The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About475 Eccles Ave ND. 07-0001 INITIAL STUDY AND PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Application Number ND07 -0001 ---- ..~ ...... ~ \l '" ,_ It ~' , ~ ';.':~ '< /{;- ,~. <1.... ",,_. ... ' ,.."f';I/.... ~~.~~~ " ,.. .Ol " ~&..:i 4.... T';', 475 ECCLES AVENUE PREPARED FOR CI1Y OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DIVISION 315 MAPLE AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 AUGUST 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Numbers Page 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Initial Study / ~ egative Declaration..........................................................................1-1 1.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected............................................................ 1-8 1.3 Lead i\gency's Determination ..................................................................................1-10 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Project Location and Setting.......................................................................................2-1 2.2 Project Site........ ........... ......... ...... ....... .............................. ........ ........ ......... ..................... 2-1 2.3 Proposed Project .......................... ....................................... .............. ........... ..... ........ ... 2-2 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3.1 ~~es thetics....................................................................................................................... 3- 2 3.2 Agricultural Resources ....... .......... ......... .............................. .......... ...............................3- 7 3.3 Air Quality..................................................................................................................... 3-8 3.4 Biological Resources ..... .... ..... .............. ................................................................... ... 3-1 5 3.5 Cultural Resources...................................................................................................... 3-18 3.6 Geology and Soils.................................................... ...................................................3- 20 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...........................................................................3-27 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality.............................................................. ..................... 3-31 3.9 Land 1.] se and Planning................................................................ .......................... .... 3-36 3.10 Mineral Resources ................ ......................................................................... ........ ..... 3-39 3 .11 Noise............................................................................................................................ 3-40 3.12 Population and Housing............ .................................................... ....................... .....3-43 3.13 Public Services ............... ............... .......................................................... .................... 3-44 3.14 Recreation................................................................................................................_... 3-45 3.15 Transportation and Traffic ......... ................................................. ............................. 3-47 3.16 C cilities and Service Systems ..................................................................................... 3-52 3.17 Mandatory Findings of Significance ........................................................................3-56 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table Number Page 1-1 Tree Planting Plan. ..................................................................................................................1-3 MONOGRAM SCIENCES-INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE I TABLE OF CONTENTS 1-2 Tree Removal Plan ... ..... .......................... ............. ........................ ......... ............. ............ ........ 1-3 List of Figures Page 1-1 Project Location........ ......... ....................... ........... .......... ......... ............ .................................... 1-5 1-2 Proj ect Site, Existing............. ..................... ......... ................................. .................... ............... 1-6 1-3 Proposed Project Site Plan .................................................................................................... 1-7 2-2 Proposed Landscape Plan......................... ........... ............................... ................................... 2-5 APPENDICES Holman Associates Cultural Report Fehr and Peers Parking Study PAGE II MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION This Initial Study/Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (cEQA), which can be found in the California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., and the cEQA Guidelines found in California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15000 er seq., as amended. Project Application This Initial Study/ Negative Declaration (City Project Numbers: P07-0060, CP07-0007, DR07- 0040, TDM 07-003 and ND07-0001) is for the proposed :'vlonogram Sciences parcial building demolition and conversion of use from light manufacturing to research and development (R&D). Project Applicant The Project applicant and property O\vner is Biomed Realty Trust. The tenant impro,-ements are being requested on behalf of Monogram Sciences. Biomed Realty Trust has assigned the following person as the representative for their project: Jose Cotto, Principal CAS Architects 1023 N. Shoreline Boulevard Mountain View, CA 94043 Lead Agency The Lead Agency for this Initial Study/Negative Declaration is the City of South San Francisco. The following person has been assigned as the representative for the Lead Agency: Mike Lappen, Senior Planner Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 (650) 877-8535 MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 1-1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Project Location The proposed project is located at 475 Eccles Avenue in the East of 101 Area of South San Francisco. Access to the site can be obtained from Oyster Point Boulevard to the north of the site or from East Grand Avenue and Forbes Avenue south of the site. See Figure 1.1 Project Location. The site is currently developed with a 152,000 square foot building that previously supported light manufacturing uses. Approximately 276 parking spaces are located on the site; the majority being on the east side of the site. The building is vacant. Marginally maintained landscaping, consisting of a variety of trees and shrubs, is located on the site. There are street trees located along the Eccles Avenue project frontage. See Figure 1.2 Existing Site Plan. Project Description The project proposes to demolish 32,000 square feet of the building along the front fa<;:ade and reconstruct the existing mezzanine within the building. Therefore, the project would include 90,000 square feet on the ground floor and 30,000 square feet on the second (mezzanine) level for a total of 120,000 square feet. The site is 256,618 square feet in area, or 6.1 acres. The proposed floor area ratio is 0.45. The proposed height to top of the roof screen is 38'-6" and the front fa<;:ade (southern elevation) would be 28'-6" to the top of the parapet. Parking is proposed at a ratio of 2.66/1,000 square feet of floor area for 319 parking stalls. Four Class I bicycle lockers and two Class II bicycle racks are included in the site plan. See Figure 1.3 Proposed Site Plan. The project proposes a landscape plan that includes perimeter and interior trees, shrubs and flowering plants. The tree planting and retention plan includes 128 trees varying in size from 24" to 36" box. Two key elements of the land plan are the addition of a prominent pedestrian entry way off Eccles Avenue as well a landscaped pedestrian area along the northwestern (rear) elevation of the building. Entrance to the site is proposed via an eight foot wide landscaped walkway off of Eccles Avenue. The entry way would be landscaped with specimen trees and decorative paving. The walk way leads to the front entry of the building which is designed with an architectural and landscape screen and serves as a formal entry and casual seating area for the building. The area is designed as an art feature with three fountains, benches, a patio and terraced seating. The rear elevation of the building includes landscaping, pathways and a view of San Bruno Mountain. The project includes a Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM Program) targeted at a 30 percent mode shift. The TDM Program is evaluated in the Transportation Section of this document. Pursuant to Section 20.120.070 (a) of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (Zoning), review of a preliminary TDivl Program through the conditional use permit process is required. The applicant is proposing 319 parking spaces and 410 parking spaces are required by Code (Section 20.74.060 (e)). Therefore the applicant must comply with Section 20.120.050 (i) PAGE 1-2 MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDy/NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION which stipulates that reduced parking in accordance with General Plan Policy 4.3-1-8 may be permitted subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. The General Plan policy speaks to the provision of a TDM Program. The project is required to undergo design review pursuant to Section 20.S5 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (Zoning). Grading and building permits are also required. Therefore, the "Project" as defined in this Initial Study /~1itigated Negative Declaration, is the site plan for the partial demolition of the building located at 475 Eccles A venue, tenant improvements, remodeling, clearing, grading, landscaping and the associated on- and off-site development including paving, building, and all other actions necessary to develop the proposed building at the Project site. General Plan and Zoning Designations General Plan Designation The Project site is within the area subject to the provisions of the "East of 101" Planning Sub- Area of the City of South San Francisco's General Plan. The General Plan designates the Project site for "Business and Technology Park" uses, and gives the following summary of the Business and Technology Park designation: This designation accommodates campus-like enVIronments for corporate headquarters, research and development facilities, and offices. Permitted uses include incubator-research facilities, testing, repairing, packaging, publishing and printing, marinas, shoreline-oriented recreation, and offices, and research and development facilities. \'\'arehousing and distribution facilities and retail are permitted as ancillary uses only. A.ll development is subject to high design and landscape standards. Maximum Floor Area Ratio is 0.5, bur increases may be permitted, up to a total FAR of 1.0 for uses such as research and development establishments, or for development meeting specific transportation demand management (TDiv1), off-site improvement, or specific design standards. Zoning The Project site is zoned "Planned Industrial". Research and development, light manufacturing, administrative and business offices are permitted land uses. Other types of permitted uses include administrative services, business and professional services, fInancial services consumer repair services, custom manufacturing. _~ complete list of permitted and conditional uses is identified in Chapter 20.32 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (HTTP://Qcode.us). Surrounding Land Uses The Gateway Specific Plan Area is located north and west of the Project site. Planned Industrial use surrounds the site on the east and south. Documents Incorporated Herein By Reference Geotechnical Report, Shell and Site Gpgrade, -1-75 EccleJ Avenue, South San FranciJco, California. Donald E. Banta & Associates, Inc., Consulting Geotechnical Engineers. June 6, 2007. MONOGRAM SCIENCES-INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 1-3 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Geotechnical Peer Review, Biomed Realty Trust, Building Upgrades. Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc. August 2,2007. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080. URS. November 11,2005. Cultural Resources S turfy of the 475 Eccles Property, South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. Holman & Associates. July 30, 2007. 475 Eccles Avenue Parking Anafpis, Fehr and Peers. August 6,2007 475 Eccles Avenue Preliminary Transportation Demand i\1anagement Plan, The Hoyt Company, June 25,2007 PAGE 1-4 MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION ", ~' y. ..... . d> ,- ~"~~L ..:.:~.......~:,...., <t,~~,/(~ /' ;.: ~ "":'~~t :i'l' ., ':::' ~ ,~_ ~ ~ i . . 't ...6;'?'''' .. -- ., - , :. .... ~t ;k~4:g '"..."..", :;'" ,,"" '':'1 ~.~: ~t' - Or L . - - . .. " of' ~ " . ~ _.-\iw , I; . ~ . , ,,". 101 all .!:,' .~ '~: ,,,.,"{': r~'I"'c ~---" '. f t' '.. l;. l t '.. . ;(". /~ ~ ' '~:.. J ;..;..-... ~ '.. ~_'_ '. ; -~- ~~~ FIGURE 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION Ii ;\ I \ i .\ , I..... In ;~ ~ i' \ . \ :( J~ I Ii ~Ii II '\ I." ... ..,j Ii" ';''':\. \! I \ ',- "'>,- I" !j i ' { I \ ":\. ~, I.!' I ,Ii! 1 ...1' 1\ FIGURE 1.2 EXISTING SITE PLAN I ~ """ c:i 0:: a.. ~11 W Q ~I ~ a. ~ ~ ~f ~ 1Il~ .:! Q,i il ~l ~ ::l- ~~, ~rnc IIlj ~l!! O' o w s I, ~H J~ , lIi~ Ja-J L .IA ;, I allil "~I 1.1 II" !~ I!!',l Il'iI ill ., I I!In I" l'l'i r" .ll !"'I . ~ !!ijl ilil, II'" ,'till , 11'1'1 jd! I ,.' I' I ,if ,1.111".1 ~!f i i 1.,11: 11,11/: /!I Jl'lq II ;1 ;;1;:"; ';; ;!. 1,I,lillll !i1111llll,!l!,II ill ,I i Ii! I Ii! I I ,!II I, . I ri'OElEl0ElOOEl " l ,.., lilt ii II "II' 'i' . i" II i .! "lIi I . I 'I II: I i ~ : " jlrihl' ,M I ,1111 ;Iilll i I ~ . '.111' iii' I "I : I Hl',',,'l' iwili I;' ri II!;; I I $ I ,$I"...~. ~ ';-h-;;-Th,nh~n~_~__h_'i-"_h_:L-'~,~~ ~ LL!~.,,~ ,~_JL_L:^- , " ^ '10 /:: =~-~~ .--1 : 81:;, ~ 'i: ~':~~,ff~!. \ <;.tJ : ~ !~ ""'-.1 I :';t: . ~h__~~_h__h_h_h___-t _h_hV ~ -~ ,.,- w " z ~ ! ; .; f3 :, r~ ! ~ :ii ~ '- i/I :11 ;lF~ ! I 1 ti= - / , '- - / I : ! = .. / j II nil 11:=JS J. __.JLL,...;:i 7ll ~. L------- / ,.......... .'1 r-- _ --1" t , ----- "\"""'-- ~ ~ - ,~ tL.._~:~~:_._._--':~'~-~;::- :~~ I " 41i -:xi ~ FIGURE 1.3 PROPOSED SITE PLAN I .I lki i, Ii '''.ll"- :('" II li~ II II II,; I i!i 3:l't"ld IZZOlI ~~ , L I! .~ ~; f '"" '"" c( 0.. w C ~~ ,,~ ~~, · ~i " Ill. ;: ~~ :< ~i .Ii ..J ~ ~~l ~lIli IIlE ~~ (,)' (,) W ,0 i ~ J h JS ! Jln! 3fiJm i f ~ ,j! I, ,amI CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED Environmental factors that may be affected by a project, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (cEQA), are listed alphabetically below. Factors marked with a filled in block (v) have been determined to be potentially affected by the Project, involving at least one impact that has initially been identified as potentially significant, as indicated in the Environmental Checklist (Chapter 3) and related discussion that follows. However, there would not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the Project have been made by, or agreed to by, the Project applicant. The potentially significant impacts and their associated mitigation measures are summarized below. There are no impacts that would remain significant after mitigation. Factors which are unmarked (C) have been determined to not be significantly affected by the Project, based on discussion also provided in Chapter 3. o Aesthetics Hazards and Hazardous ~faterials 0 Public Services o Agriculture Resources Hydrology and 'W'ater Quality 0 Recreation o Air Quality Land Lse and Planning 0 Transportation o Biological Resources Mineral Resources D Utilities and Service Systems o Cultural Resources Noise o Cumulative Impacts o Geology and Soils := Population and Housing POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND REQUIRED MITIGATION MEASURES As a matter of law, the project is required to comply with federal, state and local laws and regulations. These regulations are verified as satisfied and incorporated into the project as a matter of building permit issuance or a building or grading permit will not be issued by the City of South San Francisco. All affected divisions and departments within the City review grading and building permit plans to insure that the appropriate conditions of approval and measures required by law are incorporated into the plans. In absence of the requirements being incorporated into the plans, permits are not issued. Summary of Findings of the Initial Study No Project Impact: There are no potential impacts associated with aesthetics, agriculture, biological resources, cultural resources, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and utilities and service systems as identified in the Initial Study. PAGE 1-8 MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Project Impact Less Than Significant with Implementation of Measures Required by Law: Compliance with the required regulatory framework addresses any potential impacts associated with air quality, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials and hydrology and water quality, as identified in the Initial Study. Potential Project Impact Less Than Significant with Implementation of Mitigation ~feasures in Addition to those Required by Law: NONE. Additional discussion relating to these findings is provided in Chapter 3. These impacts and mitigation measures address Project-specific conditions at 475 Eccles Avenue, the Project site. Public Review This Initial Study and Negative Declaration shall be provided for public review through local distribution and noticing of its availability. Cpon completion of the 20-day public review period pursuant to Section 15072 of Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission, during a duly-noticed public hearing, will consider any and all comments pertaining to this document prior to making a determination as to adopt or reject this document. MONOGRAM SCIENCES-INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 1-9 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.3 LEAD AGENCY'S DETERMINATION On the basis of the evaluation in this Initial Study: ./ I find that the proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Project have been made by or agreed to by the Project proponent. ~-\ yIITIGATED NEGATIVE DECL\RATION \vill be prepared. I find that the proposed Project ~L-\ Y have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONJ'vIENTAL IivfPACT REPORT is required. I fmd that the proposed Project J'vL -\ Y ha\-e a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONJ'vIENT"-\L I~fP.-\CT REPORT is required, bur it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECL\RATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECL-\RATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed Project, nothing further is required. <I ',/' .'~:?~/~ Susy Kalkin Chief Planner ,/ ~ f, ;'ZOc?"7 Date p-r- PAGE 1-10 DECLARATION MONOGRAM SCIENCES - INITIAL STUDy/NEGATIVE 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING Context The Project site is located in the eastern portion of the City of South San Francisco, east of CS 101, at 475 Eccles Avenue. Regionally the Project site is accessible from the north west via the US 101 off- and on-ramps to Oyster Point Boulevard and from the south west by East Grand A venue exit off of Highway 101. Locally, the site is accessible from Forbes Boulevard, via East Grand Avenue to the south and from Oyster Point Boulevard to the north. Surrounding Development Surrounding land uses are a mi.;;: of light industrial, manufacturing and research and development. Adjacent land uses include: · North: Open space which is owned by Southern Pacific Railway and which previously contained rail tracks. · South: Eccles Avenue and an adjacent industrial building at 472 Eccles Avenue. · East: Eccles Avenue, beyond which Avis Rent A Car and Yzsumoto and Company are located at 490 Eccles Avenue. · West: Industrial Structures occupied by Universal Freight Forward and the Dimero Express (CSA) Corporation. 2.2 PROJECT SITE Site Description The Project site is a 6.1 acre parcel currently developed with an approximate 152,000 square foot building consisting of an 114,000 square foot building footprint and a mezzanine. Asphalt paved driveways, parking lots and walkway areas surround the site. The frontage of the parcel along Eccles Avenue is sparsely landscaped; the parking areas are minimally landscaped. A concrete tilt-up office/warehouse structure that was constructed in the 1960's is located on the site. The site is relatively level with surface elevations ranging from +68 feet above mean sea level (MSL) in the MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 2-1 CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION northeastern parking lot area to +63 feet MSL along the abandoned railroad spur area at the rear (north) of the existing building. A fill slope approximately five feet in height separates the parking lot from the former railroad spur area. See Figure 1.2 Existing Site Plan. General Plan and Zoning Designations General Plan Designation The Project site is within the area subject to the provisions of the "East of 101" Planning Sub-Area of the City of South San Francisco's General Plan. The General Plan designates the Project site for "Business and Technology Park" uses, and gives the following summary of the Business and Technology Park designation: This designation accommodates campus-like environments for corporate headquarters, research and development facilities, and offices. Permitted uses include incubator- research facilities, testing, repairing, packaging, publishing and printing, marinas, shoreline-oriented recreation, and offices, and research and development facilities. Warehousing and distribution facilities and retail are permitted as ancillary uses only. All development is subject to high design and landscape standards. Maximum Floor .~rea Ratio is 0.5, but increases may be permitted, up to a total FAR of 1.0 for uses such as research and development establishments, or for development meeting specific transportanon demand management (TD1i1), off-site improvement, or specific design standards. Zoning The Project site is zoned "Planned Industrial". Research and development, light manufacturing, administrative and business offices are permitted land uses. Other types of permitted uses include administrative services, business and professional services, financial services consumer repair services, custom manufacturing. A complete list of permitted and conditional uses is identified in Chapter 20.32 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (HTTP://Qcode.us). 2.3 PROPOSED PROJECT The Project proposes to demolish 32,000 square feet of the building and reconstruct the existing mezzanine within the building. Therefore, the project would include 90,000 square feet on the ground floor and 30,000 square feet on the second (mezzanine) level for a total of 120,000 square feet. Approximately 32,000 square feet of laboratories is proposed along with 44,000 square feet of office, 4,000 square feet of warehouse use and 40,000 square feet of circulation area which supports the various uses within the building. Approximately 22 percent of the site would be landscaped. See Figure 1.2 Proposed Site Plan. The proposed height to top of the roof screen is 38'-6" and the front fa<;:ade (southern elevation) would be 28'-6" to the top of the parapet. The proposed floor area ratio is 0.45. Parking is proposed at a ratio of 2.66/1,000 square feet of floor area for 319 parking stalls. Of the total PAGE 2-2 MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDy/NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION parking, 311 spaces are proposed in standard configuration (8'-6" by 18') and eight are in accessible configuration or 9' by 18'. Ten percent of the total or 32 parking stalls are designated for car pool use only. Four Class I bicycle lockers and two Class II bicycle racks are included in the site plan. See Figure 1.2. The project includes a Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM Program) targeted at a 30 percent mode shift. The Project proposes a landscape plan that includes perimeter and interior trees, shrubs and flowering plants. See Figure 2.1 Proposed Landscape Plan. The tree planting plan is identified in Table 1, below. Approximately 20 varieties of shrubs and nine varieties of groundcover would be planted. The shrubs include Lily of the Nile, Daylilly, Pineapple Guava, Heavenly Bamboo, Bamboo, Giant Chain Fern, Dwarf Flaz, Latana, Horsetail, Variegated Tobira, Oleander, Privet, Indian Hawthorn, Hybrid Flax, Variegated Fortnight Lily, Spanish Lavender, Strawberry Tree, Hines Purple Leaf, Groundcover Rose and California Gray Rush. TABLEt TREE PLANTING PLAN Species I Quantity Box Size Arbutus '~Iarina" ! 34 24" Flowering Plum , 20 24" I Bris bane Box i 6 24" Columbia Sycamore I 24 36" Carrotwood , 6 24" upright Hornbeam I 17 24" I Yew Pine i 8 24" Robusta Green Juniper I 1 24" Italian Cypress I 12 24" The South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 13.30.020 defines a "Protected Tree" as one with a trunk circumference of 48" or more measured 54" above natural grade; a tree or stand of trees designated by the Director of Parks and Recreation as one of uniqueness, importance to the public due to its location or unusual appearance, historical significance or other factor; or a stand of trees that the Director of Parks and Recreation has determined each tree is dependant on the others for survival. Forty-two trees would be removed from the site. The trees as noted in Table 2, below are predominately in bad condition and none of the trees proposed to be removed are defined as a "Protected Tree" by the City's definition. Species TABLE 2 TREE REMOVAL PLAN Quantity I Size (54" above grade) 1 24" 3 18",20" and 24" Condition Italian Stone Pine Monterey Pine 2 6" and 8" 23 2" -6" 1 5" 2 18" 9 4" - 7" Wind blown Dead and 20" & 22" Good Good Bad Good Good Bad Eucalyptus- Red Flowering Gum Brisbane Box Strawberry Tree Hollywood J uruper London Plane MONOGRAM SCIENCES-INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 2-3 CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION In summary, none of the trees measure 48" in trunk circumference. The trees were planted in the late 1960's when the building was constructed and are not historical in nature due to location, stand, shape or uniqueness. Paul Reed, Reed Associates Landscape Architects, the Project landscape architect states that the trees are in poor condition largely due to lack of maintenance and inappropriate root barriers being installed. Proposed Circulation and Access Direct access and circulation to the Project site would remain relatively unchanged. Vehicular access to the Project site would be obtained via three of the four existing locations off of Eccles Avenue; one driveway would be replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk. The site access points are; 1) at the northeastern edge of the site which accesses the main parking and circulation area; 2) approximately 230 feet to the south which provides secondary access to the main parking and circulation area and access to accessible parking in front of the building; and 3) at the southwestern corner providing access to the parking area on the southern side of the building. Pedestrian access would be enhanced off of Eccles A venue via an eight foot wide landscaped walkway leading to the landscaped entrance court. Proposed Utility Connections The Project would connect to the existing utility lines present on the Project site and in the Project area. These lines currently serve the site and the area. Storm water drainage, where feasible, would be routed through vegetated swales before entering the storm water drainage system. Proposed Grading Plan Approximately 11,717 square feet of the site would be disturbed for earthwork. This includes approximately 2,068 cubic yards of cut and 2,483 cubic yards of fill. Approximately 415 cubic yards of earth would be hauled off the site. Proposed Construction Schedule Construction is expected to begin on December 2007 and completed by April/May 2008. Overall project demolition, grading and construction would take approximately five months. PAGE 2-4 MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION ----------.--,-,--~~---.,----._- ~-------.._~------ ~ <C ~ IC I ~ q ::i I a.. j -. :~l ,,15 ;~ ,",;f ., ;'1 g ~~ ;;", jl " d9 ;~ ~~ ~:, 't~ :1 1~ '" H ~ ,co ~i ~ ~ J~ =1 ~6 - ~ ~ ~ , ;1 "'" .: i jii!jl~~1 I ; ..,. C".' oJ ~,h~a~jss, ,I, -S: : ~;~:!~z~~ ~ im!~~nl.~~'~~~~~HjHI'!~!:~!, ;1 ,;j,'; .~ :::::::::'::4 ~~~1i2"';~{l)l~'~" --:. ~ 1:'" _ ___:___ , l;f:i~iJ~!~: d!~~ ,ir; if dl , l'f';I'"I,j~-1~3 :"Ij~ '-:~!-3 ", ,l-j" ~ ~~Jl~..H~l :WI~~~~jH~~OH~h H:~Hl.~__ ~.Ak : Ii! . h. i,. 1 "lmj:~1 ~jl!j Ji:"FI;'),' :;:: .~;: d~ag~.J ;~~: i~~i"~i~~';n!l?~, H;_d !~~ ,: ~~~9g;~I~1 j ~'~j~~~:'~~~~~r1; ~ ~~HP~P~ h.nTt 9'3~1"~'l!~jj,t,!:.,~~~. ;!!),.l~jji K!~~b.tJ~.L .,1.. - t ~1i!~_~i~.:}.5_~.::::.~1._ ~ ~~~_;.::::-.:'~. :::.'1 ~~ ';~i '~Il;;'Q,;U;';;::J;;~I:;:::; H~IUn~ ~"-;:,,, ~o!," - -~-"--~-'--'---~-----~~----~_.~---"- ~~ liO w ~I ~ ~i ~ ~i ~ ~J .l! :h ~~l :1 w~ -'!; o o w ~ ~- (..~ ;...- '..I ..ilI-=-= ... .~=::- :-'-~ --=~ ~~m :5:0 -5 ; Z 8~~~ <( ~ij~ .....I a.. o ;if'! -- W ; " ~ ~ ~ z ~ tl <( ~ .....I a.. ?i: <( 1 JI l! z ::!; f ~. )8 I :J pn! Ll.J a: 3DJm a.. i f a.J! .' IlU l! 1]~'~., --~ ,,- "'-=: z.' ~ ::r -1~~- _ - .~;.~ @ .i' ..'- ~~1-"~~,~~ " '1 - FIGURE 2.1 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST This Environmental Checklist provides the technical analysis and discussion of environmental impacts and mitigation measures in support of the City of South San Francisco's determination regarding the appropriateness of a Negative Declaration as the environmental review process for the Project. The measures identified in this chapter would be included in the Project as a matter of law and would be included as a part of design, construction and operations, would be made conditions of approval for the Project, and would be subject to the monitoring and reporting requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the terms of the City's Land C se permit through the building and grading permit processes, City inspections and as a prerequisite to a certificate of occupancy being issued for the Project. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The following checklist is consistent with CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G. A "no impact' response indicates that the Project would not result in an environmental impact in a particular area of interest, either because the resource is not present, or the Project does not have the potential to cause an effect on the resource. A "less than significant' response indicates that, while there may be potential for an environmental impact, the significance of the impact would not exceed established thresholds and/ or that there are standard procedures or regulations in place that would apply to the Project and hence no mitigation is required, or that, although there is the potential for a significant impact, feasible mitigation measures are available and have been agreed to by the Project Applicant to reduce the impact to a level of "less than significant." No "potentially significant impact' responses are identified, indicating that the Project would not exceed established thresholds and that therefore no impact that could not be avoided by utilizing standard operating procedures and regulations, program requirements, or design features as identified in this checklist as being incorporated into the Project. Citations for this chapter are contained within the relevant discussion. MONOGRAM SCIENCES-INITIAL STUDy/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-1 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3.1 AESTHETICS Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS - Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ./ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? ./ c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? ./ d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ./ SETTING Project Site The Project site is located on Eccles Avenue, between Oyster Point and Forbes Boulevards. The Project is within the Cabot, Cabot and Forbes Industrial Park. The Project site, as noted, is relatively flat and enjoys views of San Bruno Mountain. The site is developed with a concrete tilt up industrial building. The building elevations are devoid of architectural detail, although some awnings punctuate the fa<;:ades of the building. South San Francisco South San Francisco's urban character is one of contrasts within a visually well defIned setting. San Bruno Mountain to the north, the ridge along Skyline Boulevard to the west, and the San Francisco Bay to the east provide the City with distinctive edges. The City is contained in almost a bowl like fashion by hills on three sides. The City's terrain ranges from the flatlands along the water to hills east and north. Hills are visible from all parts of the City, and Sign Hill and San Bruno Mountain in the distance are visual landmarks. Much of the City's topography is rolling, resulting in distant views PAGE 3-2 MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST from many neighborhoods. Geographically, the City is relatively small, extending approximately two miles in a north-south direction and about five miles from east to west. South San Francisco's industrial roots are reflected in its urban character, especially in its eastern parts. Almost 20 percent of South San Francisco's land is occupied by industrial and warehousing uses. East of 101 Area The Project site is located in the East of 101 planning sub-area of South San Francisco. The East of 101 Area was part of the first industrial development in South San Francisco about 100 years ago. Since then, the area has undergone many transformations. Pioneering industrial uses, such as steel manufacturing, and meat packaging ga,-e way to industrial park and warehousing and distribution uses that came to dominate the area in the 1950s and 1960s. The recent emergence of modern office buildings and life science campuses mark the third major wave of land use change in the area. The newly emerging office areas and life science campuses are unique in their uses of consistent and conscious street tree planting, while the rest of the City, including downtown, is almost bereft of street trees. Older manufacturing uses, industrial park structures and tilt-up warehousing buildings can all be found in the area. Blocks are generally very large in size and the area has a ,-ery stark industrial look. Numerous abandoned railroad spurs are present. Since the late 1990s, de':elopers have preferred to redevelop the older industrial park blocks and construct new rrll."'{ed office and research and development de,-elopments north of East Grand Avenue. In April 2007, the City Council approved the expansion of the Genentech Research and Development Facility and .:vlaster Plan from 124 acres (consisting of 2.8 millions square feet of Office/R&D/Manufacturing uses) to 200 acres (permitting up to six million square feet of Office/R&D /~lanufacturing uses). Proposed Project The Project would demolish an approximate 32,000 square feet from the front of the building, thereby increasing the building setback from Eccles A venue from the existing 30 feet to 100 feet. The Project includes an improved front fa<;:ade with an entry court, landscaping and water features; improvement to the entry off of Eccles .\ venue and the addition of landscaping on the site. Regulatory Framework East of 101 Area Plan Design Element In 1995, the East of 101 Area Plan established goals and policies for the City and East of 101 Area. The policies contained in the Plan's design element apply to development at the Project site and the project area (South San Francisco General Plan, 1999. page 53). The stated goals of the East of 101 Area Plan's design concept are to promote quality design, to promote a functional, safe and attractive environment, preserve the character of South San Francisco's heritage, protect public investment and land values, protect the natural environment, and facilitate evaluation of individual development proposals through the use of the Plan's design guidelines. The East of 101 Area's development policies for the Project Site encourage the creation MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDy/NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-3 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST of campus-like environments for corporate headquarters, research and development facilities, and other high quality multi-tenant office or warehouse developments. The East of 101 _-\rea Plan design element sets area-wide design policies for streetscape, parking, loading and access, site design and open space, landscaping and lighting, fencing and screening, building design, signage and rooftop mechanical equipment. Additionally, the Plan sets more specific guidelines for individual land use categories. For the Project site, the design guidelines include specific requirements for street trees, landscape buffers, blank walls, building orientation, design guidelines, parking lot trees and parking lot shrubs. IMPACTS a) Scenic Vistas Significance Cn"tena: For the purpose of assessing impacts of a proposed Project on scenic vistas, the threshold of significance is exceeded when a Project would result in the obstruction of a designated public vista, or in the placement of an arguably offensive or negative-appearing project within such a vista. Any clear conflict with a General Plan policy or other adopted planning policy regarding scenic vistas would also be considered a potentially significant adverse environmental impact. The Project is not located within a formally designated public vista, nor would it result ill the obstruction of a formally designated public vista. Additionally, the Project would not clearly conflict with an adopted planning policy regarding scenic vistas. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact. _~dditionally, the Project would not obstruct the view of the wind harp located on San Bruno Knoll. b) Scenic Resources and Scenic Routes Signifii"[/nI-'e Criteria: For the purposes of assessing impacts of the Project on scenic resources, the threshold of significance is exceeded by any Project-related action that would substantially damage scenic resources (i.e., trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state [or local] scenic highway). The Project would not be visible from a state scenic highway. The Project site does not contain historic buildings or trees or significant rock outcroppings. Therefore would have no impact on sceruc resources. c) Visual Character Signijicance Criten'a: The Project would ha\"e a significant environmental impact if it were to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The visual character of new Projects must conform to the design principles and policies set forth in the East of 101 Area Plan Design Element, specifically Policies DE-39 and 56 addressing the Planned Industrial Area. The Project would meet these guidelines, including: PAGE 3-4 MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDy/NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST . Streetscape. Street trees are required to be planted every thirty (30) feet. The Project would plant street trees every thirty feet on center along Eccles Avenue as well as the east and west property lines. Trees are not proposed along the south property line as there is a legal easement in favor of access to the adjacent property. . Footpaths and Sidewalks. The design guidelines call for sidewalks and footpaths and a clear connection between the street and building. The Project proposes to improve the pedestrian experience from Eccles Avenue by providing a landscaped walkway from Eccles to the entry court. The walk way would include decorative pavers and two 24" -box Flowering Plum and two 24" -box Upright Hornbeam would be planted in this area. The treatment of the walk way is prominent, and leads to the landscaped and screened entry way; elements which provide a clear connection of the building to the street. Pathways are proposed at the rear of the building. The landscape treatment and pathways provide vistas of San Bruno :\lountain. The area would be landscaped with 14 24" -box Arubutus "Marina" trees and a \'ariety of shrubs and groundcovers. Bicycle lockers would also be provided in this area. . Landscape Buffers. A 10 foot wide landscape buffer from the Eccles Avenue is required. The project proposes a 30 to 60 foot landscape buffer from Eccles Avenue to the parking area along Eccles Avenue. The project proposes to increase the existing building setback from 30 feet to 100 feet. st.'\: foot wide side and rear landscape buffers are also required. The project proposes an eight foot side (east) landscape buffer and an intermittent 18 foot west side landscape buffer along the edge of the building. The intermittent placement of the landscaping on the west side is due to the presence and restrictions of the access easement favoring the adjacent property. The rear landscape buffer ranges from 20 to 40 feet in width, which is discussed in more detail above under "Footpaths and Side\valks". . Building Orientation. The Design Guidelines require a clear relationship of the building to the street. The landscaping, setbacks, pathways, and building entrance all serve to provide this orientation. The front fa<;:ade, with the improved entry way accentuates the building's relationship to the street. . 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 existing building has a painted relief feature at approximately 12-14 foot intervals. Through project conditions of approval additional features may be integrated into the design as directed by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission. . Parking and Access Design. The Project would utilize three of the existing site entrances. The Design Guidelines require shrubs in parking lot medians and that no more than 12 cars are parked in a row without a tree island. The Project proposes st.'\: to eight cars in a row to every tree island. Shrubs are included in the middle and ends of the parking rows and along the edge of the site, parking areas and building as well as along the pathways to the building. MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDy/NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-5 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST · Loading Dock/Service Area Access Design. The Project would locate the service area/loading dock area in the rear of the southwest elevation of the building. The placement is currently where it exists and provides for on-site vehicle maneuvering without special effort. The existing and proposed loading area is separated from the main parking areas so as not to hinder on-site circulation. · Lighting. A lighting plan is provided and reveals that the light is task orientated. Off site light leakage is minimal, as the foot candles at the property line decrease. The Police Department has reviewed the lighting plan and found it to be adequate (Sgt. Alan Normandy. July 20, 2007). · Building Design. The Project would integrate with the architecture in the area while also providing an improvement with respect to the design elements addressed above. The height, at + / - 102 feet above mean sea level (MSL) is within the maximum permitted 211 feet above MSL (South San Francisco General Plan, page 4. 1999) requisite for aircraft safety. · Rooftop Mechanical Equipment. The Project would shield all rooftop mechanical equipment from view with a parapet on the roof. With regards to the immediate site vicinity, the proposed Project would be located on a site whose visual characteristics consist of research and development, industrial and manufacturing buildings with a surface parking lot adjacent to the buildings. In general the Project complies with the East of 101 Design Guidelines; however, through the discretionary review process the City may require additional architectural features as directed by Staff, the Design Review Board and Planning Commission. Therefore the Project would have no impact on visual character. d) Light or Glare Significance Criteria: Project related creation of any new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area would be regarded as a significant environmental unpact. Project implementation would involve installation new light standards at various locations at the Project site. Lighting designs would employ fixtures that would cast light in a downward direction, and building materials would not be sources of glare given the blue and grey palette, sunscreens for glazing, minimal use of reflective materials in the architecture and the amount of landscaping (22 percent of the site area) on the site. The installation of newer technology light standards would result in potentially less, and no significant increase of light and glare emanating from the Project site which would be considered less than significant. Finding: The proposed project would not have an impact on the aesthetics or scenic quality on the Project Site or in the project area. There would be no individual or cumulative impacts with respect to aesthetic or visual quality associated with the project. PAGE 3-6 MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the Project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? ./ ./ ./ SETTING The Project site is developed. Site grading occurred around 1956 and the structures were built in the 1960's. (Phase I Environmental Site AJSesJment. 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080. URS. November 11, 2005). IMPACTS a - c) Farmland Impacts Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use, conflict with current zoning for agricultural use or the provisions of a current Williamson Act contract, or involve any environmental changes that could result in the conversion of farmland currently in agricultural uses to non-agricultural uses. The Project is the redevelopment of an existing developed site. No Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmlands or Farmlands of Statewide Importance have been identified at, or around, the Project site. No part of the Project site is under a Williamson Act contract and no part of the Project site or surrounding area is zoned for agricultural uses (South San Francisco General Plan and Zoning Ordinance). Therefore, the Project would have no iInpact on agricultural resources. MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-7 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Finding: The project would not adversely affect any existing agricultural operations since the site is in industrial use and has been since the 1950's. The project would not impact agricultural resources individually or cumulatively. 3.3 AIR QUALITY Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact III. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precu rsors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Potentially Sign ificant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact ../ ../ ../ ../ ../ SETTING The amount of a given pollutant in the atmosphere is determined by the rate of release and the atmosphere's ability to transport and dilute the pollutant. The major determinants of transport and dilution are wind, atmospheric stability, terrain and, for photochemical pollutants, sunshine. Northwest winds are most common in South San Francisco, reflecting the orientation of wind gaps within the mountains of the San Francisco Peninsula. Winds are persistent and strong, providing excellent ventilation and carrying pollutants downwind. Winds are lightest on average in the fall and wmter. The persistent winds in South San Francisco result in a relatively low potential for air pollution. Even so, in fall and winter there are periods of several days when winds are very light and local pollutants can build up. PAGE 3-8 MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Previous Environmental Review The Project site was previously analyzed in the 1999 South San Francisco General Plan Environmental Impact Report (ErR) for the General Plan Amendment; the 2001 Transit Demand Ordinance (IDtv1) Supplemental EIR (SEIR) and the 2006 Genentech Master Plan EIR. The Master Plan EIR, General Plan EIR and TDM SEIR calculated potential future development by using average densities and intensities from the different land use classifications applied to vacant sites and sites with potential redevelopment and intensification opportunities. The development assumptions analyzed in all the documents for the site is 1.0 FAR (JVlike Lappen, Senior Planner City of South San Francisco, July 27, 2007). The General Plan build out is described in Chapter 3 of the 1999 General Plan EIR and Chapter 4.2 Land Cse in the General Plan Amendment and TDi\1 Ordinance SEIR. The General Plan also contains specific policies that require the City to adhere to current federal and state regulations. Policy 7.3-I-2 states: "Cse the City's development and review process and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations to evaluate and mitigate the local and cumulative effect of air pollution control measures as required by state and federal statutes." Regulatory Framework The Bay Area Air Quality i\lanagement District (BAAQMD) monitors and regulates air quality pursuant to the Federal Clean Air _~ct, as amended, and the 1988 California Clean Air Act. The BAAQMD has published Guidelines for assessing air quality impacts, CEQA Guidelines for AJJ'eJJ'ing Air Qualiry Impacts, December 1999. The BAAQMD operates a regional monitoring network for ambient concentrations of SL'{ criteria pollutants. The major pollutams of concern in the San Francisco Bay Area are ozone, carbon monoxide and particulate matter. The monitoring station closest to the project site is in Redwood City (monitoring ozone, carbon monoxide and particulate matter PM-I0 and PM-2.5) and in Mountain View (monitoring ozone). Ozone and particulate matter (both PM-I0 and Pi\I-2.5) are of particular concern as ozone exceeded the state I-hour average three of the last five years, Pi\I-10 exceeded the state 24-hour averaging standard four of the last five years and PM-2.5 exceeded the national 24-hour average once in the last five years. The Bay Area is currendy designated as a nonattainment area for the State and national ozone standards and as a nonattainment area for the state respirable particulate matter (p:vl-10) and fine particulate matter (pM-2.5) standards. California's strict motor vehicle emission laws have resulted in a decline in precursors to ozone (ROG and NOx). Carbon monoxide has continued to drop over the past 25 years also. Stationary sources of ROG have continued to drop as a result of stricter controls on fugitive emissions from oil refining and new BAAQMD rules on industrial coatings and solvents. PM-I0 emissions from motor vehicles exhaust (diesel dri\-en) have also continued to drop. The major source of particulate matter is from fugitive dust sources (i.e., emissions released through means other than through a stack or tailpipe), such as vehicle travel over roadways and construction activities. In addition to the criteria pollutants, Toxic Air Contaminants (IACs) are another group of pollutants of concern in the Bay _-\rea. T_~Cs are injurious in small quantities and are regulated MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDy/NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-9 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST despite the absence of criteria documents. The identification, regulation and monitoring of TACs is relatively recent compared to that for criteria pollutants. Significance Thresholds The CEQA environmental checklist provides five questions regarding air quality impact significance. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the determinations of significance. BA4QivlD CEQA GlIidelineJ' provide the following definitions of a significant air quality impact: · A project contributing to carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations exceeding the State Ambient Air Quality Standard of 9 parts per million (ppm) averaged over 8 hours or 20 ppm for 1 hour would be considered to have a significant impact. · A project that generates criteria air pollutant emissions in excess of the BA... -\QMD annual or daily thresholds would be considered to have a significant air quality impact. The current thresholds are 15 tons/year or 80 pounds/day for Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) or PM1U' Any proposed project that would individually have a significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air quality impact. · Any project with the potential to frequently expose members of the public to objectionable odors would be deemed to have a significant impact. · Any project with the potential to expose sensitive receptors or the general public to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants would be deemed to have a significant impact. The term "substantial levels" is further defIned as an exposure associated with an excess cancer risk of 1 0 in one million. The BAAQMD significance thresholds for constructIOn dust impacts are based on the appropriateness of construction dust controls. The BAAQMD guidelines provide feasible control measures for construction emission of PMl<)' If the appropriate construction controls are to be implemented, then air pollutant emissions for construction activities would be considered less than significant. IMPACTS a) Conflict with Air Quality Plan Significance Criteria: The Project would be considered to have a significant impact if it were to be in conflict with the current air quality plan. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin lS currently non-attainment for ozone (state and federal ambient standards) and PMw (state ambient standard). While air quality plans exist for ozone, none exists (or is currently required) for PMlil' The 2001 ReviJed San Fram7JCO Bqy Area O::;.one Attainment Plan for the 1-Hollr National O::;.one Standard is the current ozone air quality plan required under the Federal Clean Air Act (Bay Area Air Quality Management District, ReviJed San Frant7JiXJ Bqy Area O::;.one PAGE3-10 MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Attainment Plan for the 1-Hour National Ozone Standard, October 2001). The state-mandated regional air quality plan is the Bcry Area 2005 Ozone Strategy (Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Bcry Area 2005 Ozone Strategy, January 4, 2006). These plans contain mobile source controls, stationary source controls and transportation control measures to be implemented in the region to attain the state and federal ozone standards within the Bay Area Air Basin. A project would be judged to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the regional air quality plan if it would be inconsistent with the growth assumptions, in terms of population, employment or regional growth in vehicle miles traveled. The growth assumptions used for the regional air quality plans are based upon the growth assumptions provided in local general plans. As noted above, the development assumptions for the site were analyzed at a 1.0 FAR. The Project proposes a 0.45 FAR. Therefore, the Project would not exceed growth assumptions made in the 1999 South San Francisco General Plan. The Project has been designated and zoned for light industrial uses, which indicates that the Project site has been targeted for such growth, and light industrial uses are expected on the Project site prior to the buildout horizons of the General Plan. Because the growth assumptions of the above local general plan are used for air quality plans, any growth due to the Project has already been included in the assumed growth estimate of BAAQMD's Clean _\it Plan. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on any of the growth assumptions made in the preparation of these plans, and would not obstruct implementation of any of the proposed control measures contained in these plans. b) and c) Air Quality Standards Signijicance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would exceed BAAQMD's mass emission rate threshold or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). Air quality impacts are associated with both construction and operation of a project. B~-\..c~QMD rules and regulations govern certain aspects of the construction phase of the project. B~-\..c~QMD regulations applicable to the construction of the project relate to portable equipment (e.g., Portland concrete batch plants and gasoline- or diesel-powered engines used for power generation, pumps, compressors and cranes), architectural coatings and paving materials (fugitive dust is discussed below). Construction Related Impacts: Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions. Project-related construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, earthmoving, and general construction. Site preparation includes such activities such as general land clearing and grubbing. Earthmoving activities include cut and fill operations, trenching, soil compaction, and grading. General construction includes adding improvements such as roadway surfaces, structures, and facilities. The emissions generated from these construction activities include dust (including PMw and PM2S) primarily from "fugitive" sources. Fugitive dust could cause or contribute to the exceedances of the state PM -10 standard during project construction. MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-11 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Project construction is anticipated to span five months and would generate short-term emissions of criteria pollutants, including suspended and respirable particulate matter and equipment exhaust emissions. The BA.AQMD CEQA GuidelineJ- do not call for quantification of construction emissions, but considers any project's construction-related impacts to be less-than-significant with appropriate implementation of BAAQMD-recommended dust-control measures. The City of South San Francisco requires as conditions of project approval (levied by the Engineering Division) the implementation of the following measures: 1) Water all active construction sites at least twice daily. 2) Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. 3) Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. 4) Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at constructlon sHes. 5) Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. 6) Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (pre,-iously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). 7) Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiled materials. 8) Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. 9) Install sandbags or other erosion-control measures to prevent silt runoff to public road,v-ays. 10) Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. 11) Watering should be used to control dust generation during the break-up of pavement. 12) Cover all trucks hauling demolition debris from the site. 13) Use dust-proof chutes to load debris into trucks whenever feasible. 14) Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind. 15) Diesel powered equipment shall be maintained in good working condition, with manufacturer-recommended mufflers, filters, and other equipment. 16) Diesel powered equipment shall not be left inactive and idling for more than ten minutes, and shall comply with applicable K-L~QMD rules. 17) 1.] se alternative fueled construction equipment, if possible. The City's dust control measures are consistent with BAAQMD recommendations. Therefore, no additional measures are required beyond those the City requires as a matter of law (i.e., these requirements or a reasonable replacement are required as a condition of grading and building permit issuance). Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions. The California Health and Safety Code requires local agencies not to issue demolition permits until an applicant has demonstrated compliance with notification requirements under applicable federal regulations regarding asbestos, lead-based paint and other potentially hazardous materials. B"-L~QMD is vested by the California Legislature with authority to regulate airborne pollutants through both inspection and law enforcement, and is to be notified ten days in advance of any proposed demolition and must provide information on the amount and PAGE 3-12 MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST nature of any hazardous pollutants, nature of planned work and methods to be employed, and the name and location of the waste disposal site to be used. The purpose of BAAQMD regulations is the minimization of potential hazards to the public and surrounding land uses. Based upon the age of the 475 Eccles building it is suspected that the building contains asbestos (Phase I Environmental Site AJSmment, 475 Ecdes Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080, L'RS, November 11, 2005). The BA..-\QMD regulates removal of materials containing asbestos. BAAQMD requirements are enforced in concert with the South San Francisco Building Division. The Building Division requires notification to BA..-\QMD by the project applicant for demolition of buildings suspected of containing asbestos or lead based paints. Therefore, as a matter of law, the Building Division will require that the project sponsor obtain a "J" number from the BA.... -\QMD demonstrating compliance with their regulations for demolition of structures containing or suspected of containing asbestos. As a matter of standard procedure, the J number is provided to the City of South San Francisco Building Division prior to the City Building Division issuing a demolition permit for structures on the Project site. All buildings known or suspected of containing asbestos are required to conform to this process (Jim Kirkman, Chief Building Official and ...-\llison Knapp, meeting July 24, 2007). ...~s a matter of law, demolition of structure and portions of the parking lot will be required to be reviewed and permitted through the BAAQMD. Therefore, no mitigation is identified as required by this Initial Study as the regulations are captured by the City's permitting process as a standard requirement of issuance of a demolition permit. Long-Term Operational Impacts: Long-term impacts would be associated with vehicle use in addition to the TAC's discussion in item d, below. The proposed Project is estimated to generate 917 average daily trips based upon 40,000 square feet of office; 32,000 square feet of Research and Development; 40,000 square feet of manufacturing and office; and 4,000 square feet of warehouse use. Trip generation rates are based upon the industry standard identified in the Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation Factors, 7th Edition. As a point of comparison, the existing trip generation of the site is 985 average daily trips. Trip generation is well below the 2,000 trips per day threshold established by the BA.... -\QMD for the preparation of a detailed air quality analysis (page 24, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, 1999). Summary: The above regulations and procedures, already established and enforced as parr of the permit review process, would ensure that the impact of criteria and hazardous air pollutant emissions during construction and operation of the Project would be less than significant. d) Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollution Concentrations Significance Criteria: For the purpose of assessing impacts of a proposed Project on exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollution concentrations, the threshold of significance is exceeded when the probability of contracting cancer for the :'vIaximally Exposed Individual (i\'IEI) exceeds 10 in one million. A quarter mile radius is an adequate distance within which to consider potential impacts to sensitive receptors due to operation. Examples of sensitive receptors include schools, hospitals, and residential areas with children and convalescent facilities. The closest sensitive receptors to the site are two child care centers; one at 599 Gateway Boulevard 0.3 miles from the site MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-13 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST and one at 444 Allerton Avenue 0.4 miles from the Project site. There are no sensitive receptors located within a 0.25 mile radius of the project site. Any future Project occupant that would potentially release toxic air contaminant emissions (TACs) would be subject to rules, regulations and procedures of the BAAQMD. The BI\.AQMD regulations and procedures, already established and enforced as part of the air quality permit review process for any future occupant of the Project, would ensure that any potential impacts due to toxic air contaminant emission would be reduced to a level of less than significant at the closest sensitive receptor and other receptors closer to the Project site. e) Odors Signijicance Criteria: The BA."'-\QMD defines public exposure to offensive odors as a potentially significant impact. Potential odor impacts are based on a list of specific types of facilities, such as wastewater treatment plants, landfills, refineries, etc. During construction, various diesel-powered ,-ehicles and equipment in use on the site would create odors. These odors are temporary and not likely to be noticeable beyond the Project boundaries. The impact of the Project with regard to odors is considered to be less than significant Finding: The project would not result in a significant impact to air quality and would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria non-attainment pollutants (ozone precursors and PM-I0). The City's building permit procedure captures the BAAQMD permitting regulations, as well as dust control measures. ~o mitigation measures, above those required by the City as a matter of law, are identified in this Initial Study. The project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact to air quality. ~loreO\'er, the Project would result in a lower development intensity (0.45 FAR as opposed to a 1.0 F~~R, and thus lower contribution to air quality impacts, than was planned for the site. PAGE 3-1 4 MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either direcUy 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 riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ SETTING The Project site is paved and denloped and has been since the 1960's. The Project site is located in a largely industrial area and development in this area began in the 1940's San Francisco Bay is located approximately 2,000 feet (0.4 mile) north of the site. San Bruno Mountain is located 0.75 miles and northwest of the site. MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDy/NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-1 5 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Regulatory Framework South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 13.30.020 Protected Tree Ordinance: South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 13.30.020 defines a "Protected Tree" as one with a circumference of 48" or more measures 54" above natural grade; a tree or stand of trees designated by the Director of Parks and Recreation as one of uniqueness, importance to the public due to its location or unusual appearance, historical significance or other factor; or a stand of trees that the Director of Parks and Recreation has determined each tree is dependant on the others for survival. California Department o/f'lsh and Game: Nesting birds are protected by the California Department of Fish and Game Code Section 3503, which reads, "It is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto." Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Ad (1'vlBTA: 16 CS.c., Section 703-7/2: There are over 900 species of birds protected by the MBTA. The ~v1BT~-\ prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. This _~ct encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. Construction activities during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings or nest abandonment. The MBTA is typically enforced by the California Department Fish and Game. A standard requirement is to either conduct tree and building removal during the non-nesting season which in San Mateo County is September 1- January 31 or conduct a nesting survey within five days prior to tree removal and should nests be found they are required to be protected in place until the birds have fledged. Protection of the nests would require leaving the tree in place and based upon the type of bird species identified by the biological study, various setbacks during project construction (including grading and tree removal) would be required until the birds have fledged. IMPACTS a-d) Habitat Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant impact if it were to substantially impact habitat, wetlands, migratory corridors and Waters of the United States as identified in 3.4 a-d, above. Suitable habitat requires the presence of vegetation for cover and food and a source of ,vater. Suitable wildlife habitat is located approximately 2,000 feet north of the site along the San Francisco Bay and approximately 0.75 miles northwest of the Project site in San Bruno Mountain County and State Park. The Project site itself is located in a largely industrial area, on a site that has already been developed. There is no habitat value to the site. Trees on the site are either very small in circumference or in bad to dead condition which results in little to no value for migratory and nesting birds, especially in light of suitable habitat in the vicinity. See Table 2 Tree Removal Plan, below which summarizes the conditions of the trees on the site. Food and water sources are lacking on the Project site. The proximity of suitable habitat within 0.40 to 0.75 miles of the site further renders the habitat value of the Project site as insignificant. PAGE 3-1 6 MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST There are no wetlands or riparian habitat on the site (East of 101 Area Plan and Knapp Consulting, July 2007). Redevelopment of the site would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The Project would have no impact on any endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, or to any federally protected wetlands or wildlife corridors. Species TABLE 2 TREE REMOVAL PLAN Quantity Size (54" above grade) 24" 18",20" and 24" Condition Wind blown Dead and 20" & 22" Good Eucalyprus- Red Flowering Gum 2 6" and 8" Good Brisbane Box 23 2" -6" Bad Strawberry Tree 1 5" Good Hollywood Juniper 2 18" Good London Plane I 9 4" - 7" Bad Source: Reed & Associates, Landscape Architects/Site Visits Knapp Consulting Italian Stone Pine Monterev Pine 1 3 e) and f) Local Policies and Ordinances and Habitat Conservation Plans Signijicance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat consen-ation plan. The Project site is located in a largely industrial area, on a site that has previously been developed. There are no Protected Trees on the site as identified in Table 2, above. There is no Habitat or Conservation Plan that governs the site, as the site does not contain habitat. The Project is not located on ecologically sensitive lands and would have no impact on General Plan policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Finding: The project would not result in a significant impact or significant unavoidable impact to biological resources individually or cumulatively. The Project is not located on ecologically sensitive lands and would have no impact on General Plan policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3- 1 7 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact v. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the Project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 915064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 915064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ./ ./ ./ ./ SETTING The Project site is paved and developed and has been since the 1960's. The Project site is located in an industrial area which began to be developed in the late 1940's and early 1950's. San Francisco Bay is located approximately 2,000 (0.40 miles) feet north of the site. San Bruno Mountain is located 0.75 miles west and northwest of the site. Archaeological and Historic Review Holman & Associates, Mr. Miley Holman conducted an archival search and site inspection at the request of the City. Mr. Holman presented his findings in a report dated July 30, 2007 (Cultural Resources Stucfy of the 475 Eccles Properry, South San Francisco, San Mateo Coun!), California. Holman & Associates. July 30, 2007). The findings of the report are summarized in the following and incorporated by reference in this document. An archival search was conducted by :'v1iley Holman (Holman & Associates) in person at the Northwest Information Center located at Sonoma State University on July 27, 2007 (file no. 07-153) to obtain information about recorded historic and prehistoric sites in the project area, and evidence of previous archaeological studies of the area. There are no recorded historic or prehistoric archaeological sites located inside the project borders or within a quarter mile of the site. There have been no previous archaeological field studies of the project area, or any properties within a quarter mile of the site. The project area has been altered considerably in historical times; the 1899 San Mateo U.s.G.s. map of the area shows the project located near the top of the ridge which once ran from the southwest to the northeast to the west of San Bruno Point. By 1995, the 7.5 minute U.S.G.S map of the area barely suggests that there had been an actual ridge line in the vicinity of Eccles Avenue. PAGE 3-18 MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST On July 30th Miley Holman completed a brief visual inspection of the project area and surrounding properties to confirm that the area had been graded at some point in the late 20th century. It was clear from his inspection that considerable soil was removed from this area to construct the industrial sites which currently are found on either side of Eccles Avenue; the lands at 475 still drop gently to the west outside of the fence line, probably following the original topography to some extent. It is the finding of his repon that future redevelopment of the parcel located at 475 Eccles Avenue should have no effect on buried or obscured historic and/or prehistoric archaeological resources: the entire area has been historically graded, removing all top soils to an undetermined depth. The nearest historic and prehistoric archaeological resources would have probably been located north of Butler road, which separates the hills west of Point San Bruno from the former margin of the bay. Mr. Holman does not recommend any form of mechanical subsurface presence/ absence testing, and does not recommend archaeological monitoring of future construction related earthmoving activities. IMPACTS a) Historic Resources Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ~ 15064.5. As evidenced in the Holman & _~ssociates, reconnaissance and report there are no historic resources located on the Project site or within a 0.25 mile of the Project site. The Project would have no impact on historic resources. b - d) Archaeological Resources Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in~15064.5, directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature, or disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries. As evidenced in the Holman & Associates site reconnaissance and data search there are no archaeological or paleontological resources or human remains located on the Project site or within a 0.25 mile of the Project site. The Project would have no impact on archaeological or paleontological resources. Finding: The Project is located on a developed site and in a developed area. Based upon the Holman & Associates reconnaissance, literature search and report there are no historic, archaeological or paleontological resources or human remains located on the Project site or within a 0.25 mile of the Project site. The Project would have no impact on cultural resources. MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-1 9 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the Project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ./ delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ./ iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including ./ liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ./ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ./ topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ./ unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in . ./ Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 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? SETTING The Project site is a 6.1 acre parcel currently developed with concrete tilt up structure constructed in the 1960's. Asphalt and paving have been present on the site since the late 1940's and early 1950's. The site is relatively level and surface elevations range from +68 feet in the northeastern portion of the site to 63 feet in elevation along the old railroad bed at the southwestern (rear) area of the site. A geotechnical investigation was prepared for the project and is incorporated herein by reference (Geotechnical Report, Shell and Site [Jpgrade, -1-75 B:c/es Avenue, South San Francisi'o, California. Donald E. Banta & Associates, Inc., Consulting Geotechnical Engineers. June 6, 2007) (Geotechnical Report). PAGE 3-20 MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The report, summarized in the following is included as part of the Project; therefore lts recommendations are required as part of Project development. The City Building Division requires as a condition of building permit approval that the geologist of record certify that plans and specifications submitted for grading and building permits conform to the recommendations of the geotechnical report. Additionally, the Engineering Division requires the peer review of project geotechnical reports. The peer review is conducted by the City's Consulting Geologists, Cotton Shires & ~\ssociates. Peer review of the applicant's geotechnical report was performed (Geotechnical Peer Review, Biomed fualty Trtlst, Building Upgrades. Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc. August 2, 2007) and is incorporated herein by reference. Project Site Geology A fill slope which is approximately five feet in height separates the parking area from the former railroad spur. A cut slope, approximately 20 to 30 feet in height is located beyond the northwestern property line, and northwest of the former railroad spur. Franciscian bedrock materials are exposed over the majority of the cut slope. Colma sand materials appear to be present on the eastern portion of the cut slope. Groundwater seepage \vas noted near the base of the cut slope which is present year round, roughly 20 feet below existing grade, and off the project site. The Project site is situated on low bedrock upland within the northwestern area of Point San Bruno, an eastern extension of San Bruno Mountain that projects into San Francisco Bay. The bedrock is associated with Franciscian Complex a chaotic, folded and sheared assemblage of sediments and lava flows that originally accumulated in deep submarine trenches. Bedrock in the vicinity of the Project site is composed of a melange of relatively coherent rocks that are typically within a matri.x of firm, clayey, sheared rocks. The crushed and sheared rocks are a result of ancient faulting related to the formational processes and uplifting of San Bruno Mountain. The clayey matrix materials have a relatively low permeability. Therefore, locally perched groundwater horizons are relatively common, forming seeps or springs where they discharge on hillsides and within areas of hillside cuts. An excavated cut slope that is inclined downward at an inclination of about 30 degrees lies northwest of the project site. The exposed bedrock is largely greenstone, an altered basaltic rock, with localized areas of sheared sandstone, shale and serpentine. The "Preliminary Geologic ;\lap of the San Francisco South Quadrangle" (Bonilla, 1971 and 1998) maps the Project site as underlain by sheared rocks of the Franciscian formation. The northeast corner of the property is mapped as sandy clays/clayey sands overlying sheared Franciscian rock. The sheared rocks are described as small to large fragments of hard rock in a matri.x of sheared rock. Exploratory Borings Eight exploratory borings to depths of 10 to 34.2 feet were conducted on September 11, 2006. Three Seismic Refraction Surveys were also conducted on September 11 and October 10, 2006. MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDy/NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-21 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (Geotechnical Report, Sheil and Site Upgrade, 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California. Donald E. Banta & Associates, Inc., Consulting Geotechnical Engineers. June 6, 2007 Figure 2 and Page 2). 'Minor groundwater on the Project site was encountered in Boring 2 at a depth of 19 feet. Heavy seepage was encountered in Boring 8 at a depth ranging SLX to eight feet. Seismic Faults No active earthquake faults have been recognized within the immediate site area. Although the site and vicinity is believed to be free of active faults, the San Francisco Bay Area is known to be within a seismically active region. The dominant fault in this area is the San Andreas fault, located about 6.4 kilometers (km) southwest of the site. Other active faults in the area include the San Gregorio fault located roughly 14 km to the west-southwest, and the Hayward fault located on the order of 24 km to the northeast. Additional faults in the area that are not considered active include the San Bruno and Sierra faults located roughly 3.6 and 5.3 km 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 very shorr distance from the Project site. C ntil the late 1990's this fault was considered active for planning purposes. Subsequent geophysical studies conducted in the late 1990's using a more accurate high-powered deep-penetrating sonar system found no evidence suggesting that the Hillside fault is potentially active. Moreover, geologic observations of the Hillside fault exposed during recently graded cuts on San Bruno Mountain did not detect any recognizable offsets of units that would indicate a current fault rupture hazard. Therefore, there is no evidence that this fault has been active within geologically recent time; however, it may be possible for sympathetic movements to be imposed on this fault as a result of stress from major earthquakes on nearby faults, such as the San Andreas and Hayward faults. Geotechnical Report Conclusions The Geotechnical Report concludes (page 8) that the site, from a geotechnical engineering perspective, is suitable for the proposed development provided that the conclusions and recommendations presented are incorporated into the design and construction of the project. The report includes design specifications for foundations and earthwork. The report states that new foundations can be supported on conventional spread footing foundations. Building footings shall bear on weathered bedrock materials and non-building footings can bear on undisturbed native materials or compacted structured fill. Earthwork findings include that that Franciscan bedrock materials are present or within a few feet of present site grades. The hardness of these materials is highly variable over relatively short distances. The more sheared/weathered rock can be excavated with conventional earthmoving equipment. In areas where harder bedrock is encountered heavy ripping using larger earthmoving equipment will need to be employed. The use of hoe-rams will be needed in some areas. The extension of the parking lot in the northwestern area will require five feet of fill. Retained fills should be benched into undisturbed native materials with the installation of proper drainage. The Soil Pro@e Type is Sb' Near Source Factor Na is 1.2 and Near Source Factor Nv is 1.5 pursuant to the 1997 edition of the L niform Building Code. PAGE 3-22 MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDy/NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Detailed geotechnical parameters and requirements are included in the report. The requirements focus on site preparation, earthwork operations and drainage, foundations and paving design. Site preparation, earthwork operations and drainage requirements address clearing and site preparation, subgrade preparation, subgrade conditions, excavation, material for fill, selection of non-expansive fill, compaction, cut and fill slopes, trench back fill, surface drainage, seepage control and construction observation. Foundation requirements include building foundation design, lateral load resistance, building slabs-on-grade, non-building foundations and retaining wall design. Pavement design specifies pavement design criterion. Again, the findings and recommendations of the Geotechnical Report are included as part of the Project; therefore its recommendations are required as part of project development. The City Building Division requires, as a condition of building permit approval, that the geologist of record certify that plans and specifications submitted from permits conform to the recommendations of the geotechnical report. City's Geotechnical Report Peer Review The City's Consulting Geologist found that the Project Geotechnical Consultant adequately characterized the site geotechnical conditions and recommended satisfactory design measures to mitigate apparent site constraints. Cotton Shires recommends that as a condition of building permit issuance it should be clarified whether any high plasticity site soils as found in Boring EB-2 are suitable for structured fill and that this documentation should be submitted to the City Engineer prior to acceptance of documents for a building permit. Additionally, the Project Geotechnical Consultant should review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project including building plans to insure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The purpose of the City's geotechnical peer review is to insure that all geotechnical mitigations are included as part of the Project. Therefore, the recommendations of Cotton Shires will become requirements of the Project. This Project, should it be approved, will be required to comply with the Consulting and project Geotechnical Consultants recommendations prior to issuance of building or grading permits, just as other projects are so required in the City. IMPACTS Seismic Hazards Seismic hazards are generally classified as two types, primary and secondary. Primary geologic hazards include surface fault rupture. Secondary geologic hazards include ground shaking, liquefaction, dynamic densification and seismically induced ground failure. 'i) Surface Fault Rupture Significance Cn"teria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with the surface rupture of a known earthquake fault. MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-23 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST According to the Geotechnical Report, the hazard from fault rupturing on the site is considered to be very low. The Hillside fault is located nearby, but there is no evidence that this fault has been active within geologically recent time. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on exposing people or structures to danger from surface rupture of a known earthquake fault. ii) Strong Seismic Ground Shaking Signijicance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with strong seismic ground shaking. Given that there are no active faults within the Project site, damage from a seismic event is most likely to occur from the secondary impact of strong seismic ground shaking originating on a nearby fault. Estimates of actual ground shaking intensity at a particular location are made according to the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale, which accounts for variables such as the size and distance from the earthquake. For the Project site, Mercalli Intensity estimates indicate that earthquake-shaking intensity would vary depending upon where the seismic event originates. For the Maximum Credible Earthquakes (:'vICE) along the nearby San Andreas and San Gregorio faults (Richter Magnitude 7.9 and 7.2, respectively) the shaking intensities would be IX, "violent" and VIII, "very strong", respectively, at the Project site. Development of the Project would increase the number of structures and people potentially exposed to hazards associated with a major earthquake in the region. The Project and all buildings in the San Francisco Bay Area are built with the knowledge that an earthquake could occur, and are required to meet Uniform Building Code (CBC) standards for seismic safety. Conformance with the latest CBC would ensure that the impact of seismic ground-shaking is reduced to a level of less than significant. iii) Liquefaction Signijimnce Critena: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. Liquefaction is a secondary seismic hazard involving saturated cohesionless sand and silty sand sediments located close to the ground surface. Liquefaction occurs when the strength of a soil decreases and pore pressure increases as a response to strong seismic shaking and cyclic loading. During the loss of strength, the soil becomes mobile, and can move both horizontally and vertically, if not confined. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are loose, clean, saturated, uniformly-graded, fine-grained sands. The project site is underlain by Franciscian bedrock. The Geotechnical Report concludes that the liquefaction potential necessary for liquefaction of materials under the Project site is remote. PAGE 3-24 MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Therefore, the Project would have no impact on with respect to liquefaction of subsurface materials. iv) Landslides Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to substantial hazards from landslides. A landslide is a mass of rock, soil and debris displaced down slope by sliding, flowing or falling. The Association of Bay Area Governments indicates that Project Site is "flatland." (Association of Bay Area Governments, http://gis.abag.ca.goy/website/Landslides/viewer.htm). The Geotechnical Report identifies the site as relatively flat. There is no threat of landslides on the Project SHe; therefore the project would have no impact with respect to landslides. b) Erosion or Loss of Topsoil Significance Criten'a: The Project would result in a significant environmental impact if it were to result in substantial soil erosion or in the loss of topsoil. In absence of the NPDES C-3 requirements implemented by the City as a condition of building and grading permit issuance the Project would have a potential to increase erosion during construction. This is described in detail in Section 3.8: Hydrology and Water Quality, below. However, the erosion control measures are required as a matter of law and as a result this impact is considered to be Jess than significant. c) Geologic Instability Signijimnce Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. The Geotechnical Report, based upon subsurface testing, found that the site is located on Franciscian bedrock. Therefore, there would be no impact with respect to a geologic unit becoming unstable as a result of the Project and the project would not result in the potential for on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. d) Expansive Soils Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental unpact if located on expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life or property. The Project structure would not be located on expansive soil (PI of 15 or more) and expansive soils are not permitted for fill material (Cotton Shires. August 2, 2007 and Banta. June 6, 2007). Therefore, the Project would have a Jess than significant impact.. MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-25 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST e) Capability of Soils to Support Septic Tanks Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it involved construction of septic systems in soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The Project does not propose to build any new septic tank or alternate waste disposal systems. The Project site is connected to the city's sanitary sewer system. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on soils due to septic systems. Finding: With the measures required by law as a matter of securing grading and building permits, the Project would not result in a significant impact with respect to Geology and Soils individually or cumulatively. PAGE 3-26 MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS- Would the Project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 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? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a Project located within an airport land use 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? D 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? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 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? ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ SETTING A Phase I Environmental Site _-\ssessment was prepared for the project (Phase I Environmental Site ASseJsment, 475 EcdeJ' Avenue, South San FramiJ'co, California 94080. URS. November 11, 2005) (phase I). The Phase I is incorporated herein by reference. The Phase I was conducted pursuant to the guidelines established by the American Society of testing Materials (ASTM) Designation E 1527-00, MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-27 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST "Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process" . The Project site is located within the Visitation Valley Hydrologic Area (2.32). The groundwater in this area has regulatory-designated beneficial uses for process and industrial supply purposes, and potential municipal and agricultural supply purposes (phase I, RWQCB, 2005). There are no other designated beneficial uses of the groundwater in this hydrologic area. Direction of the groundwater typically mimics the topography of an area. Therefore, the direction of the groundwater flow is anticipated to be towards the north-northwest. Groundwater is anticipated to be five to 12 below ground surface. The Project site is not identified on any regulatory data base listings. IMPACTS a) and b) Hazardous Materials Signijimnce Criteria: The Project would ha,"e a significant environmental impact if it were to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or if it were to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The Project site is located in an area zoned for packaging/manufacturing, research and development and industrial uses. There are no sensitive land uses within 0.25 miles of the site. The Phase I did not note any environmental concerns on the property. Hydraulic fluid is used for the elevator system and waste lubricants and soiled rags have been generated on the property and disposed of without incident. Any incident on the site would fIrst be responded to by the South San Francisco Fire Department. As with all development and entitlement review applications project plans are routed to various City Deparrments for review and comment. These departments include the Planning and Building Divisions, Public Works, Water Quality Control, Engineering, Police, and Fire. The South San Francisco Fire Deparrment did not identify any concerns with respect to the Project. Chemicals would continue to be used in research and development operations. Thus the Project would not be a new use or present new types of hazards. The building and its surrounds has been designed with the use of chemicals in mind, and includes appropriate features for their use and short-term storage as described in the Phase I Report, as visible by site and area inspections and as is evident by City review of the Project. The Project would also house packaging/manufacturing uses. The potential for risk or upset would be reduced to normally acceptable levels by compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations, listed below. PAGE 3-28 MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Hazardous substance users and hazardous waste generators are required to operate under a permit from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, which regulates the use and disposal of toxic materials. Additionally, hazardous materials use, storage, and disposal would be governed by the following standards and permits: . Toxic Substances Control Act, administered by the EPA, Regulation 40 CFR 720. . Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, administered by the Department of Transportation, Regulation 49 CFR 171-177. . Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 4 use 6901-6987. . Hazardous Waste Management Standards for Generators, Transporters, and Waste Facilities, administered by EPA, 40CFR 260-2625. . California Hazardous Waste Control Act. California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5. . California Hazardous Waste ~Ianagement Regulations. California Administrative Code, Title 22. Social Security, Division 4. Environmental Health, Chapter 30. . Occupation Safety and Health _~ct, 29 CSC 651. . Workplace Exposure Limits, administered by Occupational Health and Safety Administration. 29CFR 1900-1910. . California Occupational Safety and Health Act. . Standard for Industrial Users and Operations of the Publicly-Owned Treatment Works, City of South San Francisco. Ordinances 661, 765-778, and 828-880. The Project through the entitlement process and routine inspection is required as a matter of law to operate under all applicable, federal, state and local guidelines governing hazardous waste, the impact of the Project with regards to hazardous waste would be Jess than significant. c) and d) Hazardous Materials Presence Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within a quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, or if it was located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 ("Cortese Lis t") . There are no existing or proposed schools or day care centers or facilities within a quarter mile of the Project Area. Additionally, the Project site is not listed on the Department of Toxic Substances Control's Cortese List (California Department of Toxic Substance Control, http://www.dtsc.ca.gov / database/Calsites/Cortese List.cfm and Phase 1). Therefore, the Project MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDy/NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-29 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST would have no impact from the emission or handling of hazardous materials or wastes on schools or from any environmental contamination posed by the sites listed on the Cortese List. e) and f) Safety Hazards Due to Nearby Airport or Airstrip Signijicance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were located within an airport land use plan (or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport), if it would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area; or if it were located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, if it would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. The Project site is located just north of San Francisco International Airport, and within the San Mateo County Airport Land Cse Commission's jurisdiction. The ALCC allows development within ALeC boundaries, provided that development is below a prescribed height limit. In 1981, the San Mateo County Airport Land Cse Plan, in coordination with Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77, established a 211-foot height limit for some buildings within ALCC jurisdiction, which applies to the Project site. The Project, which would be constructed 68 feet above mean sea level (MSL); therefore its maximum height would be 107 feet above ~1SL, would abide by General Plan policies as well as the ALeC height limit and would not result in a safety hazard for people working at the project site. This impact is considered to be less than significant. g) Conflict with Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan Signijicance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. There are no emergency response or evacuation plans in effect in the Project vicinity. Therefore the proposed Project would have no impact on the implementation of any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. h) Exposure of People or Structures to Wildland Fires Signijicance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. There is no wildland in the vicinity of the Project site. The Project would have no impact on wildland fires. Finding: The Project site is appropriate for continued industrial use. The project would not introduce a fire, safety or hazardous materials risk into the area beyond that normally anticipated with an indus trial/ research and development land use in an industrial planned, zoned and used area. The project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact hazardous materials exposure or impede emergency response. PAGE 3-30 MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the Project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ./ discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or ./ interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern ./ of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would ./ exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? D Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ./ g) Place housing within a 1 OO-year flood hazard ./ area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 1 OO-year flood hazard area ./ structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk ./ of 1055, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ./ MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-31 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST SETTING Colma Creek, the City's main natural drainage system, is a perennial stream with a watershed of about 16.3 square miles that trends in a roughly southeasterly direction through the center of the City. The Colma Creek watershed is one of the three largest in the County. The basin is bounded on the northeast by San Bruno Mountain and on the west by a ridge traced by Skyline Boulevard. Dominant topographic features of the drainage basin include two relatively straight mountain ridges that diverge toward the southeast that are connected by a low ridge at the northern boundary of the area. The valley enclosed by the ridges widens toward the southeast where it drains into San Francisco Bay. The Project site is currently drained by an established storm water retention system that drains the exiting surface parking lot. The Project's storm water drainage would be routed through vegetated swales before entering the storm water drainage system as shown on the site and landscaping plans. Regulatory Framework National Pollutant Di,fchm:ge Elimination SY,ftem StOI7JJ Water DiHharge Pel7JJit. The City of South San Francisco is a member of the San Mateo Countywide Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP), an organization of the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo County holding a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm \'rater Discharge permit. STOPPP's goal is to prevent polluted storm water from entering creeks, ,vetlands, and the San Francisco Bay. The City requires the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP's) for new development and construction as part of its storm water management program, as levied through standard City conditions of project approval. The City requires the implementation BMP's to ensure the protection of water quality in storm runoff from the project site. In brief, the measures presented in the B1\IP handbook address pollution control and management mechanisms for contractor activities, e.g. structure construction, material delivery and storage, solid waste management, employee and subcontractor training, etc. The handbook also provides direction for the control of erosion and sedimentation as well as the establishment of monitoring programs to ensure the effectiveness of the BMP's. The City also requires an agreement with the applicant that ensures the permanent and on-going maintenance of water quality control improvements by the applicant and/or project site owner(s). Refer to the Bay Area Storm Water Management Agencies Association (BAS~~) Start at the Source Design Guidance Manual for Storm Water Quality Protection (available from BAS:'vL~ @ 510-622-2465 for a comprehensive listing of required measures. Typical storm water quality protection measures include: a) Walking and light traffic areas shall use permeable pavements where feasible. Typical pervious pavements include pervious concrete, porous asphalt, turf block, brick pavers, natural stone pavers, concrete unit pavers, crushed aggregate (gravel), cobbles and wood mulch. b) Parking lots shall include hybrid surfaces (pervious material for stalls only), concave medians with biofllters (grassy swales), and landscaped in@tration/detention basins as feasible. c) Landscape design shall incorporate bio@ters, in@tration and retention/detention basins into the site plan as feasible. PAGE 3-32 MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST d) Outdoor work areas including garbage, recycling, maintenance, storage, and loading, applicable storm water controls include siting or set back from drainage paths and water ways, provision of roofing and curbs or berms to prevent run on and run off. If the area has the potential to generate contaminated run off, structural treatment controls for contaminant removal (such as debris screens or filters) shall be incorporated into the design. State Water Quality Control Board~' General Permitting Requirements: The City of South San Francisco requires through conditions of project approval, project compliance with the State Water Quality Control Board's general permitting requirements which requires the applicant to secure a Construction Activities Storm Water General Permit, complete a Notice of Intent (NO!) and prepare and obtain approval of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The state issues a Waste Discharge Identification number within 10 days of receipt of a complete NOI and SWPPP. The applicant is then required to submit copies of the NOI and SWPPP to the City of South San Francisco, Public Works Department Division of Water Quality, prior to issuance of building and/ or grading permits. IMPACTS a) Violation of Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in any violation of existing water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The Project as a matter of law is required to comply with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The City requires the implementation of BMP's for new development and construction as part of its storm water management program, as levied through standard City conditions of project approval by the Water Quality Control Division of the Public Works Department. The Project would present a Jess than significant. b) Deplete or Interfere Substantially with Groundwater Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it substantially depletes groundwater supplies or interferes substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. The Project would not be increasing impervious surfaces on the site. The Project would add approximately one to 1.5 percent of the site area in landscaping thus slightly increasing porosity. The Project would effectively continue with the status quo, and would have no impact with regards to groundwater depletion. Additionally, the Project would receive its water supply from existing local infrastructure, not groundwater. c) Alter Existing Drainage Patterns/Erosion and Siltation Effects Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site in a manner which would result 111 substantial erosion or siltation. MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-33 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The proposed Project would be built on an already developed site in an suburban, industrial area. There would be no impact related to altered drainage patterns or siltation at the Project site. d) Alter Existing Drainage Patterns/Flooding Effects Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site. The Project would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site, nor would it increase the amount of surface runoff, since the site is currently developed with impervious surfaces. Because the Project would not be constructed on an undeveloped, porous surface there would be no impact related to an increase of surface runoff. e) Runoff Exceeding Drainage System Capacity/Increase Polluted Runoff Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The project, as a matter of law, is required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and an Erosion Control Plan to the City Engineer and the Water Quality Control Division prior to the commencement of any grading or construction of the proposed Project. The SWTPP as noted in the Setting Section, above, is required to include storm water pollution control devices and filters to be installed to prevent pollutants from entering the City's storm drain system and San Francisco Bay. The Plan shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer and the City's Storm Water Coordinator. Water quality measures are required to be included in the building permit packet; therefore all contractors are as a matter of law made aware of the requirements. Additionally, the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department as well as the Water Quality Control Division conduct routine inspections of this and all project sites to insure compliance. Failure to comply with the approved construction BMPs would result in the issuance of correction notices, citations or a Stop Work Order. Plans for the Project will as a matter of law include erosion control measures to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system. Implementation of the measures required as a matter of law would reduce the Project's impact to a level of less than significant. f) Otherwise Degrade Water Quality Significance Cn"teria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to degrade water quality. The proposed Project would not increase the amount of impervious surface area on the Project site, since the site is already developed. Therefore, as compared to existing conditions, there would be no impact on water quality from point source water pollution at the Project site. PAGE 3-34 MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST g - i) Flood Hazards Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to place any housing units within a designated 100-year flood hazard area; if it placed any structures in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows; or if it were to result in the exposure of people or structures to flooding hazards. The Project site is not located in a 100-year flood hazard zone and therefore would have no impact related to the placement of people or structures in a flood hazard area, the exposure of people or structures to a flood hazard, or a structure in such a way that it would impede or redirect flood flows (ABAG.http://W\\lw.abag.ca.gO\- /bayarea/ eqmaps/ eqfloods/ floods.html). j) Tsunami Hazards Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in the exposure of people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow. The Project site is located in a low-lying area near to San Francisco Bay. An earthquake could cause tsunamis (tidal waves) and seiches (oscillating waves in enclosed water bodies) in the Bay. The City's General Plan estimates that potential wave run-up of a 100-year tsunami would be approximately 4.3 feet above mean sea level (msl) and approximately 6.0 feet above msl for a 500-year tsunami (Dyett and Bhatia, Sottth San I'ranciHo General Plan, adopted October 1999, page 250). The Project site, with an elevation of 63 feet above msl would be too high for inundation by a 500-year tsunami and would outside the any potential tsunami hazard zone. Additionally, the Project would conform to the latest building code requirements. For these reasons, the impact of potential inundation by tsunami or seiche is considered to be less than significant. Finding: The City's standard conditions of approval which implement state, federal and local regulations are required by law and are adequate to address any potential water quality impacts as a result of project construction or occupation. No mitigation measures, above those required by the City as a matter of law, are identified in this Initial Study. The project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact to hydrology or water quality resources. MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-35 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the Project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? ./ ./ ./ SETTING Regulatory Framework South San Francisco General Plan Adopted in October 1999, the South San Francisco General Plan recognizes that the biotech/R&D industry is South San Francisco's largest industrial cluster. It is vital that the City strive to create an environment that is beneficial in realizing this potential and maintains the City's competitive edge. The General Plan establishes goals and policies for the City and East of 101 area, such as: . Establishes an economic development program that promotes the biotechnology /R&D industrial cluster, . Encourages the development of R&D campuses, . Establishes infrastructure capacity, . Establishes transportation imprO\"ements, and . Promotes employee amenities, open space and recreation areas. General Plan Designation The Project site is within the area subject to the provisions of the East of 101 planning subarea of the City of South San Francisco's General Plan. The plan designates the Project site for "Business and Technology Park" uses, and gives the following summary of Business and Technology Park designation: PAGE 3-36 MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST This designation accommodates campus-like environments for corporate headquarters, research and development facilities, and offices. Permitted uses include incubator-research facilities, testing, repairing, packaging, publishing and printing, marinas, shoreline-oriented recreation, and offices, and research and development facilities. Warehousing and distribution facilities and retail are permitted as ancillary uses only. All development is subject to high design and landscape standards. :\Iaximum Floor 1\rea Ratio is 0.5, but increases may be permitted, up to a total FAR of 1.0 for uses such as research and development establishments, or for development meeting specific transportation demand management (IDlv1), off-site improvement, or speciBc design standards. City of South San Francisco East of 101 Area Plan In 1995, the East of 101 Area Plan established goals/policies for the City and East of 101 area. Although the South San Francisco General Plan (adopted in 1999) supercedes the East of 101 Area Plan, most of the Plan's original design, noise, opens space and development standards still apply to campus development. Specifically, it: . Encourages economic development, . Establishes design and development standards for all development, and . Encourages regulatory incentives for facility-wide planning. County of San Mateo Airport Land Lse Commission (ALeC) State law establishes an ALeC, in each county where one or more airports exist, to coordinate the compatibility of new development near airports. An ALeC does not have any authority over airport operations, but it does have the authority to conduct land use planning for areas around airport in the county. The ALCC makes a determination that general plans, zoning standards, and any proposed new development in its planning area are in conformance with the Airport Land Use Plan. The 1981 San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan, in coordination with Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77, established a 161-foot above mean seal level height limit around San Francisco International Airport. The Project site is within the 211 foot height limit established bt the ALl.JC and the City of South San Francisco. IMPACTS a) Division of an Established Community Signijicance Cnteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to physically divide an established community. The Project is located within an industrially planned, zoned and used area in South San Francisco. The area immediately surrounding the Project site is industrial and research and development in nature. The Project is consistent with the surrounding character and would complement the existing general manufacturing/ research and development and support use present in the Project area. The MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-37 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Project site has been industrially developed since the late 1950's and is within an area of the City where industrial development began over 100 years ago. Thus, the Project would have no impact on dividing an established community. b) Conflicts with Land Use Plan and Zoning Significance Critena: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in a conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The Project site's General Plan land use designation is "Business and Technology Park," and the Project site is zoned "Planned Industrial." The General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, in designating an area for such uses, essentially targets that area for the growth and development of that specitic use. The Project would fulfill the intended use of the site and would be in conformance with the existing planning and zoning designations. Redevelopment of the site provides an opportunity to improve the landscaping, aesthetics, pedestrian access, parking access, layout and quantity, exterior lighting, hydrologic measures and implement a TDM Program on the site while maintaining and promoting the economic strength of the East of 101 Area. The Project meets the development guidelines of the East of 101 Plan as described in Section 3.1 Aesthetics, the Zoning Ordinance and the 1999 South San Francisco General Plan including: · Allowable Use. The Project site is zoned "Planned Industrial". Research and development, light manufacturing, administrative and business offices are permitted land uses. Other types of permitted uses include administrative services, business and professional services, financial services consumer repair services, custom manufacturing. The Project proposes research and development, office and light manufacturing. · Floor-Area Ration (FAR). The Project proposes a 0.45 FAR (120,000 square feet of development) where a 1.0 FAR (256,218 square feet of development) is permitted. · Height Limits. The ALCC and the general Plan establishes a height limit of 211 feet above mean sea level. The Project would be approximately 68 feet above mean sea level, which would translate to a height of 106'-6" above mean sea level. Therefore, the Project would be within the mandated height limit. The Project would conform to all applicable land use plans and zoning regulations and, therefore, would have no impact. c) Conflict with Conservation Plan Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in a conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. PAGE 3-38 MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST There are no conservation plans either currendy in force or proposed for application to the subject property as discussed in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, above. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on conservation plans. Finding: The proposed project would not physically divide an established community. The site is currendy designated, and used, industrially and the surrounding land uses are industrial and research and development. The Project would not result in any individually or cumulatively considerable unpacts. 3.10 Mineral Resources Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Sign ificant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the Project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? ./ ./ SETTING The Project site is in a built-out industrial area. The site has been developed since the 1960's. IMPACTS a) and b) Loss of Mineral Resources Signijicance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state, or if it were to result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. No mineral resources of value to the region and the residents of the state have been identified at the Project site. The Project site has not been delineated as a locally important mineral recovery site on the City of South San Francisco General Plan, on any specific plan, or on any other land use plan. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact on any known mineral resource, or result in the loss of availability of any locally important resource recovery site. Finding: The Project Site does not contain any local or regionally significant mineral resources. The project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact to mineral resources. MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-39 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3.11 NOISE Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XI. NOISE - Would the Project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? e) For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? n For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ SETTING Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Whether a sound is unwanted depends on when and where it occurs, what the listener is doing when it occurs, characteristics of the sound (loudness, pitch and duration, speech or music content, irregularity) and how intrusive it is above background sound levels. In determining the daily level of environmental noise, it is important to account for the difference in response of people to daytime and nighttime noises. During nighttime, exterior background noises are generally lower than daytime levels. However, most household noise also decreases at night and exterior noise becomes more noticeable. Further, most people sleep at night and are very sensitive to noise intrusion. Residential and open space recreational uses are generally considered to be noise-sensitive uses or sensiti,-e receptors. PAGE 3-40 MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Regulatory Framework The South San Francisco Noise Element of the 1999 General Plan contains land use criteria for noise as it pertains to various land uses. These criteria define the desirable maximum noise exposure of various land uses in addition to certain conditionally acceptable levels contingent upon the implementation of noise reduction measures. These criteria indicate that noise levels of less than 75 dBA (CNEL) 1 are acceptable noise levels for industrial and open space uses. The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32, Section 8.32.050) restncts construcnon activities to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. This ordinance also limits noise generation of any individual piece of equipment to 90 dBA at 25 feet or at the property line. IMPACTS a - d) Exposure of Persons to or Generation of Noise Levels in Excess of Standards, Exposure of Persons to or Generation of Excessive Groundborne Noise Levels, a Substantial Temporary or Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity above Levels Existing Without the Project Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the South San Francisco General Plan or the Citv's Noise Ordinance. Project Construction: Project construction would result in temporary short-term noise increases due to the operation of heavy grading and demolition equipment. Noise levels from grading operations typically range from about 94 to 97 dBA at 25 feet for certain types of earthmoving and impact equipment. Construction noise would be lower ranging from 75 to 85 dBA at 25 feet for most types of construction equipment. Grading and demolition is expected to take a month to complete. Demolition and grading activities would not be a continuous source of noise on any given day. Construction and finishing work would take up to three or four months. Therefore, during site preparation the use of heavy equipment, such as a hoe-ram would result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site. The site is in an industrial area which is not a noise sensitive land use. Noise levels up to 85 dBA are conditionally acceptable (South San Francisco General Plan, Noise Element. 1999). ~Iost land uses in the area are conducted indoors which allows for noise attenuation of up to 20 dB. Outdoor land uses in the area such as loading and unloading of equipment and goods are not noise sensitive land 1 The decibel (dB) is a logarithmic unit used to quantify sound intensity. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to all sound frequencies within the entire spectrum, human response is factored into sound descriptions in a process called ",-\-weighting" written as "dBX'. C~EL: Community Noise Equivalent Level. Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, state law requires that for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be added to quiet time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor called the MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDy/NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-41 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST uses and are also intermittent activities which would not result in a connnuous exposure to excessive noise. Construction related noise would be considered a less than significant impact because the 1) noise associated with grading operations would not be a continuous noise source during an eight hour day and would be expected to be complete within a month; 2) industrial land uses are not considered noise sensitive; 3) the land uses in the area are conducted indoors which affords up to a 20 dB noise reduction in addition to noise attenuation due to distance from the source; and 4) outdoor land uses such as deliveries, walking to and from a vehicle, loading and unloading operations are infrequent and intermittent which would by nature not expose people to excessive amounts of noise. Operational Noise: The operation of a Project could increase ambient noise levels in two ways, through the creation of additional traffic on local roadways and the operation of exterior mechanical equipment. Typically, traffic ,-olumes need to double in order to result in a barely perceptible increase in noise levels (i.e., 3-5 dB). The Project would not result in a doubling of traffic volumes. The existing building, at 149,111 square feet with a combination of office (47,412 square feet), assembly (36,256 square feet) and warehouse (65,443 square feet) uses generates 985.11 average daily trips (ADT). The proposed use, 130,000 square feet of office (44,000 square feet), research and development (32,000 square feet), manufacturing and assembly (40,000 square feet) and warehouse (4,000 square feet) would generate 916.6 ATD (Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Rates, 7th Edition). Traffic volumes from the Project would not result in an impact on noise levels in the area. Deliveries to and from the project site and service operations on the site would not result in an increase in noise levels in the project area as it would be similar to existing conditions. The impact is considered to be Jess than significant. e) and f) Aircraft Noise Signijicance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were located within an airport land use plan (or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport) or in the vicinity of a private airstrip and were to expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. The 1999 General Plan Noise Element contains existing and future (2006) airport noise contours associated with San Francisco International Airport, located south of the site. These contours indicate the Project site is located outside the 65-dBA (CNEL) existing and future airport noise contours. Projected contours for road and railroad noise are also included in the Noise Element. These contours indicate that the Project site is located in an area where noise levels generated by major road and railroad noise sources would continue to be less than 60 dBA (CNEL). Based on the City's land use criteria, the proposed Project's office type land use would be compatible with future noise level projections in the Project vicinity ofless than 60 to 65 dBA (CNEL), thereby representing no impact. Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). PAGE 3-42 MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Finding: Construction related noise would be considered a less than significant impact because the 1) noise associated with grading operations would not be a continuous noise source during an eight hour day and would be expected to be complete within a month; 2) industrial land uses are not considered noise sensitive; 3) the land uses in the area are conducted indoors which affords up to a 20 dB noise reduction in addition to noise attenuation due to distance from the source; and 4) outdoor land uses such as deliveries, walking to and from a vehicle, loading and unloading operations are infrequent and intermittent which would by nature not expose people to excessive amounts of noise. Operation of the Project would not increase noise levels in the project area. The Project would not have individually significant or cumulatively significant impacts with respect to noise. 3.10 POPULATION AND HOUSING Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Sign ificant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the Project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, ./ either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing ./ housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ./ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? SETTING The Project proposed a land use and development density that is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning, as noted above in Section 3.9 Land Use and Planning, above. IMPACTS a) Population Growth Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to induce either directly of indirectly substantial population growth. The Project proposes to redevelop an industrial building to be used for light industrial uses, research and development, light manufacturing, office and assembly uses on a site that is designated and zoned for such a use. The Project could indirectly induce population growth though additional MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-43 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST employment if it were to exceed the development parameters of a 1.0 FAR outlined in the City's General Plan. The Project proposes a 0.45 FAR and is well within the analysis and density assumed in the General Plan for the Project site. The South San Francisco General Plan assumes a certain amount of employment, and therefore induced population growth by designating and zoning land for such uses. The Project would fit within those growth assumptions and its impact on population growth would be Jess than significant. b) and c) Displacement of Housing or People Signijicance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would result in the displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing units or people living at the Project site. There are no residential units on the project site. The Project would not require the displacement of any existing residential units or persons living on-site and therefore, would have no impact on the displacement of housing or people. Finding: The Project would not exceed the development and growth assumptions contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. The Project site does not include housing and would not displace housing units or residents. 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES - a) Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ PAGE 3-44 MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST SETTING The Project proposed a land use and development density that is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning, as noted above in Section 3.9 Land Use and Planning, above. IMPACTS a - d) Public Services Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks and recreational facilities, or other government facilities. As described above, in Section 3.9 Land Use and Planning and Section 3.12 Population and Housing, the Project would not increase the City of South San Francisco's population. The Project would be redeveloped in an area planned, used and zoned for industrial uses and within the development density envisioned by the General Plan. With no increase in population, no significant increase in the demand for public services would be expected. Therefore, any increased demand for public services as a result of the Project would be considered Jess than significant. Finding: The Project would not exceed the development and growth assumptions contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. Redevelopment of the Project site would not increase the demand for public services individually or cumulatively. 3.12 RECREATION Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XIV. RECREATION- a) Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ./ ./ MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-45 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST SETTING The Project proposed a land use and development density that is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning, as noted above in Section 3.9 Land Use and Planning and Section 3.12 Population and Housing, above. IMPACTS a) and b) Recreation Signijicance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in an increase in the use of existing parks or recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of these facilities could be anticipated, or if it were to include recreational facilities, the construction of which might ha\-e adverse physical effects on the environment. The Project would not involve redevelopment that would result in a significant increase in the use of existing parks or recreational facilities, and would not incorporate their construction. Parks and recreational needs within the City are deri\-ed from the development assumptions contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. The Project Site is proposing a 0.45 FAR and City planning documents evaluated the need for infrastructure, goods, services and parks on cumulative build out in the City which for this site included a 1.0 FAR. Therefore, the Project's impact on recreation facility demand or construction would be Jess than significant. Finding: Parks and recreational needs within the City are derived from the development assumptions contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. The Project Site is proposing a 0.45 FAR and City planning documents e\-aluated the needs for infrastructure, goods, services and parks on cumulative build out in the City which for this site a 1.0 FAR. Therefore, the Project would not result in an individual or cumulatively considerable impact on parks and recreation. PAGE 3-46 MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact x;.;. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC - Would the Project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, 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 feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? o Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ SETTING The Project is the redevelopment of an existing industrially developed site. The proposed FAR is 0.45 where a 1.0 FAR is permitted with a TDM Program. The Project does propose a TDM Program as an employee benefit, and to provide less parking on the site than is required by Ordinance. The TDM Program is targeted at a 30 percent mode shift. Pursuant to Section 20.120.070 (a) of the South San Francisco ~funicipal Code (Zoning), review of a preliminary TDM Program through the conditional use permit process is required. The applicant is proposing 319 parking spaces and 410 parking spaces are required by Code (Section 20.74.060 (e)). Therefore the applicant must comply with Section 20.120.050 (i) which stipulates that reduced parking in accordance with General Plan Policy 4.3-1-8 may be permitted subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. The General Plan policy speaks to the provision of a TD~f Program. MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-47 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Direct access and circulation to the Project site would remain relatively unchanged. VehicWar access to the Project site would be obtained via three of the four existing locations off of Eccles ~\venue; one driveway would be replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk. The site access points are; 1) at the northeastern edge of the site which accesses the main parking and circulation area; 2) approximately 230 feet to the south which provides secondary access to the main parking and circulation area and access to accessible parking in front of the building; and 3) at the southwestern comer providing access to the parking area on the southern side of the building. Pedestrian access \vould be enhanced off of Eccles Avenue via an eight foot wide landscaped walkway leading to the landscaped entrance court. A Congestion Management Plan (CMP) traffic analysis is not required for the Project as the redevelopment of the site would not result in a net increase of 100 ADT's. The existing 149,000 square foot building with a combination of office (47,412 square feet), assembly (36,256 square feet) and warehouse (65,443 square feet) uses would generate 985.11 ADT, as discussed in Section 3.11 Noise, above. The proposed use, 130,000 square feet of office (44,000 square feet), research and development (32,000 square feet), manufacturing and assembly (40,000 square feet) and \varehouse (4,000 square feet) would generate 916.6 ~\ TD (Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Rates, Th Edition City Required Traffic Impact Fee: The City requires the payment of an East of 101 traffic impact fee which for the Project would be approximately 53,473.00 and an Oyster Point Flym-er reimbursement fee which for the Project would be about $64,437.00. These fees are to reimburse the City for traffic improvements already in place or planned and approved in the City's Capital Improvement Projects Plan. Parking and Circulation Analysis: A parking and circulation analysis was performed for the Project as a part of this Initial Study (-1-75 EccleJ" Avenue Parking AnafyJ"iJ", Fehr and Peers. August 6, 2007). The findings of the Traffic Report are: ./ Parking for the Project can be satisfied by a parking ratio of 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area. The ratio is determined upon parking studies of similar uses and the ITE Parking Generation Manual. (475 EccleJ' Avenue Parking AnafyJiJ", Fehr and Peers. ~\ugust 6, 2007, page 2). ./ Project traffic to the site would arrive from the north and the south roughly equally. There would be no need to stripe dedicated turn lanes into the Project site and the three access driveways, and the traffic split, would be adequate to access and depart the site. (-I- 75 EccleJ" Avenue Parking Anafysis, Fehr and Peers. August 6, 2007, page 3). PAGE 3-48 MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST IMPACTS a and b) Increase in Traffic in Relation to Existing Traffic Load and Street System Capacity Signijicance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The project would not increase traffic in the area over existing conditions with the existing 149,000 square foot building. The Project will be required by Ordinance (i.e., as a matter of law) to pay the City required impact fees identified in the Setting Section, above as a matter of development. The existing site has not contributed to the upgrade of circulation systems in the Project area and has enjoyed the benefit of these improvements (the construction of the Oyster Point Flyover) and the planned improvements to intersections in the east Grand area. Therefore, with the existing and planned improvements in the area and the payment of fees to implement these improvements the project would have a Jess than significant impact with respect to road capacity. c) Alter Air Traffic Patterns Signijicance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks Air Navigation Hazards are discussed in Section 3.7: Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The Project would not alter any air traffic patterns that are already in place and, consistent with the previous discussion, the Project would have no impact. d) Hazards Due to Design Features or Incompatible Uses Signijicance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to increase traffic hazards due to its design or the introduction of incompatible traffic. Traffic patterns and circulation on the site would remain predominately as they currently eXlst. Pedestrian access would be improved off of Eccles Avenue. Lighting would be improved. The service area would remain at the rear of the south west elevation away from pedestrian and bicycle circulation areas, and removed from the majority of the parking area. The Project would have no impactwith respect to incompatible land uses. e) Emergency Access Signijicance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to have inadequate emergency access. The Project would keep the eXlsnng site access patterns, and would not change the emergency vehicle access to the Project site. There Project would have no impact on emergency vehicle access. MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-49 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST f) Parking Signijicance Criteria: The Project would have significant effect if it would result in an inadequate amount of parking being available. Parking is proposed at 2.66 spaces/1,000 square feet. Based upon parking studies prepared by Fehr and Peers and ITE data, the Project would need to provide 2.5 spaces/1,000 square feet. The Project would have no impact with respect to parking. g) Alternative Transportation Signijicance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks). In 2001, The City Council adopted the Transportation Demand Management Ordinance. The ordinance requires a schedule of alternative mode use requirements based upon project density and in the case of the Project, if an applicant is requesting less parking than required by Ordinance. The Project proposes a TDM Program that includes: · Free parking for car and vanpools and clean air fuels. · Preferential car and vanpool parking. · Passenger loading zone. · Direct routes to shuttle stops for translt, including BART, Samtrans, Caltrain, Downtown Dasher and future ferry service. · Try Transit Program. · Pedestrian and Bicycle Amenities. · Transportation Coordinator. · Designated Employer/Tenant Contact. · On-going promotional programs. · Project amenities including lunchroom, showers and lockers, recreational greenbelt picnic area, transportation and commute kiosks, free Downtown Dasher between 11 :00 AM - 2:00 PM. · Potential tenant based amenities. · Potential valet amenities. · Recreation and bicycle facilities. · Explanation of the choices of available TDM servIces and personal consultation for new employees. PAGE 3-50 MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST . Periodic dissemination of TDM information to all employees. . Carpool matching services. . Sale of transit tickets (for BART, CalTrain, Sam Trans, Muni, and Golden Gate Bridge Transit). . Payroll deductions for transit passes including free "try~it" promotional transit tickets and income tax benefit as allowed by law. . Bike storage lockers. . An "Emergency Ride Home" program for participants in the transit and vanpool programs. . Compliance, monitoring and enforcement including annual commute surveys, annual reporting, penalties for noncompliance and tenant performance and lease language. The Project complies with the City's TDM program requirements. The Chief Planner, after Planning Commission review will amend, modify and finalize the TDM Program as required. Finding: Based upon the findings of the Traffic Study and the provision of the TDM Program the project would comply with parking and alternative transportation programs in force by the City. The Project would not result in safety hazards, inadequate parking, or the need to improve circulation on the site or in the area beyond what is envisioned in the City's Capital Improvement Plan of which the Project is required to provide a fair share financial contribution. MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-51 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3.14 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the Project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of ./ the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new ./ water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new ./ storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve ./ the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater ./ treatment provider, which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? 0 Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted ./ capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes ./ and regulations related to solid waste? SETTING Utility requirements resulting from Project site buildout were previously assessed in the East of 101 Area Plan EIR and the 1999 General Plan EIR. The development assumptions were based upon a 1.0 FAR for the Project. The Project proposes a lower intensity development at 0.45 FAR. The growth projections also take into consideration estimated water and sewage usage projected to 2010. IMPACTS a) Regional Wastewater Treatment Standards Signijicance Criteria: The Project would ha\'e a significant environmental impact if it were to exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. PAGE 3-52 MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The Project would have no impact related to an exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. b) Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities Potable water is provided for the City of South San Francisco and much of San :\fateo County by the California Water Service Company (CWSC), which purchases most of its supply from the San Francisco Water Department (SFWD). All wastewater produced within the City of South San Francisco is treated at the City's Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP), which is located at the end of Belle Air Road, near the edge of San Francisco Bay. The WQCP is jointly owned by the Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, and it treats all wastewater generated within the two cities. The WQCP also has contracts to treat most of the wastewater produced by the City of Colma and a portion of the wastewater produced by the City of Daly City. The City of South San Francisco estimates its water and wastewater capacity needs based on the projected General Plan buildout of all land uses. The Project, as demonstrated abm-e in Section 3.9 Land Use, is consistent with and less than the General Plan buildollt scenarios, and would therefore has been included in the City's water and wastewater growth projections. The 1999 General Plan EIR indicated that major water delivery, and major wastewater treatment facilities were adequate, or would be improved, in order to meet project water and wastewater demand growth. However, the 1999 General Plan EIR did indicate that local sewer lines in the Project vicinity would be inadequate to handle the projected increased wastewater growth. In response to this problem, the City of South San Francisco initiated a sewer improvement program, whereby individual projects would pay a pro rata, fair share sewer improvement fee to cover the costs of any necessary sewer improvements. The Project as required by law would pay this pro rata fee to help construct local sewer improvements (see e, below). With the mandated payment of the fee, the impact of the Project on increased water and wastewater facilities would be Jess than significant. c) Storm Water Drainage Facilities Signijicance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or in the expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. The proposed Project would be replacing a surface parking lot. The existing parking lot is an impervious surface. The Project would also be an impervious surface and would include vegetated swales and improvements required as discussed in Section 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality. Given that the parking lot was constructed in the 1960's and that the improvements would be governed by law mandating NPDES measures and BMPs the resulting parking lot would be an improvement over existing conditions. Replacing one version of an impervious surface with another would produce not net change in impervious surface area, and therefore no increase in storm water runoff. The Project would effectively continue with the status quo, and would have no MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-53 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST impact with regards to increased storm water runoff and the building or expansion of new storm water drainage facilities. d) Water Supply Signijicance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to require additional water supply beyond that available from existing entitlements and resources. The Project would utilize existing water entitlements and resources based upon existing site usage and proposed general Plan build out and would have a Jess than significant impact on other water resources. e) Wastewater Treatment Facility Capacity Signijicance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which may serve the Project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. The City is upgrading its wastewater treatment plant. A "Sewer facility Development Impact Pee" of $3.19 per gallon is assessed all new and redeveloped projects as a condition of building permit approval. The sewer discharge for the Project is estimated at 48,000 gallons per day (GPD). Therefore the impact fee for the Project would be $153,120 (48,000 gpd @ $3.19/gallon) (Sam Bautista, Senior Engineer. July 26, 2007). With the City planned upgrades the Project would place a Jess than significant demand on the area's wastewater treatment provider and would not prevent it from fulfilling its existing commitments. f) and g) Solid Waste Signijicance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to be served by a landfill with inadequate permitted capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs, or if it were to fail to fully comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The Building Division, as a requirement of a demolition permit, requires the recycling and / or reuse of demolition materials aim Kirkman, Chief Building Inspector. July 19,2007). Project plans are required by law to include recycling areas on the building permit drawings. Construction and operation of the proposed Project would generate a Jess than significant amount of solid waste, and operation of the Project would be in full compliance with all federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Finding: The Project as a matter of law would be required to pay wastewater improvement fees. New construction will be regulated by BMPs, an improvement over existing conditions. The Project would not contribute individually or cumulatively to water, wastewater, stormwater and utility unpacts. PAGE 3-54 MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDy/NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3.15 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE- a) Does the Project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the Project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a Project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past Projects, the effects of other current Projects, and the effects of probable future Projects.) c) Does the Project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ./ ./ ./ a) Quality of the Environment Impacts of the Project are considered to be Jess than significant with measures that are required by Jaw. Implementation of the Project would not degrade the quality and extent of the environment provided all policies, rules and regulations of all relevant governing bodies are adhered to, and the measures contained 'N"ithin this chapter are implemented. b) Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts of the Project are considered to be Jess than significant. As discussed in the preceding sections of this checklist, implementation of the Project would not cumulatively impact the environment provided all policies, rules and regulations of all relevant governing bodies are adhered to, and the measures contained within this chapter are implemented. 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. Noise, air quality, and traffic impacts on adjacent land uses are Jess than significant. The Project would not expose people to new hazards such MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDy/NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-55 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST as geologic risks, flooding, or airport hazards. There would be no other adverse effects on human beings. FINDINGS: Aesthetics: The proposed project would not have an impact on the aesthetics or scenic quality on the Project Site or in the project area. There would be no individual or cumulative impacts with respect to aesthetic or visual quality associated with the project. Agriculture: The project would not adversely affect any existing agricultural operations since the site is in industrial use and has been since the 1950's. The project would not impact agricultural resources individually or cumulatively. Air Quality: The project would not result in a significant impact to air quality and would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria non-attainment pollutants (ozone precursors and PM-10). The City's building permit procedure captures the BAAQMD permitting regulations, as well as dust control measures. No mitigation measures, abm-e those required by the City as a matter of law, are identified in this Initial Study. The project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact to air quality. '\;foreover, the Project would result in a lower development intensity (0.45 FAR as opposed to a 1.0 FAR, and thus lower contribution to air quality impacts, than was planned for the site. Biological Resources: The project would not result in a significant impact or significant unavoidable impact to biological resources individually or cumulatively. The Project is not located on ecologically sensitive lands and would have no impact on General Plan policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Cultural: The Project is located on a developed site and in a developed area. Based upon the Holman & Associates reconnaissance, literature search and report there are no historic, archaeological or paleontological resources or human remains located on the Project site or within a 0.25 mile of the Project site. The Project would have no impact on cultural resources. Geology and Soils: With the measures required by law as a matter of securing grading and building permits, the Project would not result in a significant impact with respect to Geology and Soils individually or cumulatively. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The Project site is appropriate for continued industrial use. The project would not introduce a fire, safety or hazardous materials risk into the area beyond that normally anticipated ",rith an industrial/research and development land use in an industrial planned, zoned and used area. The project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact hazardous materials exposure or impede emergency response. Hydrology and Water Quality: The City's standard conditions of approval which implement state, federal and local regulations are required by law and are adequate to address any potential water quality impacts as a result of project construction or occupation. ~o mitigation PAGE 3-56 MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST measures, above those required by the City as a matter of law, are identified in this Initial Study. The project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact to hydrology or water quality resources. Land Use and Planning: The proposed project would not physically divide an established community. The site is currently designated, and used, ,industrially and the surrounding land uses are industrial and research and development. The Project would not result in any individually or cumulatively considerable impacts. Mineral Resources: The Project Site does not contain any local or regionally significant mineral resources. The project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact to mineral resources. Noise: Construction related noise would be considered a less than significant impact because the 1) noise associated with grading operations would not be a continuous noise source during an eight hour day and would be expected to be complete within a month; 2) industrial land uses are not considered noise sensiti\-e; 3) the land uses in the area are conducted indoors which affords up to a 20 dB noise reduction in addition to noise attenuation due to distance from the source; and 4) outdoor land uses such as deliveries, walking to and from a vehicle, loading and unloading operations are infrequent and intermittent which would by nature not expose people to excessive amounts of noise. Operation of the Project would not increase noise levels in the Project area. The Project would not have individually significant or cumulatively significant impacts with respect to noise. Population and Housing: The Project would not exceed the development and growth assumptions contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. The Project site does not include housing and would not displace housing units or residents. Recreation: Parks and recreational needs within the City are derived from the development assumptions contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. The Project Site is proposing a 0.45 FAR and City planning documents evaluated the needs for infrastructure, goods, services and parks on cumulative build out in the City which for this site included a 1.0 FAR. Therefore, the Project would not result in an individual or cumulatively considerable impact on parks and recreation. Services and Utilities: The Project as a matter of law would be required to pay wastewater improvement fees. These fees are assessed on new and redevelopment projects based upon the development assumptions contained in the City's general Plan. New construction will be required to implement BMPs, an improvement over existing conditions. The Project would not contribute individually or cumulatively to water, wastewater, stormwater and utility impacts because of the requirements imposed upon the Project as a matter of law. Traffic and Circulation: Finding: Based upon the findings of the Traffic Study and the provision of the TDM Program the project would comply with parking and alternative transportation programs in force by the City. The Project would not result in safety hazards, inadequate parking, or the need to improve circulation on the site or in the area beyond what is MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-57 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST envisioned in the City's Capital Improvement Plan of which the Project is required to provide a fair share financial contribution. Utilities and Service Systems: The Project as a matter of law would be required to pay wastewater improvement fees. New construction will be regulated by BMPs, an improvement over existing conditions. The Project would not contribute individually or cumulatively to water, wastewater, stormwater and utility impacts. PAGE 3-58 MONOGRAM SCIENCES -INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION APPENDICES Holman Associates Cultural Report Fehr and Peers Parking Study bolmamASSOCIATES Au.cbaeologicaL Consultants "SINCE THE BEGINNING" 361S' FOLSOM ST. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94110 41S'/~S'O-7~B<5 Allison Knapp 511 Linden Street #B San Francisco, CA 9411 0 July 30, 2007 Dear Ms. Knapp: RE: CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY OF THE 475 ECCLES PROPERTY, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA At your request I have completed a cultural resources study for the property located at 475 Eccles Avenue in South San Francisco. No evidence of cultural resources has been found for this property. This report contains a summary of information gained to date. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project consists of the redevelopment of an existing industrial building and adjacent parking lot located at 475 Eccles Avenue. The actual size of the parcel and the size of the area of redevelopment is not known by this author; for the purposes of the study, the entire parcel located at 475 Eccles was considered the project. ARCHIVAL RESEARCH An archival search was conducted by this author in person at the Northwest Information Center located at Sonoma State University on July 27, 2007 (file no. 07-153) to obtain information about recorded historic and prehistoric sites in the project area, and evidence of previous archaeological studies of the area. There are no recorded historic or prehistoric archaeological sites located inside the project borders or within a quarter mile of it. There have been no previous archaeological field studies of the project area, or any properties within a quarter mile of it. The project area has been altered considerably in historical times; the 1899 San Mateo U.S.G.S. map of the area shows the project located near the top of the ridge which once ran from the southwest to the northeast to the west of San Bruno Point. By 1995, the 7.5 minute U.S.G.S map of the area barely suggests that there had been an actual ridge line in the vicinity of Eccles Avenue (see enclosed project map). On July 30th I completed a brief visual inspection of the project area and surrounding properties to confirm my suspicion that this area had been graded at some point in the late 20th century. It was clear from my inspection of the area that considerable soil was removed from this area to construct the industrial sites which currently are found on either side of Eccles A venue; the lands at 475 still drop gently to the west outside ofthe fence line, probably following the original topography to some extent. FINDINGS/RECOMMENDA TraNS It is the finding of this report that future redevelopment of the parcel located at 475 Eccles Avenue should have no effect on buried or obscured historic and/or prehistoric archaeological resources: the entire area has been historically graded, removing all topsoils to an undetermined depth. The nearest historic and prehistoric archaeological resources would have probably been located north of Butler road, which separates the hills west of Point San Bruno from the former margin of the bay. This report does not recommend any form of mechanical subsurface presence/absence testing, and does not recommend archaeological monitoring of future construction related earthmoving activities. Sincerely, ~ Miley Paul Holman Holman & Associates 2 475 ECCLES AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO SOUTH U.S.G.S. MAP 1995 - ----:leacon- \,\; '~'-. ,----_..- , . ''>~)0~.. - \ .~"N !~~iCd $;"C 0 ---',', :~i'_ ________.,- ~ fP FE H R & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS August 6, 2007 Allison Knapp Knapp Planning and Environmental Consulting 511 Linden, Suite B San Francisco, CA 94102 Re: 475 Eccles A venue Parking Analysis Dear Allison: Fehr & Peers is pleased to present this letter report evaluating future parking demand for the proposed development at 475 Eccles Avenue in South San Francisco, California. This report presents relevant information on surveyed parking demand rates for similar facilities in the East of 101 Area, summarizes site parking requirements, and discusses applicable South San Francisco parking policies that allow reduced parking supplies in demand-appropriate situations. The project site, located on a 6.1 acre parcel with a 152,000-square foot office building surrounded by walkways, paved driveways, and parking lots. The site is within the "East of 101" Planning Sub-Area of the City of South San Francisco's General Plan, and is designated for "Business and Technology Park" uses. The proposed change in use at 475 Eccles Avenue consists of demolition of 32,000 square feet (SF) of building area and reconstruction of the existing mezzanine. The project would include 90,000 SF on the ground floor and 30,000 SF on the second (mezzanine) level, for a total of 120,000 SF. The space would be divided between laboratory (32,000 SF), office (44,000 SF), warehouse (4,000), and circulation (44,000) uses. Parking is proposed at a rate of 2.66 spaces per thousand square feet (KSF) of floor area, for a supply of 319 parking stalls. The City of South San Francisco, which has a parking requirement of roughly 3.3 spaces per KSF of office/research & development space, would require about 400 parking spaces be constructed.1 Fehr & Peers performed a parking demand analysis to determine whether the proposed parking supply of 319 spaces will be sufficient to accommodate expected demand. This analysis is based on studies of comparable Bay Area office buildings as well as on a parking survey we conducted at the Cell Genesys headquarters on Forbes Boulevard. CELL GENESYS PARKING SURVEY On July 26, 2007, Fehr & Peers surveyed parking supply and demand characteristics of the Cell Genesys headquarters on Forbes Boulevard from 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM. The results are summarized in Appendix A. The Cell Genesys building has 153,949 square feet of net building area (occupiable space) and has a parking supply of 424 spaces, including four loading spaces. Loading area spaces were not included in demand calculations. 1 South San Francisco Municipal Code 20.74.060. 332 Pine Street, 4111 Floor. San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 348-0300 Fax (415)773-1790 WWN.fehrandpeers.com Allison Knapp August 6. 2007 Page 2 of 4 Fp fE H R & PEERS rUMS'OAl"TUIR CO~5t;l.A"n During the peak hour of 12:00 PM, 193 vehicles were parked in the Cell Genesys lot, constituting a 46% occupancy rate and a parking demand of 1.25 spaces per KSF of office space.2 When based on the number of employees, peak parking demand equals 0.60 spaces per employee.3 A comparison of the rates for existing office buildings, City requirements, and the rate listed in the ITE's Parking Generation, ~ Edition, is presented in Table 1. TABLE 1 ESTIMATED PEAK PARKING DEMAND RATES Source/Location Rate (KSF) Rate (Employee) ITE Parking Generation Manual' 2.73 0.83 Cell Genesys 2 1.25 0.60 Genentech Campus (1999)3 1.38 0.83 Inktomi 4 I Visa I and II Buildings 5 2.25 2.42 Notes: 1. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation Manual, 3'd Edition (2004). Land Use applied: 701 (Office Building) 2. Based on a parking survey of conducted by Fehr & Peers in 2007. This building is shared Office/R&D. 3. Based on parking surveys conducted by Fehr & Peers in 1999. Buildings are a mix of office/R&D/manufacturing. 4. Based on parking surveys of Foster City office buildings conducted in May 2002. 5. Based on parking surveys of Foster City office buildings conducted in May 2002. r I TABLE 2 ESTIMATED PARKING SPACES REQUIRED AT 475 ECCLES AVENUE I Supply Rate (KSF) Spaces : i 3.3-3.4 - City Code 'Office/R&D' rate 396-41 0 2.73 - ITE 'Office' rate 328 1 .38 - Cell Genesys rate 1 168 2.5 (recommended rate) 300 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2007. Notes: 1. Cell Genesys rate based on additional 1 0% supply beyond actual surveyed demand (1.25 . 1.1 = 1.38) I As noted in Table 2 above, the City of South San Francisco has established parking requirements for various land uses contained in the City's municipal code. Using the City's parking rates based 2 Occupied parking spaces were factored up by 10% to account for absentee employees because the survey was conducted during summer months. 3 Cell Genesys has approximately 250 employees. Allison Knapp August 6, 2007 Page 3 of 4 fI> r ~ H R & P E ~ RS ltA.ItHORTATIClf CO"'Sl.l+A"T:i on the 'Commercial' land-use category, 396 - 410 parking stalls would be required.4 However, parking demand characteristics within the East of 101 Area are lower than what the City's rates assume. Using the demand rate for office space listed in Parking Generation (ITE), peak project- generated demand could be accommodated with 328 spaces (about 75 fewer spaces than recommended by the City code). We recommend that a rate of 2.5 spaces per KSF be considered for the 475 Eccles development, which results in a parking supply of 300 spaces. Based on the parking demand characteristics of area developments, buildings with a mixture of Office/Research & Development uses typically exhibit a lower parking demand rate than traditional office buildings. Because the ITE Parking Generation rate is based on General Office uses, it may be overly conservative for buildings with a mix of Office/Research & Development uses. A rate of 2.5 spaces per KSF would provide flexibility in accommodating variations in parking demand and changes in future land use, while maintaining a more appropriate relationship with current and expected demand characteristics.5 Transportation Demand Management In line with South San Francisco's Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TOM) Plan will be applied to the 475 Eccles Avenue project. TOM plans are designed to diversify transportation mode splits, with the purpose of addressing traffic congestion and air quality issues. The measures contained within the Plan, which are targeted at a 30% mode split, include provision of bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities, and are expected to decrease the share of individuals driving to the site. Decreasing single-occupant vehicle usage will lower project-generated parking demand.6 Site Access Access to the project site will remain relatively unchanged. Vehicular access to the site will be obtained via three locations off of Eccles Avenue: a driveway on the northeastern edge of the project site will provide access to the north parking and circulation area, while a driveway 230 feet south will provide access to the same area. The last driveway is located on the southwestern edge of the site, and will provide access to the parking area on the building's southern side. Area traffic patterns suggest that traffic will arrive at the site from the north and south in roughly equal proportion. Because the project has three driveways feeding into its parking and circulation areas, we expect that all three driveways will be used by arriving and departing motorists, and queuing will not be an issue at any given driveway. We therefore anticipate it will not be necessary to stripe dedicated turning lanes into the site. 4 Within the "Commercial Uses" section of City Municipal Code 20.74.060, we used parking rates for the 'Administrative, Business, & Professional Offices' and 'Research and Development' categories. 5 City parking policies also allow reduced parking supplies in exceptional situations. For example, chapter 20 of the City's Municipal Zoning Code states that off-street parking requirements may be reduced by 10% as long as the reduction is replaced with additional landscaping features. 6 Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan, 475 Eccles Avenue, The Hoyt Company, 2007. Allison Knapp August 6, 2007 Page 4 of 4 fp fE H R & PEERS TUMS'OllYATIQII tOfoSliL.""TS CONCLUSION Based on average parking demand rates from similar developments in South San Francisco, and also because a TDM Plan has been prepared as part of the project, Fehr & Peers recommends that the 475 Eccles development provide parking at a rate of 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area. Although this rate represents the high end of area parking demand, it would ensure parking supply is adequate for the proposed site as well as any variations in parking demand that may occur in the future. We hope the findings of this report are useful. If you have any questions, please feel free to call us at 415.348.0300. Sincerely, FEHR & PEERS :::::1jf . Associate lGlttlcLlGtt C&ttvfB/j--- ~. Natalie A. Estevez Transportation Planner SF07-0348 APPENDIX A TABLE A-1 1 I CELL GENESYS PARKING SURVEY RESULTS I ! ; Time Parking Spaces Percent Spaces Parking Demand per i I Occupied Occupied KSF I 37 I 7:00 AM 9% 0.24 8:00 AM 55 13% 0.36 9:00 AM 121 29% 0.79 10:00 AM 166 40% 1.08 I 11 :00 AM 158 38% 1.03 I 12:00 PM 193 46% 1.25 1 :00 PM 154 37% 1.00 2:00 PM 152 36% 0.99 I 3:00 PM 150 36% 0.97 4:00 PM 132 31% 0.86 I I 5:00 PM 92 22% 0.60 6:00 PM 58 14% 0.38 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2007. Note: Parking Spaces Occupied were increased by 10% from their original figures to account for lower summertime employee count.