measu a, above.
The regulations mandate the Project to treat all stormwater runo-
site; use plants that are suited for the site including insectary plants to attract be
and a diversity of plants among other items (Mr. Lecel, Senior E
Inspector, Water Quality Control Plant, July 3, 2012 memorandum to Linda Ajello, Associate
Planner).
d) Alter Existing Drainage Patterns/Flooding Effects
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it
substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flosite.
P3-68 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
The Project would improve the existing drainage pattern of the s
such would not increase the amount of surface runoff.
e) Runoff Exceeding Drainage System Capacity/Increase Polluted R
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it
create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity o
water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources
The Project, as a matter of law, is required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) and an Erosion Control Plan to the City Engineer and the
Division prior to the commencement of any grading or construction of the
The SWPPP as noted in the Chapter 1.5.4, the Setting Section above and in a, above is
required to include storm water pollution control devices to treat all stormwater on site and use
stormwater onsite for landscaping to prevent pollutants from entering the Citys storm drain
system and San Francisco Bay. The Plan shall be subject to review and approval of the City
Engineer and the Citys Water Quality Control Plant coordinator.
Water quality measures are required to be included in the buildi
contractors are as a matter of law made aware of the requirements. Additionally, the
Engineering Division of the Public Works Department as well as t
Plant Compliance Inspector conducts routine inspections of this
compliance. Failure to comply with the approved construction BMPs would result in the
issuance of correction notices, citations and/or a Stop Work Order. Plans for the Project
would as a matter of law include erosion control measures to prevent s
entering the storm drain system.
f) Otherwise Degrade Water Quality
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to
degrade water quality.
The Project, as required by law, would treat all stormwater on s.
g i) Flood Hazards
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it
any housing units within a designated 100-year flood hazard area; if it placed any structures in a
manner which would impede or redirect flood flows; or if it were
people or structures to flooding hazards.
The Project site is located in a Flood Zone A (minimal flooding) and no base flood elevation
level has been determined(Community Panel Number is 0044E, Map #06081C00H4E, October
16, 2012). The site is adjacent to Flood Zone AE with a 10 foot base flood level
location. The Citys Building Official is the Flood Administrator whom is responsible for
PARKSFO–ISP3-69
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
ensuring that construction complies with FEMA regulations. By law, the Project is required to
be constructed one foot above base flood level, or 11 feet in elevation. The site meets this
requirement and additional mitigation is not required (Mr. Jim K
May 1, 2013).
j) Tsunami Hazards
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if i
in the exposure of people or structures to inundation by seiche,
The Project site is located in a low-lying adjacent to San Francisco Bay. An earthquake could
cause tsunamis (tidal waves) and seiches (oscillating waves in e
The Citys general plan estimates that potential wave run-up of a 100-year tsunami would be
approximately 4.3 feet above mean sea level (msl) and approximat
500-year tsunami (Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, adopted October 1999, page
250). The Project site is 11 feet above MSL, would be outside the runup zone subject to
26
inundation by a 500-year tsunami and would be outside any potential tsunami hazard z.
The State of California emergency mapping website shows the 1.25-acre site outside of and
adjacent to the tsunami inundation zone. Additionally, the Pro
building code requirements.
Finding: The Citys standard conditions of approval which implement state
regulations are required by law and are adequate to address any
a result of Project construction or occupation. The site is not
subject to seiche or tsunami inundation or run-up zones. No mitigation measures, above those
required by the City as a matter of law, are identified in this ould not
result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact to hydr
Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, State of CalifornApril 2,
26
2013.
P3-70 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
3.10.LUP
AND SE AND LANNING
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions forPotentiallyLess ThanLess Than
Determination of Environmental ImpactSignificantSignificant withSignificantNo
ImpactMitigationImpactImpact
X.LAND USE AND PLANNING —Would the Project:
a)Physically divide an established community?
X
b)Conflict with any applicable land use plan, X
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
X
plan or natural community conservation plan?
1997 IS/MND
No mitigation measures were identified in the 1997 IS/MND.
S
ETTING
The site is located in the East of 101 Planning Area, in the souCity at 195
North Access Road. North Access Road and San Bruno Canal are im.
South of North Access Road is another parking structure. San Fris
property is 200 feet south of the site with its main operations approximately 1,300 feet south of
the site. San Francisco Bay is directly east, the City of South San Franci
facility is to the north and an aviation fuel tank farm is to th The site has access from
South Airport Boulevard, I-280 to 380 to North Access Road and U.S. 101 to North Access
Road (see Figures 2.1 Project Location and 2.3 Project Area in Chapter 2).
The Project, on approximately seven acres (6.96), consists of a 5.71 acre parcel supporting th
existing parking garage (Park SFO) constructed in 2001 and the adjacent 1.25 acre parcel
currently containing surface parking. The surface lot was paved for parking 166 vehicles in 2007.
Prior to 2001, the 1.25 acre Project site supported industrial lp repair, warehouse
and freight forwarding, and from 2001-2003 was used as a composting area for the Citys Water
Quality Control Plant.
The City received a development application in 1997 that trigger
and entitlement review to construct the existing Park SFO facility. The 1997 review re
the City adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmen
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for site deve
amendments to the South San Francisco General Plan, East of 101 Area Plan and Zoning Ordinance
to designate and zone the site as Mixed Industrial (MI) to allow
surface and structured parking and parking on the unused dry doc
Other actions included authorization and execution of a developmen
agreements; a lot line adjustment; and use permit and design review approval
of approval. The project was approved in April, 1998 and constructed in 2001 (2001 Project).
PARKSFO–ISP3-71
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
The 2001 Projectalso included relocation of portion of the Bay Trail and constru
(+/-32,000 square feet) on the southern-most dry dock (see Figure 2.1 in Chapter 2).
RF
EGULATORY RAMEWORK
South San Francisco General Plan
The Project site is within the area subject to the provisions of-
Area of the South San Franciscos General Plan. The general plan designates the Project site for
Mixed Industrial uses, and gives the following summary:
This designation is intended to provide and protect industrial l
range of manufacturing, industrial processing, general service,
storage and distribution and service commercial uses. The maxim
is 0.4, with an increase to 0.60 for development seeking a FAR bonus with a
Transportation Demand Management Program in compliance with the
Ordinance. Table 2.2-1 (page 32 General Plan) footnote (1) states that
commercial parking structures are excluded from the FAR restrictions.
ZC
ONING LASSIFICATION
The Project site is zoned Mixed Industrial (MI) and is consistgeneral plan
designation. The MI District provides for a wide range of manuf
general service, warehousing, storage and distribution and service commercial uses. Ind
that use or produce substantial amounts of hazardous materials o
pollutants are not permitted. The maximum floor area is 0.4, wifor
development providing specified off-site improvements save for structured commercial parking
as noted above. A complete list of permitted and conditional use
of the South San Francisco Municipal Code.
I
MPACTS
a and b) Division of an Established Communityand Conflicts with Land Use Plan and
Zon ing
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it
physically divide an established community and/or the Project would have a significant
environmental impact if it were to result in a conflict with anyapplicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project adopt
mitigating an environmental effect.
The Project is located within a mixed industrial land use designation and an area developed as
such. The 2013 Project would expand airport-related parking consistent with the South San
Francisco General Plan and zoning designation and classification and existing land use.he Project
meets the development guidelinesof the East of 101 Area Plan as described in Section 3.1
Aesthetics and is under the ALUC and general plan height limitations. As mitigated in Section
3.5 Biology, the 2013 Project would comply with the conservation
P3-72 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
policies.
c) Conflict with Conservation Plan
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if i
in a conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan.
There are no conservation or natural community conservation plan
(or area) as identified in Section 3.5, Biological Resources.
Finding: The Project would not physically divide an established community. Th
planned for mixed industrial and the Project is consistent with the planned uses. There are
conservation or natural community conservation plans that govern the Project site or area. The
Project would not result in any individually or cumulatively con
3.11 Mineral Resources
PotentiallyLess ThanLess Than
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
SignificantSignificant withSignificantNo
Determination of Environmental Impact
ImpactMitigationImpactImpact
XI.MINERAL RESOURCES —Would the Project:
a)Result in the loss of availability of a known
X
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-X
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
1997 IS/MND
No mitigation measures were identified in the 1997 IS/MND.
S
ETTING
The Project is located in a largely mixed industrial area. The site is located in the East of 101
Planning Area, in the southeastern corner of the City at 195 Nor
Road and San Bruno Canal are immediately south of the site. Sou
another parking structure. San Francisco International Airport
the site with its main operations approximately 1,300 feet south
PARKSFO–ISP3-73
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
I
MPACTS
a) and b) Loss of Mineral Resources
Significance Criteria:The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it
in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that wou
the residents of the state, or if it were to result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general pla
plan.
No mineral resources of value to the region and the residents of identified at
the Project site. The Project site has not been delineated as a
site on the City of South San Francisco General Plan, on any specific plan, or on any other land use
plan.
Finding: The Project site does not contain any local or regionally significant mineral
The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cum
resources.
P3-74 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
3.12N
OISE
PotentiallyLess ThanLess Than
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
SignificantSignificant withSignificantNo
Determination of Environmental Impact
ImpactMitigationImpactImpact
XII.NOISE —Would the Project:
a)Exposure of persons to or generation of noise X
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 X
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient X
noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels
existing without the Project?
d)A substantial temporary or periodic increase in X
ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity
above levels existing without the Project?
e)For a Project located within an airport land use X
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?
f)For a Project within the vicinity of a private
X
airstrip, would the Project expose people
residing or working in the Project area to
excessive noise levels?
1997 IS/MND
No mitigation measures were identified in the 1997 IS/MND.
S
ETTING
The Project site is located in the southern area of the City, within an industrial area. SFO
property is 200 feet south of the site and SFO operations are approximately 1,300 feet south.
The area is dominated by aircraft and roadway noise. The site is within the 65 dB noise contour
for both roadway and aircraft sources (Figure 9-2 Projected Rail and Road Noise, page 283, and
Figure 9-1 Aircraft Noise and Noise Insulation Program page 279, South San Francisco General Plan).
SFOs website shows the site at the 65 dB contour (ialp.airplane
ND
OISE EFINED
Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Whether a sound is unwanted depends on when
and where it occurs, what the listener is doing when it occurs,
(loudness, pitch and duration, speech or music content, irregula
background sound levels. In determining the daily level of environmental noise, it is important
to account for the difference in response of people to daytime a
nighttime, exterior background noises are generally lower than d
PARKSFO–ISP3-75
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
household noise also decreases at night and exterior noise becomes m
most people sleep at night and are very sensitive to noise intru
Noise attenuates (reduces in level) the further it travels from
attenuates 6dB per doubling distance in hard surface environments (paving, h
shell of a building (sometimes referred to as the envelope) does attenuate noise 15 to 25 dB
depending on the type construction and insulation contained ther
SR
ENSITIVE ECEPTORS
Residential, schools, child care facilities and convalescent fac
sensitive land uses. There are no sensitive receptors within 1,
Residential land uses are approximately 3,300 feet (0.65 miles) to the west of the Project site
(west of Route 101 and north of Interstate 380) and 4,050 feet (
the Project site (west of Route 101 and south of Interstate 380)The closest school is Belle Air
Elementary which is 1.1 miles (approximately 6,000 feet) from thSan Francisco
International Airport(SFO) is located approximately 1,300 feet to the south of the Pr
(although airport-owned property is within 200 feet of the Project site).
RF
EGULATORY RAMEWORK
The South San Francisco Noise Element contains land use criteria
various land uses. These criteria define the desirable maximum
uses in addition to certain conditionally acceptable levels cont
noise reduction measures. Noise levels over 85 dBA are acceptablefor airport-related
development only; less than 75 dBA is acceptable for industrial and open space lan; and
75-85 dBA is conditionally acceptable for industrial land uses and open sp
high concentrations of people or animals (Table 9.2-1 Land Use Criteria for Noise Impacted Areas,
South San Francisco General Plan, page 280)
The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32, Section 8.32.050) restricts
construction activities to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. o
on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidayordinance also limits
noise generation of any individual piece of equipment to 90 dBA at 2
line. The Building Division enforces the noise limits at the time of
informing applicants of the requirement and if necessary requir
Building Division also conducts routine site inspections prior t
occupancy or finalization of the building permit. The inspection
municipal code compliance.
Noise attenuates approximately 6 dB per doubling distance from the source in hardscape areas
such as paved sites. Noise can also be reduced by structures that break the line of sight from the
noise source to the receiver. For example, a building between a and a park can
reduce the noise levels reaching the park in addition to the att
Noise can also be reduced 15 to 25 dB by the shell or as it is c
the building. Older buildings and open windows reduce noise less than newer buildings with
closed windows.
P3-76 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
Projects can result in an increase in noise (unwanted sound) fro
and operational activities. Demolition and construction are typ-term in nature
depending upon the construction schedule. Operational impacts run with th
and largely result from increased traffic, ventilation systems a
conducted external to a building.
PO
ROJECT PERATIONS
The 2001 and 2007 portions of the Project operate a parking and shuttle bus serv
three shifts, eight hours in length and nine employees per shift
shuttle bus drivers per shift.
Currently patrons hold their tickets until they return to their cars and exit the structure at which
time they pay a cashier in a kiosk. The kiosks are enclosed and insulated. A new method of
payment, to be enacted within the next few months, would offer p
One option would be to pay through an automated machine and the other to a
the office. The office is enclosed and insulated. The new system is called pay-on-foot (John
Fugle, Applicants Representative, e-mail July 26, 2013).
I
MPACTS
a d) Exposure of Persons to or Generation of Noise Levels in Exces
Exposure of Persons to or Generation of Excessive Groundborne No
Substantial Temporary or Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Lev
Vicinity above Levels Existing Without the Project.
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if i
in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in exces
South San Francisco General Plan or the Citys Noise Ordinance.
PDC
ROJECT EMOLITION AND ONSTRUCTION
The noise environment in the Project area is industrial and domi
trucking activities. Noise levels over 85 dBA are conditionally acceptable for airport-related
activities, less than 75 dBA is acceptable for industrial land u-85 dBA is conditionally
acceptable for industrial land uses (Table 9.2-1 Land Use Criteria for Noise Impacted Areas, General
Plan, page 280). As stated above, the Citys noise ordinance regulates noise exposure at the
property line to 90 dB.
Noise levels associated with various types of demolition and grading equipment, using the Leq
sound metric at 50 feet, range from 87 to 86 dB for a hoe ram attachment, grader and scrapers;
84 dB for bulldozers; 83 dB for excavators; 80 to 81 dB for back; 101 dB for
pile drivers; impact wrenches and rock drills 85 to 98 dB. Generators and compressors can
range from 72 to 87 dBat 50 feet. Water trucks and street sweepers can reach 77 dB at 50 feet.
Back up warning alarms required on construction equipment (Calif
Health Administration or Cal OSHA) range from 87 to 112 dB at fo
Administration, 2006).
PARKSFO–ISP3-77
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
Project demolition and construction activities are expected to take approximately 16 months.
There would be three main phases of construction: (1) demolition, excavation, a
construction, (2) deck and vertical structure forming and constr
first and last phases are expected to take approximately four (4
phase taking approximately eight (8) months.
Noise Levels Reaching the Property Lines
The worst case equipment noise level could exceed 90 dB at theproperty line to the west, north
and east in particular during heavy grading and demolition activities associated with removal
abandoned building pads noted in Section 3.7 Geology and Soils and pavement and concrete
demolition. Noise levels that could be experienced south of the site and southeast at the
the first dry dock and the Bay Trail would attenuate to approximately 81 dB to 79 dB due to the
2001 Project blocking the line of sight and distance from the so
NOISE IMPACT 1: NOISE LEVELS MAY EXCEED 90 DB AT THE PROPERTY
LINE IN VIOLATION OF THE CITYS NOISE
ORDINANCE.
NOISE MITIGATION 1.A: At the discretion of the Building Official a waiver may be applied
for and secured given that the Project is not located in a noise sensitive area and there are no
sensitive receptors within 0.65 miles of the site,
or,
NOISE MITIGATION 1.B: Erect temporary sound barriers, select quieter equipment and
locate the noisiest equipment further from the property lines wh
noise attenuation.
The Applicant indicates that construction work would be limited to the hours of 8:00 AM to
5:00 PM, five (5) days a week, with occasional deliveries on Sat AM to 5:00 PM.
A possible exception to this would be to accommodate concrete po
consistent and constant delivery of cement until the pour is com
pours would occur on Thursdays or Fridays to take advantage of weekend downt
the concrete to adequately cure before construction resumes on the following Monday. Should
Saturday pours be necessary, the activity would occur between th AM and 5:00
PM.
Saturday Work Schedules
The weekday hours of construction are in conformance with the Citys noise ordinance outlined
in Chapter 1, Introduction, Section 1.5.5 and above in the Setting Section which limits
27
weekday construction from 8 AM to 8 PM. The proposed Saturday hours of operation would
27
Construction noise is regulated through the Municipal Code (8.32.050(d)). Hours of construction are lim
A.M. to 8 P.M. Monday through Friday, 9 A.M. to 8 P.M. on Saturd
P3-78 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
be in violation the Citys permitted hours of construction in absence of a waiver by the Chief
Building Official.
The Project is located in an area dominated by aircraft and traffic noise.
receptors such as residential, school, day care, convalescent uswithin a quarter mile. The
Project Sponsor may opt to not begin construction or delivery ac
or in the case of an emergency secure a temporary waiver.
NOISE IMPACT 2: THE PROJECT PROPOSES SATURDAY CONSTRUCTION
TO BEGIN AT 8:30 AM IN VIOLATION OF THE CITYS
NOISE ORDINANCE START TIME OF 9 AM.
NOISE MITIGATION 2.A: The Project sponsor shall note on the approved building and job
copy plans that Saturday operations shall not begin prior to 9 A
NOISE MITIGATION 2.B: At the discretion of the Building Official: The Project Sponsor
or contractor shall apply for and secure a waiver to the Saturda
Employee Noise Exposure
Three on-site cashiers would be exposed to demolition and construction no
hour shift. The cashiers would be located inside either insulat
office that is also insulated and enclosed. The 2001 Project was constructed in 2001 and may
attenuate noise 15-20 dB depending on the quality of construction. The shuttle bus
would not experience a continuous eight hour exposure to noise as they would be on and off
site periodically throughout an eight hour shift.
The new pay-on-foot program would result in all three shift workers being inside a standard-
construction (metal studs and drywall) office located inside the parking structure further
protecting the employees from excessive noise. New construction can reduce interior noise
levels up to 25 dB.
The entry kiosk is approximately 100 feet from the northern wall
addition is proposed to be constructed (Architectural Sheet A102). Assuming a conservative
analysis, noise could attenuate 6 dB from the northern wall to the kiosk resulting in an 84 dB
noise level. The intermittent sound from the required back-up alarms would be higher and
could be as much as 106 dB at the kiosk. The kiosk itself would be expected to attenuate some
noise if it is indeed entirely closed and of solid construction.
located in the kiosk could be 80-84 dB with a periodic Lmax of 106 dB for the day shift, and
potentially a portion of the evening shift.
The Applicants representative indicates that the pay-on-foot program is anticipated to be in
place prior to commencing construction on the 2013 Project shoul
holidays. The Building Division enforces and monitors these reg
may be granted by the Chief Building Official.
PARKSFO–ISP3-79
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
The noise exposure would be annoying and in some cases startling
a kiosk.
NOISE IMPACT 3: Noise exposure to the cashiers during the day and early evenin
could be annoying, disruptive and distracting at levels around 84 dB
with periodic Lmax levels that could reach 106 dB.
NOISE MITIGATION 3: The Applicant shall install the pay-on-foot program prior to the
City issuing and grading, demolition or construction permits for The kiosks
and office shall be designed and constructed to attenuate noise
ON
PERATIONAL OISE
The operation of a Project could increase ambient noise levels in two ways, through the crea
of additional traffic on local roadways and the operation of exterior mechanical equipment.
Typically, traffic volumes need to double in order to result in a barely perceptible increas
noise levels (i.e., 3-5 dB).
A traffic study was prepared for the Project (Crane Transportation Group, September, 2012) as
a part of the scope of services for this initial study. The Project area is dominated by roadway
traffic from U.S. 101 and Interstate 380, South Airport Boulevar
Traffic and Circulation Section 3.16). U.S. 101 is an eight-lane freeway that provides access to
the Project area extending from downtown San Francisco and North
Angeles and Southern California running in the north-south direction. U.S.101 is approximately
0.38 miles west of the Project site. U.S.101 is over 1,500 miles long and runs bet
Angeles and Olympia, WA, and is a major regional freeway on the
an Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) of approximately 229,000 -380
including 15,900 vehicles during the peak hour. North of I-380 the AADT is approximately
204,000 vehicles and 14,700 vehicles during the peak hour.
The 2013 Project would be expected to generate 56 AM peak hour trips and 77 PM peak hour
trips. The Project is largely a traffic mitigation measure in that it provides sh
from the airport. The addition of 133 trips during AM and PM peak hours is insignif
respect to adding to noise associate with traffic on the roadway3 Project would have
no impact with respect to increasing the noise levels in the Pro
e) and f) Aircraft Noise
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if i
within an airport land use plan (or,where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport) or in the vicinity of a
people residing or working in the Project area to excessive nois
The site is located the 65 dB contour interval and is an airport related use which is long-term
parking.
P3-80 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
Finding: Demolition and construction related noise impacts would be consi
significant with implementation of the Noise Mitigation Measures 1-3.
The Project would not individually increase noise levels in the rea related to trafficnor would
the Project contribute to a cumulative impact with respect to no
associated with the Project would result in no impact. The site is located the 65 dB contour
interval and is an airport related use which is long-term parking. The Project would have no
impact with respect to excessive aircraft noise exposure as it i-related use consisting of
long term parking and contains no sensitive receptors or land us
3.13PH
OPULATION AND OUSING
PotentiallyLess ThanLess Than
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
SignificantSignificant withSignificantNo
Determination of Environmental Impact
ImpactMitigationImpactImpact
XIII.POPULATION AND HOUSING —Would the Project:
a)Induce substantial population growth in an area, X
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
X
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c)Displace substantial numbers of people,
X
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
1997 IS/MND
No mitigation measures were identified in the 1997 IS/MND.
S
ETTING
The Project site is a 1.25acre parcel currently developed with a paved parking lot which was
constructed in 2007. The Project site is adjacent to the 5.96-acre Park SFO parking garage and
would become an integral part of that garage, if approved.
I
MPACTS
a) Population Growth
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it
induce either directly of indirectly substantial population grow
The Project is designed and proposed to provide long term parking for airport commuters. The
Project is not proposing a large office or industrial complex that would
people. The Project currently requires three shifts and nine employee
PARKSFO–ISP3-81
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
Project expansion would largely be served by the existing number
exit points would remain the same.
b) and c) Displacement of Housing or People
Significance Criteria:The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it
in the displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing u
project site.
There are no residential units on the Project site.
Finding: The Project is consistent with the development and growth assu
the South San Francisco General Plan in that it would be an expansion of the existing airport-related
facility, and not a significant contributor to the job market. The Project site does not include
housing and would not displace housing units or residents.
3.14PS
UBLIC ERVICES
PotentiallyLess ThanLess Than
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
SignificantSignificant withSignificantNo
Determination of Environmental Impact
ImpactMitigationImpactImpact
XIV.PUBLIC SERVICES —
a)Would the Project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
X
ii) Police protection?
X
iii) Schools?
X
iv) Parks?
X
v) Other public facilities?
X
1997 IS/MND
Mitigation Measure 12 requiring video surveillance, security and
lighting reflects the as-built conditions of the 2001 Project. The 2013 Project is updated by a
condition of approval required by Sergeant Campbell of the South San Francisco Police
Department. The condition requires the 2013 Project to comply with the provisions of the
South San Francisco Municipal Code which requires surveillance and lighting through building
permit review.
P3-82 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
S
ETTING
The Project would connect to and expand the existing 2001 Project parking facility and would
not be an employment generator as identified in Section 3.13 Population and Housing. Land
use and development density is consistent with the Citys general plan and zoning, as noted
above in Section 3.10 Land Use and Planning.
I
MPACTS
a d) Public Services
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result
in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the prov
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause s
in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times o
for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks and recre
government facilities.
As described above, in Section 3.10 Land Use and Planning and Section 3.13 Population
and Housing, the Project is not anticipated to increase the City of South San
population. School impact fees are required for new constructio
building permit issuance; although the 2013 Project would not increase the population of South
San Francisco. The South San Francisco Police and Fire Departments commented
Project through the Citys standard review process identified in Chapter 1 Sections 4 and 5.
The required conditions of Project approval (many identified wit Section 3.8 Hazardous
and Hazardous Materials) are standard. Neither department identified staffing or service
issues associated with redevelopment of and intensification of development on the site. The
Police Department identified requirements for building security.
required by Sergeant Scott Campbell reads:
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.48
Municipal Code, "Minimum Building Security Standards" Ordinance revised
May, 1995. The Police Department reserves the right to make add
security and safety conditions, if necessary, upon receipt of de
building plans.
Finding: The Project would not exceed the development and growth assum
the South San Francisco General Plan. Redevelopment of the Project site would not increase the
demand for public services individually or cumulatively.
PARKSFO–ISP3-83
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
3.15R
ECREATION
PotentiallyLess ThanLess Than
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
SignificantSignificant withSignificantNo
Determination of Environmental Impact
ImpactMitigationImpactImpact
XV.RECREATION —
a)Would the Project increase the use of existing X
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
X
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
1997 IS/MND
No mitigation measures were identified in the 1997 IS/MND.
S
ETTING
The 2013 Project is a 1.25 acre parcel currently developed with a paved pthat was
constructed in 2007 and would connect to the 2001 Project, if approved. The whole of these
actions constitute the 2013 Project.
The Project is consistent with the Citys general plan and zoning, as noted above in Section 3.10
Land Use and Planning and Section 3.13 Population and Housing.
I
MPACTS
a) and b) Recreation
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to resu
in an increase in the use of existing parks or recreational faci
deterioration of these facilities could be anticipated, or if ittional facilities,
the construction of which might have adverse physical effects on
The 2001 Project created a public park on the southern-most dry dock, and relocated and
improved the Bay Trail. The 2013 Project would not result in a significant increase in the use of
existing parks or recreational facilities as the site would not , office or
industrial purposes. Parks and recreational needs within the City are derived from th
population and development projections contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. The
2013 Project is consistent with these development assumptions and wou
population of the City, as noted in Sections 3.10 Land Use and Planning and 3.13
Population and Housing.
Finding: Parks and recreational needs within the City are derived from th
assumptions contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. The Project is consistent with
planning projections and needs assessments based upon the projecgeneral
plan and is not a population or employment generator. The Project would not result in an
individual or cumulatively considerable impact on parks and recreation.
P3-84 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
3.16 Transportation and Traffic
PotentiallyLess ThanLess Than
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
SignificantSignificant withSignificantNo
Determination of Environmental Impact
ImpactMitigationImpactImpact
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC — Would the
Project:
a)Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or X
policy establishing measures of effectiveness for
the performance of the circulation system, taking
into accounts all modes of transportation
including mass transit and non-motorized travel
and relative components of the circulation
system, including but not limited to intersections,
streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and
bicycle paths and mass transit?
b)Conflict with an applicable congestion X
management program including but not limited to
the level of service standards and travel demand
measures, or other standards established by the
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
X
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
X
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e)Result in inadequate emergency access?
X
g)Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or X
programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
1997 IS/MND
Mitigation Measure 8 requiring the north leg of the North Access
restriped is complete. Mitigation Measure 9 requiring the finalesign of the parking structure to
meet all police, fire and public works policies and standards fo
have been met as part of the 2001 Project.
Traffic and Circulation Analysis
The following traffic and circulation analysis is summarized from the Traffic Impact Report, Park
SFO, Long Term Parking Expansion, for the City of South San Francisco and Allison Knapp Consulting, by
Mark D. Crane, P.E. California Registered Traffic Engineer (#1381), Crane Transportation
Group, dated September 13, 2012 (Traffic Report). The complete Traffic Repor
Appendix A.
PARKSFO–ISP3-85
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
The Traffic Report and the following section evaluates the local
expansion of the Park SFO long term parking facilities for San F
along North Access Road in South San Francisco (2013 Project). The existing surface parking
constructed in 2007, would be demolished and a seven-level parking structure constructed in its
place, connecting to the existing Park SFO facility constructed in 2001. Total on-site parking
28
would increase from 1,901 to 3,194 spaces.
Access to all parking would remain in its existing location alonA
circulation impact evaluation has been conducted for existing, year 2015 and year 2035
conditions, both with and without the 2013 Project. Locations evaluated are the two
South Airport Boulevard intersections with I-380 ramps, the North Access Road intersection
with the eastbound end of the I-380 freeway just south of the Park SFO site and the North
Access Road/parking facility access driveway intersections.
S
ETTING
The existing Park SFO(2001 and 2007 Projects) long term parking operation (serving the San
Francisco International Airport-SFO) is located in the southern section of the City of South San
Francisco adjacent to and north of North Access Road. The eastb-380
freeway terminates at a signalized intersection with North Acces
site. Access between the site and the I-380 freeway is provided at two locations: via North
Access Road just south of the site and via South Airport Boulevard to the west of the site. The
I-380 ramps connecting to South Airport Boulevard also provide access to a northbound on-
ramp to the U.S.101 freeway. The I-380 freeway connecting to North Access Road just south of
the Project site also provides full access to the U.S.101 freeway via a series of north and
southbound on- and off-ramps (see Traffic Figure 1 Area Map and Traffic Figure 2 Project
Vicinity Roadways. Note: All figures are located at the end of the Traffic Sect
tables are provided throughout the text).
The existing Park SFO facility has a total of 1,901 long term pathe garage
and 625 in surface parking lots to the north and east of the garage. Acces
surface parking is provided via two side-by-side driveways on the outside of a 90-degree curve
along North Access Road, about 180 and 270 feet north of the sig-
380 end of freeway intersection. The southerly driveway connect
outbound traffic, while the northerly driveway is used primarily
Appendix Traffic Figure 1 Existing Site Plan). The 2013 Project would result in 2,833
garage spaces and 361 surface parking spaces. Customer and shut
via the two existing driveways along North Access Road (see Appendix Traffic Figure 2
Proposed Project Site Plan).
Existing parking numbers reflect what was surveyed in the field
28
narratives provide differing numbers. This initial study uses 1,901 spaces as the existing number of parking stalls
the 2013 Project portion of the site.
P3-86 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
RSECSO
OADWAY YSTEM AND XISTING IRCULATION YSTEM PERATION
A.Roadways
Direct access to the Project site is provided via North Access R
connects to the I-380 and U.S.101 freeways via the end of I-380 freeway connection just south
of the Project site and via two intersections with South Airport Boulevard to the west of the site.
Each roadway is briefly described below (see Traffic Figure 2).
North Access Road extends easterly from a signalized intersection with South Airport
Boulevard and an I-380 westbound on-ramp. Approximately 900 feet to the east it curves 90
degrees to the south and Tees into a signalized intersection wit
leg of the intersection). North Access Road then continues around the north and east edges of
San Francisco International Airport (as the east leg of the intersection). North Access Road
adjacent to the Project site has two north (west) bound through
bound through travel lane, and a single east (south) bound left
into the existing Park SFO facility as well as continuing to the-380 signalized intersection south
of the site. Class II striped bike lanes are along the segment of North Access Road
South Airport Boulevard and the I-380 ramp intersections. These lanes are part of the Bay Trail.
South Airport Boulevard is primarily a four-lane arterial roadway in South San Francisco
running parallel to and just east of the U.S.101 freeway. Addites are
provided on the approaches to its signalized intersections with -380 eastbound off-ramp and
an I-380 westbound on-ramp & North Access Road. Traffic Figure 3 Lane Geometrics and
Intersection Control provides a schematic presentation of approach lanes and control
intersections near the Project site.
U.S. 101 is an eight-lane north-south freeway that provides access to the Project area extending
from downtown San Francisco and Northern California to Los Angel
U.S.101 is approximately 0.38 miles west of the Project site. U.S. 101 is a major regional freeway
on the peninsula. The freeway has an Average Annual Daily Traff
229,000 vehicles south of I-380 including 15,900 vehicles during the peak hour. North of I-380
the AADT is approximately 204,000 vehicles and 14,700 vehicles d
B. Volumes
Existing weekday AM and PM peak period (7:00-9:00 AM and 4:00-6:00 PM) turn movement
29
counts were conducted by Crane Transportation Group on Wednesday 27, 2012 at the
following locations.
South Airport Boulevard/I-380 Eastbound Off-Ramp (signal)
South Airport Boulevard/I-380 Westbound On-Ramp/North Access Roa
North Access Road/Eastern End of the I-380 Freeway (signal)
North Access Road/Park SFO Two Driveways
Wednesday preceding the Labor Day weekend holiday.
29
PARKSFO–ISP3-87
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
The local street system peak traffic hours were 8:00-9:00 AM and 4:45-5:45 PM. Traffic
Figure 4 shows the existing AM and PM peak hour volumes. While the Park SFO facility peak
hours were7:00-8:00 AM and 4:00-5:00 PM, volumes on the local system were significantly
lower during these hours. The highest overall combined hours of
traffic, 8:00-9:00 AM and 4:45-5:45 PM, were used for analysis purposes in this study.
C.Intersection Levelof Service
1. Methodology
Transportation engineers and planners commonly use a grading sys
(LOS) to measure and describe the operational status of the loca
description of the quality of a roadway facilitys operation, ranging from LOS A (indicating
free-flow traffic conditions with little or no delay) to LOS F (repre
conditions where traffic flows exceed design capacity, resulting
Intersections, rather than roadway segments between intersection
capacity controlling locations for any circulation system.
Signalized Intersections. The 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board,
National Research Council) methodology was utilized for signalized intersections. Operations
are defined by the level of service and average control delay pe
for the entire intersection with this methodology. Control delay is the portion of the total delay
attributed to traffic signal operation for a signalized intersection. This includes delay associated
with deceleration, acceleration, stopping, and moving up in the Traffic Table 1
summarizes the relationship between delay and LOS for signalizedrsections.
2. Minimum Acceptable Operation
The City of South San Francisco uses Level of Service D (LOSD) as the minimum acceptable
operation for signalized intersections.
P3-88 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
TRAFFIC TABLE 1
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS CRITERIA
Level of Average Control Delay
Description
Service (Seconds Per Vehicle)
Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progress
A 10.0
and/or short cycle lengths.
Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or
B 10.1 to 20.0
short cycle lengths.
Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression an
C 20.1 to 35.0
longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorabl
D progression, long cycle lengths, and/or high volume-to-capacity (V/C) 35.1 to 55.0
ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are no
Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, l
E cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures afrequent 55.1 to 80.0
occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable d
Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due
F > 80.0
oversaturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths.
Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board).
3. Existing Operation
Traffic Table 2 shows that all three signalized intersections in close proximity
are operating acceptably during both the AM and PM peak traffic ter).
TRAFFIC TABLE 2
EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
Intersection AM Peak HourPM Peak Hour
South Airport Blvd./North Access B-10.3 B-19.4
(1)
Road/I-380 WB On-Ramp (Signal)
South Airport Blvd./I-380 EB Off-B-16.8 A-6.1
(1)
Ramp (Signal)
North Access Rd./I-380 End of B-10.0 A-9.4
(1)
Freeway (Signal)
Signalized level of service vehicle control delay in seconds.
(1)
Source: Crane Transportation Group
FCSOW2013P
UTURE IRCULATION YSTEM PERATION ITHOUT ROJECT
A.Year 2015
1. Volumes
Year 2015 without Project AM and PM peak hour volumes were developed utili
East of 101 traffic model, which was updated in 2012 to reflect revised land uses in the 328
Roebling Road and 475 Eccles Avenue projects. Resultant year 20weekday
AM and PM peak hour volumes are presented in Traffic Figure 5.
PARKSFO–ISP3-89
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
2. Intersection Level of Service
Traffic Table 3 shows that all three signalized intersections in close proximity
would be operating acceptably in 2015during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours (LOSB or
better). A small increase in traffic to/from Park SFO has been
even without any garage expansion.
TRAFFIC TABLE 3
YEAR 2015 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
(WITHOUT & WITH PROJECT)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection W/O Project With Project W/O Project With Project
South Airport Blvd./ B-12.5B-13.2C-23.8C-24.3
(1)
NorthAccess Rd./I-380 WB
On-Ramp (Signal)
South Airport Blvd./ B-16.8B-16.8B-10.1 B-10.1
(1)
I-380 EB Off-Ramp
(Signal)
North Access Rd./I-380 End B-10.2B-10.4A-9.6B-10.3
(1)
of Freeway (Signal)
Signalized level of service vehicle control delay in seconds.
(1)
Source: Crane Transportation Group
B. Year 2035
1. Volumes
Year 2035 without Project AM and PM peak hour volumes were developed utilizing the Citys
East of 101 traffic model. Resultant year 2035 without Project weekday AM and PM peak
hour volumes are presented in Traffic Figure 6.
2.Intersection Level of Service
Traffic Table 4 shows that all three signalized intersections in close proximity to the Pro
would be operating acceptably during both the AM and PM peak tra D or
better). A small increase in traffic to/from Park SFO has been
even without any garage expansion. All locations would be operatin A or B, with
the exception of the SouthAirport Boulevard/I-380 westbound on-ramp/North Access Road
intersection, which would have LOS D operation during the PM pea
P3-90 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
TRAFFIC TABLE 4
YEAR 2035 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
(WITHOUT & WITH PROJECT)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Existing Existing
Intersection ExistingWith Project Existing With Project
South Airport Blvd./ C-20.6 C-21.0 D-38.0D-38.4
(1)
North Access Rd./I-380 WB
On-Ramp (Signal)
South Airport Blvd./C-21.9 C-21.9 B-12.8 B-12.9
(1)
I-380 EB Off-Ramp
(Signal)
NorthAccess Rd./I-380End B-10.5 B-10.9 A-10.0 B-10.6
(1)
of Freeway (Signal)
Signalized level of service vehicle control delay in seconds. Source: Crane Transportation Group
(1)
I
MPACTS
a and b) Increase in Traffic in Relation to Existing Traffic Loa
Capacity
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it
an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic lo
the street system. Standards of Significance have been measured based on CEQA, City
San Francisco and C/CAG Guideline thresholds. Therefore, projec be
significant if they result in any of the following conditions.
a. The Project would exceed 100 net new peak hour trips on the loca
(C/CAG criteria only).
b. Signalized intersection operation would change from Level of Ser A, B, C or
D to LOS E or F and total volumes passing through the intersection would
by at least two percent.
c. The Project would increase total volumes passing through an inte
or more with signalized operation already at a Base Case LOS E or F.
2013 Project Trip Generation and Characteristics
The Project would add approximately 1,293 parking spaces to the
with parking increased from 1,901 up to 3,194 spaces. Trip genee 2013
Project was projected utilizing trip rates per parking space dev
on Wednesday, August 27, 2012; the week preceding the Labor Day holiday weekend.
Traffic Table 5 shows the trip rates for the existing Park SFO facility counted in August, 2012.
The 2013 Project would be expected to generate 21 inbound and 15
AM peak hour of commute traffic on the local circulation system,
outbound trips during the PM peak hour of commute traffic on the local circulation system (see
Traffic Table 6).
PARKSFO–ISP3-91
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
The existing Park SFO operation peak traffic hours during the AM
periods are offset by about an hour from times of peak traffic o
The times of peak traffic on the local circulation system produce the
all analysis intersections and have therefore been used for eval
SFO is not at its maximum generation during these hours. Additily, in order to evaluate a
conservative worst case analysis and to allow for daily and seas
expected number of new customer vehicles has been increased by 1
Using this 100 percent safety factor increase in customer vehiclhe 2013 Project increase in
parking spaces would be expected to generate 35 inbound and 21 o
peak hour of commute traffic on the local circulation system, wi
trips during the PM peak hour of commute traffic on the local circulation sys Traffic
Table 7). These volumes have been used for the analysis.
TRAFFIC TABLE 5
EXISTING PARK SFO WEEKDAY TRIP RATES
AM Peak Hour of AdjacentStreet Traffic PM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic
(8:00-9:00) (4:45-5:45)
Rate/100 Total Rate/100 Total
Existing Volume Spaces VolumeSpaces
Totals In Out In Out InOut In Out
Auto Auto1.0520.421 Auto Auto9.473 1.736
208 933
ShuttleShuttle 0.5260.631 ShuttleShuttle 0.579 0.684
1012 1113
Trip Rate Source: Crane Transportation Group based upon existin
TRAFFIC TABLE 6
PARK SFO PROPOSED PROJECT WEEKDAY TRIP GENERATION INCREMENT
DURINGPEAK HOURS OF ADJACENT STREET TRAFFIC
(1,293 NET NEW SPACES)
AM Peak Hour (8:00-9:00) PM Peak Hour (4:45-5:45)
In Out In Out
Rate/100 Rate/100 Rate/100 Rate/100
New Spaces Volume New SpacesVolume New Spaces Volume New Spaces Volume
Auto 1.05214 0.421 6 0.473 7 1.736 23
Shuttle 0.5267 0.631 9 0.579 8 0.684 9
Total 21 1515 32
Trip Rate Source: Crane Transportation Group based upon existin
TRAFFIC TABLE 7
PARK SFO PROPOSED PROJECT WEEKDAY TRIP GENERATION INCREMENT
WITH 100 % AUTO TRIP GENERATION INCREASE SAFETY FACTOR
(1,293 NET NEW SPACES)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
(8:00-9:00) (4:45-5:45)
In VolumeOut Volume In Volume Out Volume
Auto 28 12 1446
Shuttle7 989
Total 35 21 2255
Trip Rate Source: Crane Transportation Group based upon existin
P3-92 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
2013 Project Trip Distribution
The increment of traffic from the 2013 Project was distributed t
the same pattern as existing Park SFO traffic (see Traffic Figure 7). The vast majority of
customer and employee traffic accesses the site from the I-380 connection to North Access
Road, just south of the garage. All inbound shuttles use this r
outbound shuttles travel to the west to South Airport Boulevard.Overall, the 2013 Project
would be expected to result in less new traffic accessing South Airport Boulevard than I-380 just
south of the site based upon extrapolation of existing condition
The AM and PM peak hour Project traffic increment is presented i Traffic Figure 8, while
2015 and 2035 with Project AM and PM peak hour volumes are presented in Traffic
Figures 9 and 10.
Year 2015 Project Intersection Impacts
The addition of Project traffic would result in no significant i
intersection near the Project site in the year 2015. Operation of the South Airport Boulevard
intersections with the I-380 ramps would remain LOS A or B during the AM and PM peak
hours, while the North Access Road/I-380 end of freeway intersection just south of the garage
would be operating at LOS B during both commute peak traffic hours. Project traffic would
produce only a 0.7 second or less increase in delay at the three
Year 2035 Project Intersection Impacts
The addition of Project traffic would result in no significant it any signalized
intersection near the Project site in the year 2035. Operation of the South Airport Boulevard
intersections with the I-380 ramps would remain LOS A or B during the AM and PM peak
hours, with the exception of South Airport Boulevard at the I-380 westbound on-ramp which
would be operating at an acceptable LOS D during the PM peak hour (with or without
Project). The North Access Road/I-380 end of freeway intersection just south of the garage
would be operating at LOS B during both commute peak traffic hours. Project traffic would
produce a 0.6 second or less increase in delay at the three anal
PARKSFO–ISP3-93
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
c) Alter Air Traffic Patterns
Significance Criteria:The Project would have a significant effect if it were to result
air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in locat
in substantial safety risks
Air Navigation Hazards are discussed in Section 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The
Project site is located 200 feet from SFO property and approximately 1,300 feet from SFO
operations. The Project site is within the San Mateo County Airp
(ALUC) jurisdiction. The ALUC allows development within ALUC bo
development is below a prescribed height limit. The City, in co
coordination with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), establi South
San Francisco General Plan in compliance with the ALUC and FAA. The South San Francisco General
Plan indicates the maximum height for the Project is below the 160.9 contour. SFO has a
website that provides additional height information. The Projec
foot height contour airport-related height limit restriction as noted on SFOs website
(Http://ialp.airplanonline.com).
The Project would be 100 feet in height including the light pole
The building itself would be 80 to 90 feet including the stairwetor. The Project
would be 50 feet below the maximum permitted height, measured fr
d) Hazards Due to Design Features or Incompatible Uses
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to increa
hazards due to its design or the introduction of incompatible tr
The two project access intersections along North Access Road would remain in their existing
locations along the outside of a 90-degree curve. Sight lines are good from either driveway to
both the west (almost 500 feet) and to the south (from 180 to 27
driveway, to the I-380 end of freeway signalized intersection). Vehicles making le
either site driveway are infrequently delayed during PM commute
North Access Road backups extending past the site frontage from l at the I-380 end
of freeway intersection. However, these backups clear quickly a
30
continue to clear relatively quickly as area traffic increases.
30
It should be noted, however, that should northbound PM peak hour-380 freeway signalized
intersection extending in front of the garage driveways ever bec
made to significantly reduce these queues. The North Access Roa-380 end of freeway intersection will be
operating at good levels of service during both commute peak traffic hours in 2035, and
would be able to easily adjust timing without significantly degr
P3-94 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
e) Emergency Access
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to have
emergency access.
There are no emergency response or evacuation plans in effect in The
Project is requiredto have Emergency Responder Radio Coverage throughout in compliance
with Section 510 of the California Fire Code (Fire Marshal, Luis DaSilva letter to Planning
Department, June 25, 2012).
f) Alternative Transportation
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to conflict with adop
policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportatio
racks).
The Project supports alternative transportation modes by offering a shuttle to and from
the airport and long term parking.
Finding: The 2013 Project would not result in a significant impact to the
closest to the Project. The Project would not degrade an inters
Management Plan. The Project would not result in a project-or cumulative-level impact to the
closest intersections to the site and as such would not impact intersect
The analysis accounted for a doubling of traffic volumes measure
facility and represents a conservative worst case analysis accou
variations. The Project would not alter any air traffic patterns that are al
Project would have no impact with respect to air traffic hazards. The Project would have no
impact on alternative transportation use and provides shuttle bus service as an alternative to
privately owned vehicle single-occupancy travel. The Project would keep the existing site acces
patterns, has been reviewed by South San Francisco Police and Fi
required conditions of approval would have a less than significant impact on em
The 2013 Project would result in a less than significant impact
intersectionand roadways.
PARKSFO–ISP3-95
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
Source: Crane Transportation Group
FIGURE 1
AREA MAP
P3-96 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
Source: Crane Transportation Group
FIGURE 2
PROJECT VICINITY ROADWAYS
PARKSFO–ISP3-97
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
Source: Crane Transportation Group
FIGURE 3
LANE GEOMETRICS AND INTERSECTION CONTROL
P3-98 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
Source: Crane Transportation Group
FIGURE 4
EXISTING AM AND PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
PARKSFO–ISP3-99
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
Source: Crane Transportation Group
FIGURE 5
2015 AM AND PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT
P3-100 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
Source: Crane Transportation Group
FIGURE 6
2035 AM AND PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT
PARKSFO–ISP3-101
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
Source: Crane Transportation Group
FIGURE 7
2015 OR 2035 AM AND PM PEAK HOUR PROJECT DISTRIBUTION
P3-102 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
Source: Crane Transportation Group
FIGURE 8
AM AND PM PEAK HOUR PROJECT INCREMENT
PARKSFO–ISP3-103
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
Source: Crane Transportation Group
FIGURE 9
2015 AM AND PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH PROJECT
P3-104 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
Source: Crane Transportation Group
FIGURE 10
2035 AM AND PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH PROJECT
PARKSFO–ISP3-105
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
3.17USS
TILITIES AND ERVICE YSTEMS
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions forPotentiallyLess ThanLess Than
Determination of Environmental ImpactSignificantSignificant withSignificantNo
ImpactMitigationImpactImpact
XVII.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS —Would the
Project:
a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of X
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
b)Require or result in the construction of new
X
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 X
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 X
the Project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
e)Result in a determination by the wastewater X
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?
f)Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
X
capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid
waste disposal needs?
g)Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
X
and regulations related to solid waste?
1997 IS/MND
Mitigation Measure 13 requiring a hydrologic studyrepresents as-built conditions. The
conditions of approval identified in Chapter 1.2.4 and 5 are required as a matter of law by the
City and therefore replace Mitigation Measure 13 with updated requirements for the 2013
Project.
S
ETTING
The Project site is a 1.25acre parcel currently developed with a paved parking lot which was
constructed in 2007. The Project site is adjacent to and will become an extension of the 5.96-
acre Park SFO parking garage constructed in 2001, if approved. The whole of these actions are
the 2013 Project.
P3-106 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
I
MPACTS
a) Regional Wastewater Treatment Standards
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it
exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regio
Board (RWQCB).
The Citys storm drain outfalls operate under NPDES permits gran
South San Francisco Municipal Code (Title 14) contains regulatio
management. As identified in Chapter 1.2.4 and 5 and in Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water
Quality as a matter of law, projects are required to implement BMPs and
comply with SWPPP regulations. Mr. Lecel, Senior Environmental Compliance Coordinator for
the City reviewed the Project, identified conditions of approval
extraordinary measures or significant impacts with respect to wastThe City is in
compliance with their RWQCB permit.
.
b) and e) Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if
in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which mact that it has
inadequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in a
commitments.
All wastewater produced within the City of South San Francisco i
Quality Control Plant (WQCP), which is located at the end of Belle Air Road, near the edge of
San Francisco Bay, just north of the Project site. The WQCP is jointly owned by
South San Francisco and San Bruno, and it treats all wastewater
The WQCP also has contracts to treat most of the wastewater producedTown of Colma
and a portion of the wastewater produced by the City of Daly Cit
treatment plant was upgraded in 2000-01. The Project as a matter of law would be required to
pay wastewater improvement fees.
The City of South San Francisco has a current allocation of 8.74,
is currently generating 5.6 MGDand projects 6.2 MGD upon build-out of recent plan
amendments that increase permitted density along the south El Camino Corridor. The capacity
allocated to the City of South San Francisco is based upon the g
the Citys general plan and the South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment (2009). The
2013 Project is not requesting a variance to floor area or density reg
development assumptions and designations identified in the CityAs a result, the
amount of wastewater generated by the Project is within the general plan growth projections and
associated wastewater treatment capacity allocations.
.
PARKSFO–ISP3-107
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
c) Storm Water Drainage Facilities
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it
require or result in the construction of new storm water drainag
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause signi
The Project is connected into the stormwater facilities, and required by law to improve the
existing hydrologic conditions on the entire seven acre site inc
BMP and LID measures, as identified in the Introduction Chapter 1.5.4 and Section 3.9
Hydrology and Water Quality (verified by Mr. Rob Lecel, e-mail May 10, 2013. As a result of
these design features and measures, the 2013 Project would not increase water runoff.
.
b) and d) Water Treatment Facilities and Supply
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if
require additional water supply beyond that available from exist
Senate Bill 610 (SB 610) was adopted in 2001 and became effectivy 1, 2002. SB 610
requires cities to consider water supply assessments to determin
supplies can meet a projects water demand. SB 610 and the CEQA
identify residential projects generally exceeding 500 units and commercial or industrial projects
employing more than 1,000 persons as potential impact thresholds
Potable water is provided for the City of South San Francisco byCalifornia Water Service
Company (CWSC)and the Westborough County Water District (WCWD). CWSC provides
water to the area east of Interstate 280 (I-280) in South San Francisco, including the Project site,
and its service areas includes the Townof Colma and the Broadmoor area. WCWD serves the
portion of South San Francisco west of I-280. CWCS receives water from the City and County
of San Francisco, through the San Francisco Public Utilities Commissio
CWSC drafted and adopted an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) i
was established in accordance with the California Urban Water Ma
(Division 6 Part 2.6 of the Water Code, Section 10610-10656). Water Code Section 10910 subd.
(c)(2), Government Code, Section 66473.7, subd. (c)(1) notes tha
recently adopted UWMPto assess water supply in accordance with the California Urban W
Management Planning Act and SB 610. Between sources guaranteed by a settlement agreement
and the purchase of the Los Trancos County Water District CWSC h
31
Allocation of 35.5 million gallons a day (MGD) of water indefinitely. The UWMP projected
that the South San Francisco District population would increase
in 2020; an increase of approximately 0.8 percent per year.
The population of the CWSC service area is projected to be 64,050 by 2020. S
Franciscos total population is anticipated to be approximately
population projections for CWSC are approximately 82 percent of of
CWSC, 2006 Urban Water Management Plan for South San Francisco, 006.
31
P3-108 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
South San Francisco. Therefore, in 2020 it is anticipated that
32
will be 57,678 providing adequate water supply for existing and projected development. The
significance threshold set by Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations, Section
15083.5 identifies the addition of 1000 employees as the threshold for additional assessment of
potential water impacts. The Project currently employs nine people per shift. There are
shifts, for 24 employees associated with the 24 hour/365 day operation. The Project is also
converting to a walk-and-pay method that is not likely to require the addition of many
employees to service the expansion. Even a doubling of the exis
2013 Project would not represent a significant increase in water consumption on both Project
and cumulative levels.
The 2013 Project is consistent with the development and employee assumpti
general plan, including the South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment and the UWMP
which builds upon the development and growth assumptions in plan in the
entire service area.
.
f) and g) Solid Waste
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it
served by a landfill with inadequate permitted capacity to accom
disposal needs, or if it were to fail to fully comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste.
The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) manages
and disposal data for South San Francisco. Non-recyclable or non-compostable waste is
disposed at Ox Mountain landfill near Half Moon Bay. The closure
2023.
CIWMB notes South San Franciscos solid waste generation is 7.76
Solid waste projected at build-out (year 2020) is anticipated to be 276 tons per day. The Ox
Mountain landfill has a maximum permitted disposal rate of 3,598
Francisco. The total projected solid waste disposal needs for S
33
cumulative projections, is 7.7 percent of the daily permitted waste intake.
UWMP, 2006 and South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment and E
32
and Bhatia, November, 2009, updated by Knapp Consulting October
South San Franciscos existing and projected waste stream generation include an approximate 50 p
33
demonstrated diversion rate (South El Camino Real General Plan A
Francisco, Dyatt and Bhatia, November, 2009, updated by Knapp Co012 in the 475 Eccles EIR
and initial study).
.
PARKSFO–ISP3-109
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
Finding: The Citys wastewater treatment plant was upgraded in 2000-01. The Project as a
matter of law would be required to pay wastewater improvement fe. The wastewater
treatment plant has capacity to treat Project and cumulative pro The UWMP,
adopted in 2006, shows adequate water is available for the Project and projected cumulative
development. There is adequate capacity at Ox Mountain landfill for Project a
solid waste and the City is meeting its 50 percent solid waste d
construction and operations of the Project would be required to incorporated LIDs and BMPs
for stormwater treatment; an improvement over existing conditions. Stormwater is required to
be treated on-site. The Project would not contribute individually or cumulatively
wastewater, solid waste, stormwater, or utility impacts.
3.18MFS
ANDATORY INDINGS OF IGNIFICANCE
PotentiallyLess ThanLess Than
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
SignificantSignificant withSignificantNo
Determination of Environmental Impact
ImpactMitigationImpactImpact
XVIII.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE —
a)Does the Project have the potential to degrade
X
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
X
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,
X
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
a) Quality of the Environment
All environmental impacts associated with aesthetics, agricultur
greenhouse gas emissions, health risks, cultural resources including important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory, hydrology and water quality, land use and
planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public servtraffic and
circulation with the payment of the East of 101 Traffic Impact fee required and
P3-110 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
utilities and service systems are considered less than significanwithout additional mitigation
measures.
The Project would have a less than significant impact with implementation of the identi
mitigation measures to 1) biological resources including the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or w
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 ; 3)
geology and soils with respect to the quality of undocumented fill; 3) the release of hazardous
and hazardous materials during construction; and, 4) noise during construction.
b) Cumulative Impacts
The Project does not have impacts that are individually limited,
with the implementation of the biology mitigation measures.
c) Adverse Effects on Human Beings
The Project would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly with the implementation of the hazards and
hazardous materials and noise mitigation measures.
SF:
UMMARY OF INDINGS
NOTE: All referenced mitigation measures follow in Section 3.19 Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program.
A: The Project would not have an impact on the aesthetics or scenic
ESTHETICS
site or in the area. There would be no individual or cumulativeaesthetic,
visual quality or light and glare associated with the Project wi
Mitigations 2 and 3. No mitigations from the 1997 IS/MND carry over to the 2013 Project.
ATR: Prior to 2001, the 1.25 acre Project site supported
GRICULTURAL AND IMBER ESOURCES
industrial land uses, ship repair, warehouse and freight forward-2003 was
used as a composting area for the Citys Water Quality Control P
paved and used for surface parking as part of the Park SFO facility since 2007. The Project
would not adversely affect any existing agricultural operations as none exist on the site. The
Project would not impact agricultural resources individually or
Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance (Far
Act Contract. The site is not zoned for timberland production or in use as would not
cause rezoning of forest land (as defined in the Public Resource20(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526) o
Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section5110No mitigations
from the 1997 IS/MND carry over to the 2013 Project.
PARKSFO–ISP3-111
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
AQ/HR: The Project would not result in a significant impact to air
IR UALITYAZARD ISKS
quality and would not result in a cumulatively considerable net
pollutants (ozone precursors, PM10, and PM2.5). The annual PM2.5
3
implementation of the Project would be 0.02 µg/mbelow the BAAQMD threshold of 0.3
3
µg/m, and hence is considered less than significant. The Citys bui
captures the BAAQMD permitting regulations, as well as BAAQMDs
control measures. The Project would be below the daily and annual operational criteria
thresholds and would not result in significant or cumulative imp Odor impacts associated
with construction and operation of the Project would be less thasignificant.
The Project would be below the thresholds of significance for he
would be 0.01 well below the BAAQMD threshold of 1 and the impact of the Proje
therefore be less than significant. The acute HI would be 0.01. The acute HI would be below
the BAAQMD threshold of 1 and the impact of the Project would th
significant.
The cumulative impacts are below the BAAQMD significance threshoGiven that the
Project would not result in increased health impacts exceeding the Project-level thresholds, the
Project would also not result in a cumulatively considerable con
and hazard impacts, resulting in a less than significant cumulative air quality impact. No
mitigations from the 1997 IS/MND carry over to the 2013 Project.
GG: The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cum
REENHOUSE AS
impact with respect to GHG emissions. No mitigations from the 1997 IS/MND carry over to
the 2013 Project.
B: The Project would expand the existing parking structure over an
IOLOGY
parking lot that does not serve as an important movement corrido
structure is not expected to interfere substantially with native corridors or impede the
use of native wildlife nursery sites. Species common in the vic
the open water habitat of the former drydocks and the basin areaNo
approved Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan encompasses,
governs or regulates the site. Therefore the Project would not conflict with any approved
Habitat Conservation Plans and as such would have no impact.
Implementation of the Biology Mitigation 1 would reduce potential Project impacts to nesting
birds to less-than-significant. The Project would have no impact on any sensitive n
communities or jurisdictional wetlands as it would be completely located in uplands, and would
not directly affect any sensitive natural communities, jurisdictional wetlands or open waters of
the former drydocks and the basin area of San Bruno Canal. Implementation of Biology
Mitigation 2 would reduce Project impacts to less-than-significant with respect to habitat
quality and policy compliance. Implementation of Biology Mitigation 3 would reduce the
lighting impact to less-than-significant. Implementation of Biology Mitigation 4 would reduce
the permitting and policy impact to less-than-significant. The Project would have a less-than-
significant impact with implementation of Biology Mitigations 1-4. 1997 Mitigation 10 is not
applicable to the 2013 Project and has been redefined and replacBiology Mitigations 1 and
3.
P3-112 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
CR: Prior to 2001, the 1.25 acre Project site supported industrial land uses,
ULTURAL ESOURCES
ship repair, warehouse and freight forwarding, and from 2001-2003 was used as a composting
area for the Citys Water Quality Control Plant. There is no ev
paleontological resources on the site as witnessed during previo
activities in 1999 and 2007 and in the boring logs. In light of
Regulations, Public Resources Code Section 4852.1, there are no
entirety of the Project site. The Project would have no impact on cultural resources. Mitigation
measure 15 from the 1997 IS/MND is not carried forward to the 20
unnecessary.
GS: There are no active faults underlying the site and the nearest one is the
EOLOGY AND OILS
San Andreas Fault, located about three miles northeast. The haz
site is considered to be low (Furgo West, 2003). Therefore, the Project would have a less than
significant impact on exposing people or structures to danger fr
earthquake fault. Conformance with the latest CBC would ensure t
ground-shaking is reduced to a level of less than significant.The Geotechnical Report concludes
that the liquefaction potential necessary for liquefaction of materials under the Proj
low. The Project would have a less than significant impact with respec
subsurface materials. There is no threat of landslides on the Pr
would have no impact with respect to landslides. Erosion control measures are required as a
matter of law and as a result this impact is considered to be le The Project
would have no impact on soils due to septic systems as the project is connected to the Citys
sanitary system. The Project would have a less than significant
soils because it would be located on soils with a low potential
The Project would have less than significant impacts with respect to a geologic unit becoming
unstable with implementation of Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure 1. No mitigations
from the 1997 IS/MND carry over to the 2013 Project.
HHM:The Project would have no impact from the
AZARDS AND AZARDOUS ATERIALS
emission or handling of hazardous materials or wastes on schools
contamination posed by the sites listed on the Cortese List. The impact of the Project with
regards to hazardous materials would be less than significant with respect to operational
activities. The Project would have a less than significant impact on the pot
hazardous materials during construction with implementation of Hazards Mitigation 1. No
mitigations from the 1997 IS/MND carry over to the 2013 Project.
There are no existing or proposed schools or day care centers or
of the Project site. The maximum height of the Project, including the light poles on the roof
level would be 100 feet. The building itself would be 80 to 90 feet in height including the
stairwells and elevator. The Project would not encroach in the 150 -175 foot zone. There are
no emergency response or evacuation plans in effect in the Proje Therefore the
Project would have no impact on the implementation of any adopted eme
or emergency evacuation plan. The South San Francisco Fire Department is in the process of
initiating a study to identify offensive capabilities in the Pro Project would be
required through conditions of approval to provide a fair share
departments study and improvements. There is no wildland in the vicinity of the Project site or
area. The Project would have no impact with respect to wildland fires.
PARKSFO–ISP3-113
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
HWQ: The Citys standard conditions of approval which
YDROLOGY AND ATER UALITY
implement state, federal and local regulations are required by l
any potential water quality impacts as a result of Project construction or occupation. The site is
not within a flood zone or an area subject to seiche or tsunami -up zones. No
mitigation measures, above those required by the City as a matte
initial study. The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulati
hydrology or water quality resources. No mitigations from the 1997 IS/MND carry over to the
2013 Project.
LUP: TheProject would not physically divide an established
AND SE AND LANNING
community. The site is planned for light industrial uses and the Project is consistent
planned uses. There are no conservation or natural community co
the Project site or area. The Project would not result in any individually or cumulatively
considerable impacts. No mitigations from the 1997 IS/MND carry over to the 2013 Project.
MR: The Project site does not contain any local or regionally significant
INERAL ESOURCES
mineral resources. The Project would not result in an impact or
impact to mineral resources. No mitigations from the 1997 IS/MND carry over to the 2013
Project.
N: Demolition and construction related noise impacts would be consi
OISE
significant with implementation of the Noise Mitigation Measures 1-3. No mitigations from
the 1997 IS/MND carry over to the 2013 Project.
The Project would not individually increase noise levels in the related to trafficnor would
the Project contribute to a cumulative impact with respect to noise and as such noise impacts
associated with the Project would result in no impact. The site is located the 65 dB contour
interval and is an airport related use which is long-term parking. The Project would have no
impact with respect to excessive aircraft noise exposure as it is an airport-related use consisting of
long term parking and contains no sensitive receptors or land us
PH:The Project is consistent with the development and growth
OPULATION AND OUSING
assumptions contained in the South San Francisco General Plan in that it would be an expansion of
the existing airport-related facility, and not a significant contributor to the job m
Project site does not include housing and would not displace hou or residents. No
mitigations from the 1997 IS/MND carry over to the 2013 Project.
PS: The Project would not exceed the development and growth assumpti
UBLIC ERVICES
contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. Redevelopment of the Project site would not
increase the demand for public services individually or cumulati No mitigations from the
1997 IS/MND carry over to the 2013 Project.
R: Parks and recreational needs within the City are derived from the
ECREATION
assumptions contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. The Project is consistent with
planning projections and needs assessments based upon the projec South
San Francisco General Plan and is not a population or employment generator. The Project wo
not result in an individual or cumulatively considerable impact No
mitigations from the 1997 IS/MND carry over to the 2013 Project.
P3-114 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
TC:The 2013 Project would not result in a significant
RANSPORTATION AND IRCULATION
impact to the three intersections closest to the Project. The Pro
intersection identified in a Congestion Management Plan. The Pr
project-or cumulative-level impact to the closest intersections to the site and as such would not
impact intersections further from the site. The analysis accoun
volumes measured at the existing Park SFO facility (2001 and 2007 Projects) and represents a
conservative worst case analysis accounting for daily and seasonal variations. The Project would
not alter any air traffic patterns that are already in place and
with respect to air traffic hazards. The Project would have no
transportation use and provides shuttle bus service an alternative to privately owne
single-occupancy travel. The Project would keep the existing site acces
reviewed by South San Francisco Police and Fire Departments and ns
of approval would have a less than significant impact on emergenThe 2013 Project
would result in a less than significant impact at the access dri and roadways.
No mitigations from the 1997 IS/MND carry over to the 2013 Project.
USS: The Citys wastewater treatment plant was upgraded in
TILITIES AND ERVICE YSTEMS
2000-01. The Project as a matter of law would be required to pay wastewat.
The wastewater treatment plant has capacity to treat Project andlative projected
wastewater. The UWMP, adopted in 2006, shows adequate water is available for the Project and
projected cumulative development. There is adequate capacity at Ox Mountain landfill for
Project and cumulative solid waste and the City is meeting its 50 percent solid waste diversion
mandate. Demolition, construction and operation of the Project would be required to
incorporated LIDs and BMPs for stormwater treatment; an improvement over existing
conditions. Stormwater is required to be treated on-site. The Project would not contribute
individually or cumulatively to water, wastewater, solid waste, stormwater, or utility impacts.
No mitigations from the 1997 IS/MND carry over to the 2013 Project.
3.19MM/RP
ITIGATION ONITORINGEPORTING ROGRAM
DEFINITIONSAND REQUIREMENTS
Applicant shall mean the applicant, proponent, agent or otherwi
Project. A cost pass-through agreement shall mean a legally executed agreement betwe
Applicant and City to reimburse the City for costs associated wi
the mitigation measures contained herein.
All mitigation measures required herein shall be noted by the Ap
designated representative, on the set of plans submitted to the
grading and/or construction permits, however phased. The Plannin
review the plans for compliance to these requirements prior to a
and/or construction permits, being issued by the Building and/or
Divisions of the City. The requirements shall be on the approved set of pl
City and the job site. The General Contractor shall sign the sh
mitigation measures and attesting to understanding the measures
measures.
PARKSFO–ISP3-115
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
No mitigation measures carry forward from the 1997 IS/MND. The
implemented or redefined significantly in the following MMRP.
MITIGATION IMPLEMENTATION
BIOLOGY IMPACT 1: POTENTIAL PRESENCE OF ACTIVE BIRD NESTS IN
PROXIMITY TO CONSTRUCTION COULD RESULT IN
A TAKE OF A PROTECTED SPECIES
There is a remote potential for presence of active nests in clos
site. Construction activities could disturb or result in a take
BIOLOGY MITIGATION 1.A: Outside of Nesting Season: Vegetation and tree removal
shall be scheduled to take place outside of the nesting season (
August 31) to avoid impacts to nesting birds; or,
BIOLOGY MITIGATION 1.B: During Nesting Season: A qualified biologist (Biologist)
shall conduct a pre-construction nesting bird (both passerine and raptor) survey within seven
days prior to the commencement of construction if construction i
nesting season. The survey shall be within 300 feet of the limits of proposed constru and
shall be performed by a Biologist. If no nesting birds are observed no further action is
and grading and ground breaking activities shall occur within ony to prevent
take of individual birds that could begin nesting after the surv
Another nesting survey shall be conducted if more than seven days elapse between
nest search and the beginning of tree removal and construction actiologist shall
determine the disturbance-free buffer zone to be established around the nest tree(s) until the
young have fledged, as determined by the Biologist if active bird nests (either passerine and/or
raptor) are observed during the pre-construction survey.
A qualified biologist shall determine the radius of the required
depending on the species, (i.e., 75-100 feet for passerines and 300 feet for raptors). The
dimensions of the zone shall be determined by a qualified biolog
California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Orange construction fencing, flagging, or other marking system sh
buffer area at the specified radius from nest location(s)within which no cranes or other
equipment associated with the parking structure construction sha
the surface parking areas for parking and parking lot maintenanc
setback zone.
There would be no restrictions on grading or construction activities outside
buffer zone after the no-construction zone has been identified.
A survey report of findings verifying that any young have fledge
and approval by the Chief Planner at the City of South San Franc
P3-116 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
initiation of any grading or other construction activities withiFollowing
approval by the Chief Planner, grading and construction in the n
Implementation/Timing: Applicant, at Citys review and approval, shall PRIOR to issuance
of demolition, grading or building permits retain the services osurvey
if tree removal is conducted during nesting season. The cost of services shall be borne by the
Applicant. A cost pass-through agreement, if necessary, shall be executed between the C
the Applicant prior to issuance of building and/or grading permi
Responsible Party(ies): City Planning Division, consulting biologist and Applicant.
BIOLOGY IMPACT 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS ON THE SITE ARE NOT IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN
FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN AND THE EAST OF 101
AREA PLAN POLICIES THAT DIRECT THE
PROTECTION OF HABITAT, REMOVAL OF INVASIVE
EXOTIC PLANTS AND PLANTING AND
MAINTENANCE OF NATIVE VEGETATION TO
PROVIDE ADEQUATE CONTROL OF INVASIVE PLANT
SPECIES AND SUCCESSFUL ESTABLISHMENT OF
NATIVE ENHANCEMENT PLANTINGS.
BIOLOGY MITIGATION MEASURE 2: The landscape plan for the Project shall be
revised to include an Invasive Species Removal Program , eliminating pampas gr
broom, and other invasive species listed as having a high or
Non-Native Plants that Threaten Wildlands in California according tInventory
of the California Invasive Species Council (Cal IPC). All invas
the site and the adjacent segment of the Bay Trail along the nor
on the south side of the existing parking structure.
The landscape plan shall also be revised to include a Native Species Enhanceme; a
plan to provide for installation of additional native species in area
plantings are absent or performing poorly. Of particular concer
existing parking structure, between the concrete Bay Trail and t;
an area planted with non-native species that are performing poorly or dead. Concrete rubble
and non-organic fills shall be removed from the ground surface and a layer of top soil installed
to a minimum depth of six inches to provide a growing substrate
area shall be planted with native creeping wildrye (Leymus triti
approximately one-foot centers to provide a continuous groundcover. Any shrubs or
planted in this location shall be restricted to native species indigenous to the South San
Francisco area. All new native plantings shall be provided shor-term irrigation for a minimum
of three years during the dry season to ensure successful establ
die shall be replaced during this establishment period.
All native plantings installed as part of the Native Species Enh
monitored annually, for a period of three years, by a qualified landscape architect or biologist.
The annual monitoring report shall summarize the condition of th
plantings, status of invasive species removal, and include recoms for any corrective
PARKSFO–ISP3-117
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
work necessary. Copies of the annual monitoring reports shall beChief Planner
at City of South San Francisco Planning Division by December 31 of each reporting year. If
native enhancement plantings have not become successfully established or target invasive
species are still present on the site and adjacent corridor of t
required to submit a remedial enhancement plan and extend the mo
reporting until successful establishment has been achieved.
A report of successful completion of the Native Species Enhancem
provided for review and approval by the Chief Planner of the City of South San Francisco at the
end of the three year monitoring period. The row of non-native Lombardy poplar proposed as
part of the Landscape Plan along the east side of the new parkin
screen the building in views from the east; however, the area between the row of poplar
plantings and shoreline of the drydock shall be planted exclusively with native spe
enhance this area as part of the Native Species Enhancement Prog
Future landscape maintenance of the site shall include the routi
removal of any target invasive species identified in the Invasive Species Removal ProgrThe
maintenance and monitoring shall include the native species enha
of the existing parking structure.
Implementation/Timing: Applicant shall implement this mitigation by providing the
landscape plans in conformance with this mitigation. The plans shall be reviewed (modified if
necessary) and approved by the City. The plans shall be provided, reviewed and approved
PRIOR to issuance of any demolition, grading or building permits
biologist (retained by the City and paid for by the Applicant) smonitor the landscape
improvements on the site annually for a period of three years an
Chief Planner. Corrections and modifications to the landscape and an extension to t
monitoring period may occur if the performance objectives are noThe cost of
services shall be borne by the Applicant. A cost pass-through agreement, if necessary, shall be
executed between the City and the Applicant prior to issuance of b
issuance.
Responsible Party(ies): City Planning Division, consulting biologist and Applicant.
BIOLOGY IMPACT 3: SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN LIGHT ONTO BAY LANDS
MAY REDUCE THE HABITAT VALUE OF THE TIDAL
AREA (WETLAND HABITAT) AND WOULD CONFLICT
WITH POLICY CON-7.
BIOLOGY MITIGATION 3: All lighting in the new parking structure and any modifications
to existing lighting shall be shielded and oriented onto the site to prevent off-site illumination
and glare into the adjacent wetland habitat along San Bruno Cana
P3-118 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
Implementation/Timing: Applicant shall provide the City with a lighting plan to be re
by the Chief Planner and Police Department. The lighting plan sh
this mitigation measure. The plans shall be provided, reviewed and approved PRIOR to
issuance of any demolition, grading or building permits for the
Responsible Party(ies): City Planning Division, Police Department, Applicant.
BIOLOGY IMPACT 4: PROJECT COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION
PRIOR TO APPROVAL OR CONDITIONAL APPROVAL
FROM THE BAY CONSERVATION AND
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AND THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
LAW AND EAST OF 101 AREA PLANPOLICY CON:-7.
BIOLOGY MITIGATION 4: No building, grading or construction permit shall be issued by
the City in absence of written approvals/conditional approvals for the development analyzed in
this Initial Study by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the
Department of Fish and Game. Written approvals from the Bay Conservation and
Development Commission and the California Department of Fish and shall be provided
to the Chief Planner and Building Official PRIOR to issuance of any demolition, grading or
construction permits for the Project. Any plan modifications re
agencies shall be incorporated into the Project plans and reviewed by the Chief Planner, prior to
issuance of any demolition, grading on construction permits for
Implementation/Timing: Applicant shall contact the identified permitting agencies and
secure Project approval. Written approvals shall beprovided to the City PRIOR to issuance of
any demolition, grading or building permits for the Project.
Responsible Party(ies): Applicant, City Planning, and Building Divisions.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS IMPACT 1: REUSE OF IMPROPERLY COMPACTED
OR INCOMPETENT SOIL ON THE SITE
COULD RESULT IN UNSTABLE
CONDITIONS.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS MITIGATION 1: A state licensed registered engineering geologist
and principal geotechnical engineer shall be on site during grad
supervise and inspect conditions and shall certify to the City t
compacted and emplaced to the Citys Standards or that all undoc
from the site prior to construction commencing.
Implementation/Timing: Applicant shall contact retain the services of the state licensed
registered engineering geologist and principal geotechnical engi
prepared in conformance with Geology and Soils Mitigation 1. The grading plan shall be
reviewed by the Citys consulting geotechnical engineers and modified and approved as
necessary PRIOR to a demolition or grading permit being issued by the City. The certification
PARKSFO–ISP3-119
NITIAL TUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
of as-built compaction shall be provided PRIOR to issuance of construc
Building Division.
Responsible Party(ies): Applicant, Public Works, and Building Divisions.
HAZARDS IMPACT 1: PROJECT PLANS DO NOT INCLUDE CIVIL DRAWINGS
THAT INDICATE THE LOCTION OF POTENTIAL ON-
AND OFF-SITE MONITORING WELLS, GAS AND FUEL
PIPELINES, UTILITY EASEMENTS, OTHER
EASEMENTS AND ACCURATE PROPERTY LINES.
CONSTRUCTING OVER THESE TYPES OF FACILITIES
WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER ACCESSS FOR
MAINTENANCE WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.
MOREOVER, GRADING AND FOUNDATION
EMPLACEMENT COULD RUPTURE PIPELINES
RESULTING IN A LEAK OR OTHER HAZARDOUS
CONDITION.
HAZARDS MITIGATION 1: The Applicant, contractor or Project sponsor shall provide
civil engineering (wet stamped by a California licensed civil e
utility and access easements as well as the location of all underground facilities, including
monitoring wells and fuel lines and property lines, prior to iss
or building permits by the City. Project construction plans sha
requirements for underground utility maintenance. Santa Fe Pipeline and
representatives shall be contacted and provided an opportunity t
to assure adequate access is provided for their facilities. Writheir review,
approval and/or modifications shall be provided to the City prior to issuance of any grading,
demolition or construction permits. The construction drawings shall be altered as necessary to
provide adequate access and depending upon the magnitude of alte
Project to undergo subsequent design and entitlement review.
Implementation/Timing: Applicant and Applicants Civil Engineer shall provide the civil
drawings PRIOR to City issuance of demolition or grading permits for the Project.Written
confirmation of Santa Fe Pipeline and Shell Oil review, approval
provided to the City PRIOR to issuance of any grading, demolitiots.
Responsible Party(ies): Applicant, and City Planning and Building Divisions.
NOISE IMPACT 1: NOISE LEVELS MAY EXCEED 90 DB AT THE PROPERTY
LINE IN VIOLATION OF THE CITYS NOISE
ORDINANCE.
NOISE MITIGATION 1.A: At the discretion of the Building Officiala waiver may be
applied for and secured given that the Project is not located in a noise sensitive area and there
are no sensitive receptors within 0.65 miles of the site,
P3-120 PARKSFO–IS
AGE NITIAL TUDY
C3:EC
HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST
or,
NOISE MITIGATION 1.B: Erect temporary sound barriers, select quieter equipment and
locate the noisiest equipment further from the property lines whenever possible to increase
noise attenuation.
Implementation/Timing: PRIOR to the City issuance of demolition and grading permits
compliance with Noise Mitigation 1.A or 1.B shall be secured by an approved waiver or the
types of quieter equipment and/or temporary sound walls shall be no
to the Building Division for grading and demolition permits.
Responsible Party(ies): Applicant and Building Division.
NOISE IMPACT 2: PROJECT PROPOSES SATURDAY CONSTRUCTION TO
BEGIN AT 8:30 AM IN VIOLATION OF THE CITYS NOISE
ORDINANCE START TIME OF 9 AM.
NOISE MITIGATION 2.A: The Project sponsor shall note on the approved building and job
copy plans that Saturday operations shall not begin prior to 9 A
NOISE MITIGATION 2.B: At the discretion of the Building Official: The Project Spons
or contractor shall apply for and secure a waiver to the Saturda
Implementation/Timing: PRIOR to the City issuance of demolition and grading permits
compliance with Noise Mitigation 2.A or 2.B shall be secured by an approved waiver or the
types of quieter equipment and/or temporary sound walls shall be
to the Building Division for grading and demolition permits.
Responsible Party(ies): Applicant and Building Division.
NOISE IMPACT 3: Noise exposure to the cashiers during the day and early evenin
could be annoying, disruptive and distracting at levels around 84 dB
with periodic Lmax levels that could reach 106 dB.
NOISE MITIGATION 3: The Applicant shall install the pay-on-foot program prior to the
City issuing and grading, demolition or construction permits for
and office shall be designed and constructed to attenuate noise t 25 dB.
Implementation/Timing: PRIOR to the City issuance of demolition and grading permits
Noise Mitigation 3 shall be constructed and operational.
Responsible Party(ies): Applicant and Building Division.
PARKSFO–ISP3-121
NITIAL TUDYAGE
PARK SFO APPENDIX
1 KBE AIR QUALITY ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGIES
2 KBE CALEMOD
3 FURGO WEST GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, 2003
4 FURGO WEST GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, FEBRUARY 12, 2013
5 FURGO WEST GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, JULY 15, 2013
6 CSA PEER REVIEW GEOTECHNICAL, NOVEMBER, 2012
7 CSA PEER REVIEW GEOTECHNICAL, MARCH 22, 2013
8 CRANE TRAFFIC STUDY, 2012
9 CRANE TRAFFIC STUDY/FIGURES, 2012
Appendix A-1
Air Quality Assumptions and Methodologies
Construction Activities
CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
Operations
Health Risk Assessment
Air Toxics Hot Spots Program GuidanceHealth
Risk Screening Analysis Guidelines
TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
Acute effect
Cancer risk
Chronic effect
Hazard Index (HI)
Hazard Quotient (HQ)
Human Health Effects
Health Risk Assessment (HRA)
Incremental
Maximum exposed individual (MEI)
Non-cancer risks
Receptors
Toxic aircontaminants (TAC)
Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual
for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments
BAAQMD Health Risk Screening Analysis Guidelines
(http://www.baaqmd.gov/pmt/air_toxics/risk_procedures_policies/hrsa_guidelines.pdf)
LIMITATIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES
HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION
Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel- Fueled
Engines and VehiclesRisk Management Guidance for the Permitting of New Stationary
Diesel-Fueled Engines
Asbestos Toxic Air Control Measure
Silica Crystalline Dust
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
Dispersion Modeling Approach
Model Selection and Options
Guideline on Air Quality Models
Receptor Locations
Exhibit 1
EXHIBIT 1
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT RECEPTORS
Meteorological Data
Exhibit 2
EXHIBIT 2
WINDROSE FOR SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONALAIRPORT
Source Release Characteristics
Dispersion Modeling Results
Health Risk Screening Analysis
Guidelines
Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance.
BAAQMD Health Risk Screening Analysis Guidelines
(http://www.baaqmd.gov/pmt/air_toxics/risk_procedures_policies/hrsa_guidelines.pdf)
Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual
for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments
Table 1
TABLE 1
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT EXPOSURE PARAMETERS
ReceptorBreathing Cancer Risk Daily Annual Exposure
Rate Adjustment Factor ExposureExposureDuration
(DBR)(CRAF)(ED)
RISK CHARACTERIZATION
CUMULATIVE SOURCES
CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
Stationary Source Risk & Hazard Analysis Tool
Table 2
Table 3
Distance Adjustment Multiplier for Diesel Internal Combustion Engine
Distance Adjustment Multiplier for Gasoline Dispensing Facilities
TABLE 2
CUMULATIVE HEALTH IMPACTS – PERMITTED SOURCES
AdjustmentFactors and Screening Data
Facility #Facility TypeAddressAdjustment Cancer Hazard PM2.5
FactorRiskImpactConcentration
TABLE 3
CUMULATIVE HEALTH IMPACTS – PERMITTED SOURCES
AdjustedData
Facility #Facility TypeAddressCancer Hazard PM2.5
RiskImpactConcentration
Highway Screening Analysis Tool ()
CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
FUGRO CONSULTANTS, INC.
1000 Broadway, Suite 440
Oakland, California 94607
Tel: (510) 268-0461
Fax: (510) 268-0137
July 15, 2013
Project No. 04.72130009
REST Parking Facilities
237 Harbor Way, P.O. Box 2505
South San Francisco, California 940831
Attention: Mr. Robert Simms
Subject: Plan Review, REST Parking Facilities, South San Francisco, California
Dear Mr. Simms:
In accordance with your request, Fugro Consultants, Inc., (Fugro) has reviewed the
geotechnical aspects of the Luk and Associates E-1 document dated July 9, 2013. This
plan/grading plans should achieve the removal of the existing undocumented fill below the foot
print of the proposed REST Parking Facilities, to be located at the northeast corner of North
Access Road and south of the South San Francisco Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) in
South San Francisco, California. Fugro previously performed a geotechnical investigation for
the parking structure project, the results of which were presented in the report titled,
“Geotechnical Investigation Report, REST Parking Facilities, South San Francisco, California”,
dated March 12, 2003, and an updated Geotechnical Letter study dated February 12, 2013.
It should be noted that in the February 12 update letter, Fugro recommended a partial
reworking of the undocumented fills. As requested by the 3rd party reviewer for South San
Francisco, Fugro is now recommending the entire undocumented fill below the foot print of the
proposed parking structure be removed and reworked.
During the actual grading, Fugro should be on site to verify that the fill has been
completely removed. The undocumented fill that meets the requirements for fills in Section
4.1.4 of our March 2003 geotechnical report can be used to backfill the excavation resulting
from the removal of the undocumented fill. The fill should be placed and compacted as required
in Section 4.1.5 of our March 2003 report.
A member of the Fugro group of companies with offices throughout the world.
Rest Parking Facilities
July 15, 2013 (Project No. 04.72130009)
Our services have been limited to the review of the geotechnical aspects of the Luk and
Associates E-1 document dated July 9, 2013, and have been provided in accordance with
generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. Should you have any
questions or require additional information, please contact us.
Sincerely,
FUGRO WEST, INC.
Ronald L. Bajuniemi, P.E., G.E.
Principal Consultant
RLB: afp
Copies Submitted: (PDF) Addressee
(PDF) John Fugle (International Parking Design, Inc)
2
G:\JOBDOCS\04.72130009 - REST PARKING FACILITIES UPDATE\PLAN REVIEW LTR-15JULY13.DOC
I. INTRODUCTION
This study evaluates the local area circulation impacts due to e
parking facilities for San Francisco International Airport along
Francisco (see Traffic Figure 1). The existing parking garage would be expanded and result in total
on-site parking being increased from 1,901 to 3,194 spaces. Access
its existing location along North Access Road. Circulation impa
for existing, year 2015 and year 2035 conditions, both with and wit
Locations evaluated are the two S. Airport Boulevard intersections with I-380 ramps, the North
Access Road intersection with the eastbound end of the I-380 freeway just south of the Park SFO
site and the North Access Road/parking facility access driveway
II. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
1. The Park SFO facility is currently generating the following leve
of peak commute traffic on the local area circulation system.
EXISTING PARK SFO TRIP GENERATION
(WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27, 2012)*
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
OF LOCAL SYSTEM OF LOCAL SYSTEM
(8:00-9:00) (4:45-5:45)
IN OUT IN OUT
Passenger Vehicles 10 8 933
Shuttles10 12 1113
Total 20 20 2046
* Wednesday preceding Labor Day weekend.
2. The proposed Project would be expected to increase Park SFO tra
increment.
PARK SFO EXPANSION TRAFFIC INCREMENT
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
OF LOCAL SYSTEM OF LOCAL SYSTEM
(8:00-9:00) (4:45-5:45)
IN OUT IN OUT
Passenger Vehicles 14* (28)** 6* (12)** 7* (14)**23* (46)**
Shuttles79 8 9
Total 21* (35)** 15* (21)** 15* (22)** 32* (55)**
* Trip generation at same rate as existing facility.
** Trip generation with double the surveyed rate for customer traffic.
3. The two signalized intersections at the S. Airport Boulevard/I-380 interchange as well as the
North Access Road/I-380 end of freeway intersection just south of the site are curre
operating at good levels of service (Levels A or B) during AM an
conditions. All three intersections are projected to remain at
CTG
9/13/12 Park SFO Page 1
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
year 2015 during the peak commute traffic hours (without the Pro
Project operation is projected to remain LOS A or B at all locat
the S. Airport Boulevard/North Access Road/I-380 westbound on-ramp int
would degrade to LOS D during the PM peak hour. However, this w
acceptable operation.
4. All three analysis intersections would have LOS A or B AM and PM peak hour operation in
the year 2015 with the addition of Project traffic. Intersectio
no more than 0.6 seconds at any of the three locations.
5. Two of the three analysis intersections would have LOS A or B AM and PM peak hour
operation in the year 2035 with the addition of Project traffic.Airport
Boulevard/North Access Road/I-380 westbound on-ramp intersection
LOS B AM peak hour and LOS D PM peak hour operation with the additi
traffic. Intersection delay would be increased by no more than
three locations.
6. Both project driveway access intersections along North Access Road should continue to
function acceptably with increased traffic from Project expansio
local area growth. The 25 to 30 percent growth in non-Project related traffic expected on
North Access Road by 2035 at the Project site should not produce
operational impacts at either Project driveway intersection, alt
increased frequency of northbound traffic on the approach to the380 end of freeway
intersection backing up in front of the garage during the PM peak traffic hour. However,
these queues should clear quickly with a green light for northbo
will be operating at good levels of service during both AM and P
and signal timing adjustments can be made to more rapidly clear traffic backups from in
front of the garage, if ever required.
7. Recommendations: No specific off-site circulation improvements are required. However,
the Project should pay its required East of 101 Capital Improvements Program area traffic
impact fee.
III. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The existing Park SFO long term parking operation (serving the S
Airport) is located in the southern section of the City of South
of North Access Road. The eastbound end of the I-380 freeway terminates at a signalized
intersection with North Access Road just south of the Project si
I-380 freeway is provided at two locations: via North Access Road just south of the site and via
S. Airport Boulevard to the west of the site. The I-380 ramps con
also provide access to a northbound on-ramp to the U.S.101 freeway. The I-380 freeway connecting
to North Access Road just south of the Project site also provide full acce
via a series of north and southbound on- and off-ramps (see Traffic Figure 2).
CTG
9/13/12 Park SFO Page 2
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
The Park SFO existing facility has a total of 1,901 long term pan a garage and
625 in surface parking lots to the north and east of the garage.
parking is provided via two side-by-side driveways on the outsid
Access Road, about 180 and 270 feet north of the signalized Nort
freeway intersection. The southerly driveway connection is used
while the northerly driveway is used primarily by outbound traff Appendix Traffic Figure 1
Existing Site Plan).
The proposed Project would increase on-site parking from 1,901 up to 3,194 spaces through
expansion of the parking garage (on property now used for surfac
there would be 2,833 garage spaces and 361 surface parking spaces. Customer and shuttle bus
access would remain via the two existing driveways along North A Appendix
Traffic Figure 2 Proposed Project Site Plan).
IV. EXISTING CIRCULATION SYSTEM OPERATION
A. Roadways
Direct access to the Project site is provided via North Access Road. It connects to the 380 and
U.S.101 freeways via the end of I-380 freeway connection just south of the Project site and via tw
intersections with S. Airport Boulevard to the west of the site.briefly described
below (see Traffic Figure 2).
extends easterly from a signalized intersection with S. Airport Boulevard and
an I-380 westbound on-ramp. About 900 feet to the east it curve
into a signalized intersection with the end of the freeway (the west leg of . North
Access Road then continues as the east leg of the intersection around the north and east edges of
San Francisco International Airport. North Access Road adjacent
(west) bound through travel lanes, a single east (south) bound t
(south) bound left turn lane serving vehicles turning into the P
to the I-380 signalized intersection south of the site. There are Class II striped bike lanes along the
segment of North Access Road between S. Airport Boulevard and th380 ramps intersections.
These lanes are part of the Bay Trail.
is primarily a four-lane arterial roadway in South San Francisco running
parallel to and just east of the U.S.101 freeway. Additional th
the approaches to its signalized intersections with an I-380 eas380
westbound on-ramp & North Access Road.
Traffic Figure 3 provides a schematic presentation of approach lanes and control
intersections near the Project site.
CTG
9/13/12 Park SFO Page 3
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
B. Volumes
Existing weekday AM and PM peak period (7:00-9:00 AM & 4:00-6:00 PM) turn movement counts
1
were conducted by Crane Transportation Group on Wednesday, Augus27, 2012 at the following
locations.
S. Airport Boulevard/I-380 Eastbound Off-Ramp (signal)
S. Airport Boulevard/I-380 Westbound On-Ramp/North Access Road (
North Access Road/Eastern End of Freeway (signal)
North Access Road/Park SFO 2 Driveways
The local street system peak traffic hours were 8:00-9:00 AM and 4:45-5:45 PM. Please see Traffic
Figure 4 for existing AM and PM peak hour volumes. It should be noted tthe Park SFO
facility had higher volumes at other times during the count (7:08:00 AM & 4:00-5:00 PM), volumes
on the local system were significantly lower during these hours.
of ambient plus Park SFO traffic (8:00-9:00 AM & 4:45-5:45 PM) were used for analysis purposes in
this study.
C. Intersection Level of Service
Transportation engineers and planners commonly use a grading sys
to measure and describe the operational status of the local road
of the quality of a roadway facilitys operation, ranging from Lflow traffic
conditions with little or no delay) to LOS F (representing oversfic
flows exceed design capacity, resulting in long queues and delay
segments between intersections, are almost always the capacity c
circulation system.
For signalized intersections, the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual
(Transportation Research Board, National Research Council) metho
methodology, operations are defined by the level of service and
(measured in seconds) for the entire intersection. For a signalized in
portion of the total delay attributed to traffic signal operatio
deceleration, acceleration, stopping, and moving up in the queue Traffic Table 1 summarizes the
relationship between delay and LOS for signalized intersections.
The City of South San Francisco uses Level of Service D (LOS D) as the minimum acceptable
operation for signalized intersections.
1
Wednesday preceding the Labor Day weekend holiday.
CTG
9/13/12 Park SFO Page 4
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Traffic Table 2 shows that all three signalized intersections in close proximity
operating acceptably during both the AM and PM peak traffic hourB or better).
V. FUTURE CIRCULATION SYSTEM OPERATION WITHOUT PROPOSED
PROJECT
A. Year 2015
Year 2015 without Project AM and PM peak hour volumes were dev
East of 101 traffic model, which has been recently updated to ren the 328
Roebling Road and 475 Eccles Avenue projects. Resultant year 20
and PM peak hour volumes are presented in Traffic Figure 5.
Traffic Table 3 shows that all three signalized intersections in close proximity to the Project site
would be operating acceptably during both the AM and PM peak traB or better). A
small increase in traffic to/from Park SFO has been assumed for
garage expansion.
B.Year 2035
Year 2035 without Project AM and PM peak hour volumes were dev
East of 101 traffic model, which has been recently updated to re
Roebling Road and 475 Eccles Avenue projects. Resultant year 2035 without Project weekday
AM and PM peak hour volumes are presented in Traffic Figure 6.
Traffic Table 4 shows that all three signalized intersections in close proximitt site
would be operating acceptably during both the AM and PM peak traD or better). A
small increase in traffic to/from Park SFO has been assumed for
garage expansion. All locations would be operating at either LOS A or B, with the exception of the
S. Airport Boulevard/I-380 westbound on-ramp/North Access Road int
have LOS D operation during the PM peak hour.
CTG
9/13/12 Park SFO Page 5
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
VI. PROJECT IMPACTS
A. SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Standards of Significance have been measured based on CEQA, City
C/CAG Guideline thresholds. Therefore, project impacts would be
of the following conditions.
a. The project would exceed 100 net new peak hour trips on the local roadway system
(C/CAG criteria only).
b. Signalized intersection operation would change from Level of Ser A, B, C or D to
LOS E or F and total volumes passing through the intersection would
least two percent.
c.The proposed project would increase total volumes passing through
percent or more with signalized operation already at a Base Case E or F.
B. Trip Generation
The proposed Project will add approximately 1,293 parking spacese Park SFO facility, with
parking increased from 1,901 up to 3,194 spaces. Trip generatio
been projected utilizing trip rates per parking space developed
Wednesday of the week preceding the Labor Day holiday weekend. As shown in Traffic Table 5,
trip rates have been developed for shuttle buses as well as cust
total trip rate combining both shuttles and customer vehicles co
would have resulted in the same number of net new vehicles being
Based upon the Park SFO weekday trip rates, the proposed expansi
generate 21 inbound and 15 outbound trips during the AM peak houcommute traffic on the
local circulation system, with 15 inbound and 32 outbound trips
commute traffic on the local circulation system (see Traffic Table 6).
As previously detailed, the Park SFO existing operation has its
PM commute peak periods offset by about an hour from times of pe
circulation system. The times of peak traffic on the local circ
poorest operation at all analysis intersections and have therefo
even though Park SFO is not at its maximum generation during the
conservative Project evaluation and allow for daily variations ir of
new customer vehicleshas been increased by 100 percent for analysis purposes.
Using this 100 percent safety factor increase in customer vehicles, the proposed increase in parking
spaces would be expected to generate 35 inbound and 21 outbound
of commute traffic on the local circulation system, with 22 inbo
the PM peak hour of commute traffic on the local circulation sys Traffic Table 7). These
volumes have been used for analysis purposes.
CTG
9/13/12 Park SFO Page 6
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
C. Trip Distribution
The increment of traffic from Park SFO expansion was distributed
the same pattern as existing Park SFO traffic (see Traffic Figure 7). As shown, the vast majority of
customer/employee trafficaccesses the site via the I-380 connection to North Access Road just
south of the garage. All inbound shuttles use this route, while
travel to the west to S. Airport Boulevard. Overall, there would be a lesser amount of Park SFO
expansion traffic expected to travel along S. Airport Boulevard than via I-380 just south of the site.
The AM and PM peak hour Project traffic increment is presented i Traffic Figure 8, while 2015
and 2035 with Project AM and PM peak hour volumes are presented in Traffic Figures 9 and 10,
respectively.
D. Year 2015 Project Intersection Impacts
The addition of Park SFO expansion traffic would result in no si
intersection near the Project site. Operation of the S. Airport Boulevard intersections with the I-380
ramps would remain LOS A or B during the AM and PM peak hours, w
Road/I-380 end of freeway intersection just south of the garage B
during both commute peak traffic hours. Project traffic would p
increase in delay at the three analysis intersections.
E. Year 2035 Project Intersection Impacts
The addition of Park SFO expansion traffic would result in no siat any signalized
intersection near the Project site. Operation of the S. Airport Boulevard intersections with the I-380
ramps would remain LOS A or B during the AM and PM peak hours, w
S. Airport Boulevard at the I-380 westbound on-ramp, which would be operating at an acceptable
LOS D during the PM peak hour (with or without the Project). Th380 end
of freeway intersection just south of the garage would be operat
peak traffic hours. Project traffic would produce only a 0.6 second or less increase
three analysis intersections.
F. Project Driveway Access Intersections
The two project access intersections along North Access Road wou
locations along the outside of a 90-degree curve. Sight lines are goo
the west (almost 500 feet) and to the south (from 180 to 270 fee
I-380 end of freeway signalized intersection). Vehicles making le
are infrequently delayed during PM commute conditions due to nor
backups extending past the site frontage from a red signal at th-380 end of freeway intersection.
However, these backups clear quickly and would be expected to continue to clear relative
as area traffic increases. No significant impacts would be expe
intersection with proposed expansion traffic. It should be note
PM peak hour backups from the I-380 freeway signalized intersection extending in front of the
garage driveways ever become a problem, signal timing adjustment
reduce these queues. The North Access Road/I-380 end of freeway intersection will be operating at
CTG
9/13/12 Park SFO Page 7
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
good levels of service during both commute peak traffic hours in
would be able to easily adjust timing without significantly degr
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS
No specific off-site circulation improvements are required. However, the Projec
required East of 101 Capital Improvements Program area traffic i
This Report is intended for presentation and use in its entirety with all of its supporting exhibits, schedules, and appendices.
Group will have no liability for any use of the Report other tharty or quoting a portion of the
Report. If you provide a portion of the Report to a third party, you agree
use of or reliance upon a less than complete version of the Repo
CTG
9/13/12 Park SFO Page 8
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Traffic Table 1
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS CRITERIA
Level of Average Control Delay
Description
Service (Seconds Per Vehicle)
Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progress
A 10.0
and/or short cycle lengths.
Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or
B 10.1 to 20.0
short cycle lengths.
Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression a
C 20.1 to 35.0
longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable
progression, long cycle lengths, and/or high volume-to-capacity (V/C)
D 35.1 to 55.0
ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are no
Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long
cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures a
E 55.1 to 80.0
occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable d
Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due
F > 80.0
oversaturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths.
Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Bo
CTG
9/13/12 Park SFO
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Traffic Table 2
EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
S. Airport Blvd./N. Access Rd./B-10.3 B-19.4
(1)
I-380 WB On-Ramp (Signal)
S. Airport Blvd./I-380 EB Off-Ramp B-16.8 A-6.1
(1)
(Signal)
N. Access Rd./I-380End of Freeway B-10.0 A-9.4
(1)
(Signal)
Signalized level of service vehicle control delay in seconds.
(1)
Source: Crane Transportation Group
Traffic Table 3
YEAR 2015 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
(WITHOUT & WITH PROJECT)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
W/O With W/O With
IntersectionProjectProject Project Project
S. Airport Blvd./B-12.5 B-13.2 C-23.8 C-24.3
(1)
N. Access Rd./I-380 WB
On-Ramp (Signal)
S. Airport Blvd./B-16.8 B-16.8 B-10.1 B-10.1
(1)
I-380 EB Off-Ramp
(Signal)
N. Access Rd./I-380 End of B-10.2 B-10.4 A-9.6 B-10.3
(1)
Freeway (Signal)
Signalized level of service vehicle control delay in seconds.
(1)
Source: Crane Transportation Group
CTG
9/13/12 Park SFO
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Traffic Table 4
YEAR 2035 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
(WITHOUT & WITH PROJECT)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
W/OWithW/OWith
Intersection Project Project Project Project
S. Airport Blvd./ C-20.6 C-21.0 D-38.0 D-38.4
(1)
N. Access Rd./I-380 WB
On-Ramp (Signal)
S. Airport Blvd./ C-21.9 C-21.9 B-12.8 B-12.9
(1)
I-380 EB Off-Ramp
(Signal)
N. Access Rd./I-380 End of B-10.5 B-10.9 A-10.0 B-10.6
(1)
Freeway (Signal)
Signalized level of service vehicle control delay in seconds.
(1)
Source: Crane Transportation Group
CTG
9/13/12 Park SFO
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Traffic Table 5
EXISTING PARK SFO WEEKDAY TRIP RATES
AM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic PM Peak Hour of AdjacentStreet Traffic
(8:00-9:00)(4:45-5:45)
Rate/100 Total Rate/100 Total
ExistingVol Spaces VolSpaces
Totals InOut In Out In Out In Out
Auto Auto 1.0520.421 AutoAuto 9.4731.736
20 89 33
Shuttle Shuttle 0.5260.631 Shuttle Shuttle 0.5790.684
10 12 11 13
Source: Crane Transportation Group
Traffic Table 6
PARK SFO PROPOSED PROJECT
WEEKDAY TRIP GENERATION INCREMENT DURING
PEAK HOURS OF ADJACENT STREET TRAFFIC
(1,293 NET NEW SPACES)
AM Peak Hour (8:00-9:00)PM Peak Hour (4:45-5:45)
In Out In Out
Rate/100 Rate/100 Rate/100 Rate/100
New Spaces Volume New Spaces VolumeNew Spaces Volume New Spaces Volume
Auto 1.052 14 0.4216 0.473 7 1.736 23
Shuttle0.526 70.6319 0.579 8 0.684 9
Total 21 15 15 32
Trip Rate Source: Crane Transportation Group based upon existin
Traffic Table 7
PARK SFO PROPOSED PROJECT
WEEKDAY TRIP GENERATION INCREMENT
WITH 100 % AUTO TRIP GENERATION INCREASE SAFETY FACTOR
(1,293 NET NEW SPACES)
AM Peak HourPM Peak Hour
(8:00-9:00) (4:45-5:45)
In Volume Out Volume In VolumeOut Volume
Auto 281214 46
Shuttle 7 9 8 9
Total 352122 55
Trip Rate Source: Crane Transportation Group based upon existin
CTG
9/13/12 Park SFO
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP