HomeMy WebLinkAbout160 South Linden Mit Negative Declaration
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION COMPASS TRANSPORT 160 SOUTH LINDEN AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA LEAD AGENCY: CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC
AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION 315 MAPLE AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 APRIL 1, 2011 Allison Knapp Wollam Planning and Environmental Consulting
TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE CHAPTER 1: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.1 Initial Study and Legislative Framework 1-1 1.1.A Project Location 1-3 1.1.B Project Description 1-4 1.1.C Required
Project Entitlements 1-6 1.1.D General Plan and Zoning Designations 1-6 1.2 Mitigation Measures South San Francisco Requires by Law 1-9 1.3 Lead Agency Determination 1-17 CHAPER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL
CHECKLIST 2.1 Aesthetics 2-2 2.2 Agricultural Resources 2-7 2.3 Air Quality 2.8 2.4 Biological Resources 2-34 2.5 Cultural Resources 2-37 2.6 Geology and Soils 2-39 2.7 Hazards and Hazardous
Materials 2-44 2.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 2-54 2.9 Land Use and Planning 2-59 2.10 Mineral Resources 2-63 2.11 Noise 2-64 2.12 Population and Housing 2-68 2.13 Public Services 2-70
2.14 Recreation 2-71 2.15 Transportation and Traffic 2-73 2.16 Utilities and Service Systems 2-109 2.17 Mandatory Findings of Significance 2-113 2.17.A Summary of Findings 2-114 2.18
Mitigation Monitoring Program 2-118 APPENDIX A 3-1 i
160 SOUTH LINDEN/COMPASS TRANSPORT– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 1-1 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. 1 INITIAL STUDY LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which can be found in the California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines found in California Code
of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3, (CCR) Section 15000 et seq., as amended. This Initial Study identifies the potential environmental impacts associated with grading, construction and
future occupancy of the Project which includes any reasonably foreseeable impacts associated with the Project in its entirety. CEQA (PRC Section 21065) defines a Project as: An activity
which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and which is any of the following: a) An
activity directly undertaken by a public agency. b) An activity undertaken by a person which is supported, in whole or in part, through contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other
forms of assistance from one or more public agencies. c) An activity that involves the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by
one or more agencies. The Applicant is seeking entitlements to relocate an existing commuter bus facility, Compass Transport, from its current location at 54 Tanforan Avenue to 160 South
Linden Avenue in South San Francisco (Project). The proposed new location and the existing location share a common property line, see Figure 1.1 Project Location. The Project, 160 South
Linden is currently developed with industrial, office, art and design studios and storage land uses in a complex of one-to three-story buildings. The Project requires consideration of
a conditional use permit, design review and a Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM). A use permit is required in order to operate between the hours 12 AM (midnight) to 6:00
AM. Design review is required to evaluate the proposed exterior improvements including the landscaping. The Project meets c, identified above, and therefore requires environmental review.
Preparation of an environmental analysis and subsequent environmental determination is
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION PAGE 1-2 160 SOUTH LINEN/COMPASS– INITIAL STUDY required prior to or simultaneously with entitlement review. Environmental review does not constitute Project
approval, but is an independent analysis of potential Project impacts and mitigation measures. The Lead Agency may after review of the entirety of the record, find that the environmental
analysis is adequate and approve, disapprove or conditionally approve the Project based upon environmental and merits review. The Lead Agency for this document is the City of South San
Francisco. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation on this document and the requested Project entitlements. These actions will take place in legally-noticed public hearings.
This Initial Study, City Project Number: PA10-0066, UP10-0011, TDM10-0001 and DR10-0023 is for the Project identified as 160 South Linden Avenue in South San Francisco, California (APN:
014-241-040). Project Applicant/Team/Contact The property owner and applicant is Linden Station, LLC represented by Simon Casey of Centex Builders. The applicant has assembled a Project
team consisting of Paul Hockett of Vitae Architects, Inc., as the architect, Steve Calcagno of Kier and Wright as the civil engineer and Paul Reed of Reed & Associates as the landscape
architect. The application is for the benefit of Compass Transport. The contact and Project manager for the Project is: Simon Casey 160 South Linden, Suite 100 South San Francisco, CA
94080 Lead Agency/Contact The Lead Agency for this Initial Study is the City of South San Francisco. The administrative record for the Project is on file at the City’s Planning Division.
The following person has been assigned as the custodian and Case Planner/Project Manager for the Lead Agency: Billy Gross, Associate Planner Department of Economic and Community Development-Planning
Division 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 (650) 877-8535
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 160 SOUTH LINEN/COMPASS– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 1-3 Main Contact: Questions on this document should be directed to: Allison Knapp Wollam, Environmental Consultant
Knapp Planning and Environmental Consulting 511 Linden Street, Suite B San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 902-3238 Consultants fro the City include Knapp Consulting, KB Environmental Engineers
for air quality, greenhouse gas and hazards assessments and Crane Transportation Group for traffic and circulation. A. PROJECT LOCATION The Project is located at 160 South Linden Avenue
in South San Francisco, California. The Project site is accessed by South Linden Avenue, classified as ‘minor arterial’ in the City’s General Plan (Figure 4-1, Street Classifications).
Airport Boulevard, a major arterial, provides access to the site via San Mateo Avenue, another minor arterial. Parking is not permitted on either side of the street along the frontage
of the Project site, given the need for clear sight distance due to the curve in South Linden Avenue at this location. The City has plans for extension of bike paths in the Project area
including South Linden and Dollar Avenues (Bicycle and Walking Map, South San Francisco) as well as extensions of Mission Road and South Linden Avenue (General Plan Guiding Policy 3.3-114,
page 87). See Figure 1.1 Project Location. The 5.3 acre project site contains a mix of industrial, designer and art production studios and office uses. The Project would be a transportation
oriented use consisting of a commuter bus service facility. The Project site is located in the southern area of the City of South San Francisco within the Lindenville planning area and
neighborhood. The Lindenville area is one of 12 neighborhoods, or planning areas, within the City of South San Francisco. The Project area is surrounded by industrial development. The
Project site is also somewhat transitional in the Lindenville area. Industrial land uses are identified to be retained north of South Linden Avenue while business and professional uses
are identified to be gradually introduced into the area, with mixed-use and transit oriented development further south around the San Bruno BART and Caltrain area.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION PAGE 1-4 160 SOUTH LINEN/COMPASS– INITIAL STUDY FIGURE 1.1 Project Location B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project would accommodate the relocation and future expansion
of Compass Transport. The site is surrounded by industrial land uses including steel fabrication, concrete and statuary manufacturing, a tour bus facility and the existing location of
Compass Transport, the peninsula rail line and construction and storage uses. The closest residential land use is approximately 0.16 (845 feet) south of 160 South Linden Avenue in the
City of San Bruno. The Project would involve the demolition and reconstruction of floor space on the ground and third floors of the existing building and the addition of 1,040 square
feet of floor area to create a 1,781 square foot office area for Compass Transport. The Project involves new construction of a 6,600 square foot service garage at the rear of the property
and restriping of the parking area at the north of the property to accommodate bus parking. Approximately 80,000 square feet of surface area would be affected by grading. Depth
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 160 SOUTH LINEN/COMPASS– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 1-5 of cut is expected to be 12 inches and approximately 2,500 cubic yards of soil and paving would be hauled from
the site. The 5.3 acre Project site is flat (less than a three percent slope) and ranges in elevation from 10 to 25 feet above mean sea level. The site, at one time, was used by DuPont
as an automobile paint manufacturing facility and as a result contains residual contamination from this land use. The site is near completion of soil and groundwater remediation. The
work is regulated by the San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health (SMCDEH) and overseen by Mr. Jacob Madden, Haz-Mat Specialist III of SMCDEH. Site closure (Supplemental Site
Investigation Remedial Excavation Former DuPont Automotive Products Plant Site, 160 South Linden Avenue, South San Francisco, California. December 10, 2010) has been requested by Parsons
the environmental engineers conducting the remedial work on behalf of DuPont. December 21, 2010 the County (San Mateo County Groundwater Protection Program Case Closure Memorandum, Mr.
Jacob Maden) recommended that the case be closed on the property finding that the water quality objectives of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWCCB) have
been satisfied. The property has a recorded deed restriction with respect to limiting land uses to industrial, commercial, retail and office. The property shall not be used for residences,
hospice, day care, schools for persons under 21 years of age, hospitals or other similar sensitive land uses. These issues are described more fully in Section 2.7 Hazards and Hazardous
Materials. Existing Construction on the Site The existing building is one to three-stories in height and contains 64,323 square feet of floor area. The Project would add office space,
a service garage, yard improvements and re-striping of the parking area. The building is currently fire sprinklered and the addition would be sprinklered. The addition would accommodate
accessibility requirements. Proposed Construction on the Site The Project would construct 1,040 square feet additional office space and a 6,600 square foot new service garage to the
site that currently has 64,323 square feet of floor area encompassing industrial, some commercial and office uses. Total new floor area would be 71,963 square feet. Compass Transport
would occupy approximately 8,380 square feet of the area which includes the additional office area proposed and existing floor area within the building reconfigured to office use. Compass
Transport would use approximately 75,100 square feet of the existing yard area for bus parking. The proposed site plan is shown in Figure 1.2. Operation The Project would allow Compass
Transport to relocate their existing facility from 54 Tanforan Avenue to 160 South Linden Avenue in South San Francisco. Compass Transport operates a commuter bus facility serving the
east of 101 Area in South San
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION PAGE 1-6 160 SOUTH LINEN/COMPASS– INITIAL STUDY Francisco. The relocation would allow the future increase of bus transport services by approximately 60 percent.
Therefore, the future could see 80 buses traversing to and from the site and stored on the site. Employee shifts could also increase similarly (i.e., by up to 60 percent). The current
Compass Transport facility operates four shifts beginning at 4:00 AM and commencing at 11:00 PM, Monday through Friday. There are approximately 15-20 drivers per shift that arrive at
the site, take a bus for their shift, return with their bus at the end of their shift and leave in their cars. The shifts are: • 4:00 AM to 2:00 PM: Approximately 15 drivers; • 6:00
AM to 8:00 PM: Approximately 20 drivers; • 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM: Approximately 12 office staff and mechanics whom are on site until the end of their work day; and, • 2:00 PM to 11:00 PM:
Approximately 15 drivers. C. Required Project Entitlements The Project requires the following entitlements and actions by the City of South San Francisco: A Conditional Use Permit
to allow operation between the hours of 12AM (midnight) and 6 AM; Design Review for review of a new bus maintenance building, an addition to the existing building, other exterior
improvements and landscape improvements; Grading Plan and Permit for over 50 cubic yards of grading; and, Transportation Demand Management Program, to reduce vehicle trips. D.
General Plan and Zoning Designations General Plan The Project site is located within the Lindenville planning area of the City; the only industrial area west of Highway 101 within South
San Francisco. The land use designation is Mixed Industrial. The planning area abuts residential uses to the north and east. The San Bruno BART station lies at the southern tip of the
Lindenville area. General Plan goals for the planning area include reducing land use conflicts between industrial and residential uses. The General Plan also identifies maintaining the
industrial character in the area roughly from the Spruce Avenue corridor in the west to San Mateo
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 160 SOUTH LINEN/COMPASS– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 1-7 Avenue in the east and south of Railroad Avenue to the San Bruno BART station (Guiding Policy 3.2-G-1, General
Plan, page 79). The General Plan also encourages mixed-use and transit oriented development in and around the BART/CalTrain station area. The Lindenville Planning Area includes the sub-planning
areas of South Spruce Corridor and the San Bruno BART Station Area. The Lindenville Planning Area recognizes the need to retain industrial land use in certain areas predominately north
and east of South Linden Avenue. Land uses are proposed to transition to Business Commercial and Office on the south side of South Linden Avenue. A Regional Commercial land use designation
lies south of Canal Street, north of Shaw Road and along the Highway 101 corridor. The San Bruno BART and CalTrain sub area contain the Office land use designation. The Project site
lies on the south side of South Linden Avenue, the street that separates industrial uses to the north and transitioning to business and office uses to the south. The Project site is
approximately 2,000 feet from the San Bruno BART station planning area. The General Plan notes that the San Bruno BART station is closer, about half the distance, to the Downtown area
than is the South San Francisco BART station. The location of the San Bruno BART station, coupled with the street improvements identified in the General Plan will provide the Project
site and planning area with relatively convenient transit opportunities. Zoning The Project site was recently rezoned from Mixed Industrial to Business and Professional Office (BPO)
(August, 2010). The rezoning was a part of the City`s zoning ordinance update to implement the General Plan revision (1999). The stated intent of the BPO District is to provide sites
for development of administrative, financial, business, professional, medical, and public offices within close proximity of CalTrain and BART stations. The City envisions a transition
of industrial land uses, to those stated, within close proximity of CalTrain and BART stations around the year 2024. The General Plan also proposes new street connections between South
Spruce and South Maple Avenues to provide the critical access needed from the Project area to the transit stations. Therefore, until 2024 or such time that the infrastructure is in place
industrial, general service, warehousing and related uses are permitted in the BPO District in order to maintain the economic viability of the area and provide a range of employment
opportunities (South San Francisco Municipal Code, Zoning, Chapter 20.090.001-BPO Business and Professional Office). The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) is 0.4 (op., cit). The Project
proposes a 0.28 FAR.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION PAGE 1-8 160 SOUTH LINEN/COMPASS– INITIAL STUDY E. Project Site Land Uses The Project site is currently developed with industrial, office and designer studios.
Land uses include a construction company, limousine service, video production studio, medical supply company, artist studios, jewelry and fashion designers, a small florist and offices.
F. Surrounding Land Uses and Development in the Project Area Surrounding development is industrial. Surrounding land uses include steel fabrication, concrete and statuary manufacturing,
a tour bus facility and the existing location of Compass Transport, the peninsula rail line and construction and storage uses. FIGURE 1.2 160 South Linden Proposed Site Plan
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 160 SOUTH LINEN/COMPASS– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 1-9 1.2 MITIGATION MEASURES SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REQUIRES BYLAW PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS As a matter of law, the Project
is required to comply with federal, state and local laws and regulations. These regulations are verified as satisfied and incorporated into the Project as a matter of building permit
issuance or a building or grading permit will not be issued by the City of South San Francisco. As such, these requirements are considered a part of the Project, not a separate and distinct
requirement. City of South San Francisco project processing requires that applications for projects are first reviewed by the City’s Technical Advisory Group (TAG). TAG is comprised
of representatives from planning, building, police, fire, engineering, parks and recreation, and water quality control. TAG review identifies changes and additions that are required
in a project to comply with local, state and federal laws that are implemented through the City’s Municipal Code. The Planning Division, subsequent to TAG review, issues a letter to
the applicant identifying the changes required in project plans and supporting materials necessary to comply with prevailing laws pursuant to site development, construction and land
use. The applicant is required to revise the plans and supporting documentation or the application is not certified as complete and not processed. Revised plans and documentation are
submitted to the Planning Division to be routed again to all affected City departments and divisions; again to evaluate the application in light of their earlier comments and requirements.
The process results in an application that can be certified ‘complete’ as well as identifying the Conditions of Approval (COA’s) that are required should the Project be approved. Many
of these COA’s implement environmental mitigations that were historically identified through the environmental review process (California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA) and now
have become a part of the City’s legislative requirements, through its general plan, special, area, or redevelopment plans, municipal code, special districts, or memoranda of understanding
(i.e., its police power). After a project application is complete it is subject to environmental, public and discretionary review through and by the Planning Commission, Redevelopment
Agency and/or City Council, depending upon the type of project, as defined by the Municipal Code of South San Francisco and state law. The COA’s identified through staff review of the
project, and any additional ones identified through the public review process become required of the project as a matter of law. Prior to the City issuing a building, grading and/or
demolition permit all City departments and divisions (identified above) review the project plans for compliance with their identified COA’s and any ones added through the public review
process. Permits are not issued by the Building Division in absence of authorization from City staff or in absence of the requirements being incorporated into the Project plans.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION PAGE 1-10 160 SOUTH LINEN/COMPASS– INITIAL STUDY MITIGATION MEASURES REQUIRED BY LAW A. Aesthetics Aesthetics Light and Glare: Signage is required to be reviewed
by staff, the Design Review Board, and in some instances the Planning Commission. Lighting, size, color, placement, design and compatibility with surrounding land uses is addressed and
assured through this process. Potential environmental impacts and the need or lack thereof for environmental clearance is also addressed and undertaken as a part of the Sign Permit procedure
(Chapter 20.360 South San Francisco Municipal Code-Zoning). The Planning Division implements and monitors this requirement. Entitlement projects are vetted through the City’s Design
Review process. Projects are reviewed by the City’s Design Review Board consisting of professional architects and landscape architects. The Planning Commission and in some cases the
City Council adds design elements to projects. Projects that are within a state or local scenic corridor are further addressed through the CEQA process. B. Air Quality Air Quality Dust
Control: All construction projects are required to comply with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) dust control measures. These measures are levied by the Engineering
Division as a condition of building permit issuance and are monitored for compliance by staff and/or special City engineering and/or planning inspectors. The measures include: a) Water
all active construction sites at least twice daily. b) Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
c) Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. d) Sweep daily (with
water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. e) Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent
public streets. f) Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). g) Enclose, cover, water twice
daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiled materials.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 160 SOUTH LINEN/COMPASS– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 1-11 h) Install sandbags or other erosion-control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. i) Replant vegetation
in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. j) Watering should be used to control dust generation during the break-up of pavement. k) Cover all trucks hauling demolition debris from the
site. l) Use dust-proof chutes to load debris into trucks whenever feasible. m) Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind. n) All
construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined
to be in proper running order prior to operation. o) Diesel powered equipment shall not be left inactive and idling for more than five minutes, and shall comply with applicable BAAQMD
rules. p) Use alternative fueled construction equipment, if possible. q) All vehicle speeds on on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. r) Post a visible sign with the telephone
number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 24 hours. The Air District phone number shall also
be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Air Quality Toxic Air Contaminants: The potential for toxic air contaminants (asbestos and lead based paint) to be released
into the environment is regulated and monitored through the Building Division. Any applicant requesting a building or demolition permit involving a structure suspected of containing
asbestos (defined as a building constructed prior to 1978) and/or lead based paint (defined as a building constructed prior to 1960) is required to obtain a J-Permit from the BAAQMD.
The J Permit is required to be posted on the job site and if it is not there the job will be fined by the BAAQMD and may be shut down by the City’s Building Division. Through this process,
the BAAQMD BAAQMD and the City Building Division ensure that asbestos and lead based paints are handled, removed, encapsulated and disposed of in accordance with prevailing law requisite
to protect the environment, the people conducting the work and nearby sensitive receptors. The process typically requires surveys and removal of lead based paints and asbestos by licensed
contractors certified in the handling methods requisite to protect the environment and public health and safety. The process also provides for BAAQMD and City supervision to insure compliance.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION PAGE 1-12 160 SOUTH LINEN/COMPASS– INITIAL STUDY Air Quality Vehicle Emissions: The potential for air quality degradation from vehicle emissions is regulated
to some extent by Section 20.400.003 of the South San Francisco Code. Table 20.400.003 in the Zoning Ordinance establishes specific program requirements for a project generating one
hundred or more vehicle trips per day or a project seeking a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus. The required alternative mode use for all projects is twenty-eight percent and applicants who
propose projects with increased FAR are required to increase their alternative mode use accordingly. The Planning Division implements and monitors this requirement. C. Geology and Soils
Geology and Soils Table 18-1-B Uniform Building Code: All construction projects are required to comply with the Uniform Building Code. Projects located on soils identified in Volume
2 Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code are required to comply with the construction specifications to mitigate potential impacts due to liquefaction. This requirement is enforced
and monitored by the Engineering Division. Compliance with the Uniform Building Code is also implemented and monitored by the Building Division. Geology and Soils Geotechnical Reports:
The City Engineering Division also requires geotechnical reports as a part of the permit package for projects to be constructed on vacant land, demolition and rebuilding and additions
to buildings that require grading and additional loading. The geotechnical reports are required to be prepared by a licensed geologist, geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist.
The reports address design and construction specifications for the Project including grading, site drainage, utility and infrastructure design specifications and placement and building
design. The reports are peer reviewed by the City’s geotechnical consultant and are modified as recommended by the City’s consultant. Geotechnical approval is required prior to issuance
of a building permit. The geotechnical professional of record is required to sign all project drawings and the City’s geotechnical consultant provides construction inspections, oversight
and monitoring for the City. The Engineering Division implements and monitors this requirement. D. Hydrology and Water Quality Hydrology and Water Quality: South San Francisco updated
their development review procedure January, 2010 to implement the new, regional requirements mandated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board that will affect private development
projects beginning December 1, 2011. The following is a summary of applicable new requirements in Provisions C.3.b.ii and C.3.c.i.2 of the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional
Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (“Municipal Regional Permit” or “MRP”). The full text may be downloaded at www.flowstobay.org/ms_municipalities.php.
New restrictions on methods of stormwater treatment require that beginning December 1, 2011, all projects that are required required to treat stormwater will need to treat the permit
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 160 SOUTH LINEN/COMPASS– INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 1-13 specified amount of stormwater runoff with low impact development methods. These methods include rainwater harvesting and reuse, infiltration, evapotranspiration, or biotreatment.
However, biotreatment (filtering stormwater through vegetation and soils before discharging to the storm drain system) will be allowed only where harvesting and reuse, infiltration and
evapotranspiration are infeasible at the Project site. Criteria for determining infeasibility are scheduled to be developed by May 1, 2011. Vault-based treatment will not be allowed
as a stand-alone treatment measure. Where stormwater harvesting and reuse, infiltration, or evapotranspiration are infeasible, vault-based treatment measures may be used in series with
biotreatment, for example, to remove trash or other large solids. (See Provision C.3.c.i.2 of the MRP.) New rules for auto service facilities, retail gasoline outlets, restaurants, and
uncovered parking begin on December 1, 2011. At that time, projects that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface related to auto service facilities , retail
gasoline outlets, restaurants, and/or surface parking will be required to provide low impact development treatment of stormwater runoff. This requirement will apply to uncovered parking
that is stand-alone, or included as part of any other development project, and it applies to the top uncovered portion of a parking structure, unless drainage from the uncovered portion
is connected to the sanitary sewer (see Provision C.3.b.ii.1 of the MRP). For all other land use categories, 10,000 square feet will remain the regional threshold for requiring low impact
development, source control, site design, and stormwater treatment, although municipalities may have the authority to require treatment to the maximum extent practicable for smaller
projects. The new requirements are built into the following standard requirements. Hydrology and Water Quality Stormwater Runoff Prevention (Operational): All Projects are required to
comply with the San Mateo Countywide Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP), an organization of the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo County holding
a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Discharge permit. The City requires the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP’s) for new development
and construction as part of its storm water management program, as levied through standard City COA’s. The requirements are implemented and monitored by the Engineering and Water Quality
Control Divisions. The measures address pollution control and management mechanisms for contractor activities, e.g. structure construction, material delivery and storage, solid waste
management, employee and subcontractor training. Stormwater pollution prevention measures also affect site development and operations in order to prevent pollution due to Project occupancy.
Typical storm water quality protection measures include: a) Walking and light traffic areas shall use permeable pavements where feasible. Typical pervious pavements include pervious
concrete, porous asphalt, turf block,
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION PAGE 1-14 160 SOUTH LINEN/COMPASS– INITIAL STUDY brick pavers, natural stone pavers, concrete unit pavers, crushed aggregate (gravel), cobbles and wood mulch.
b) Parking lots shall include hybrid surfaces (pervious material for stalls only), concave medians with biofilters (grassy swales), and landscaped infiltration/detention basins as feasible.
c) Landscape design shall incorporate biofilters, infiltration and retention/detention basins into the site plan as feasible. d) Outdoor work areas including garbage, recycling, maintenance,
storage, and loading, applicable storm water controls include siting or set back from drainage paths and water ways, provision of roofing and curbs or berms to prevent run on and run
off. If the area has the potential to generate contaminated run off, structural treatment controls for contaminant removal (such as debris screens or filters) shall be incorporated into
the design. e) Roof leaders and site drainage shall be filtered and directed to the City storm drain system. f) Drainage from paved surfaces shall be filtered through vegetated swales,
buffer or sand strips before discharge to the City’s storm drain system. Hydrology and Water Quality Stormwater Runoff Prevention (Construction): The City of South San Francisco requires
through COA’s, Project compliance with the State Water Quality Control Board’s general permitting requirements which requires the applicant to secure a Construction Activities Storm
Water General Permit, complete a Notice of Intent (NOI) and prepare and obtain approval of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The state issues a Waste Discharge Identification
number within 10 days of receipt of a complete NOI and SWPPP. The applicant is then required to submit copies of the NOI and SWPPP to the City of South San Francisco’s Technical Services
Supervisor within the Water Quality Control Plant of the Public Works Department prior to issuance of building and/or grading permits. The requirements are implemented and monitored
monitored by Water Quality Control personnel. Typical construction stormwater protection measures include: a) Identify all storm drains, drainage swales and creeks located near construction
sites and prevent pollutants from entering them by the use of filter fabric cloth, rock bags, straw wattles, slope hydroseeding, cleaning up leaks, drips or spills immediately, use dry
cleanup methods to clean up spills, use of berms, temporary ditches and check dams to reduce the velocity of surface flow. b) Place rock bags at all drain inlets to filter silt and along
curb and gutter to filter water before the drain inlets. c) Place straw wattles and hydroseed the sloped areas.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 160 SOUTH LINEN/COMPASS– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 1-15 d) Place straw matting at the temporary sloped areas for erosion control. e) Place drain systems to filter and
then drain into drain inlets. f) Use silt fencing with straw mats and hand broadcast seed for erosion control. g) Construct temporary drainage systems to filter and divert water accordingly.
h) Construct temporary rock and asphalt driveways and wheel washers to buffer public streets from dirt and mud. i) Use part and full time street sweepers that operate along public streets
and roads. j) Cover all stockpiled soils to protect from erosion. Use berms around stockpiled soils. k) Cover and protect from erosion plaster, concrete and other powders which create
large amounts of suspended solids. l) Store all hazardous materials (paints, solvents, chemicals) in accordance with secondary containment regulations and cover during wet weather. m)
Use terracing to prevent erosion. n) Through grading plan review and approval, phase grading operations to reduce disturbed areas during wet weather, limit vegetation removal, delineate
clearing limits, setbacks, easements, sensitive or critical areas, trees, drainage courses and buffer zones to prevent unnecessary disturbance and exposure. Limit or prohibit grading
during the wet weather season, October 15 to April 15th. o) Prevent spills and leaks by maintaining equipment, designating specific areas of a site for such activities that are controlled
and away from water courses and perform major maintenance off-site or in designated areas only. p) Cover and maintain all dumpsters, collect and properly dispose of all paint removal
wastes, clean up paints, solvents, adhesives and all cleaning solvents properly. Recycle and salvage appropriate wastes and maintain an adequate debris disposal schedule. q) Avoid roadwork
and pavement stormwater pollution by following manufacturers’ instructions. E. Noise Noise Interior Ambient Noise: The City of South San Francisco regulates noise exposure through state
state law and their General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan. The
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION PAGE 1-16 160 SOUTH LINEN/COMPASS– INITIAL STUDY California Building Code (CBC) Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 2.35 of the California Code of Regulation, collectively
known as Title 24, contains acoustical requirements for interior sound levels in habitable rooms for multi-family residential land uses. Title 24 contains requirements for construction
of new hotels, motels, apartment houses, and dwellings other than detached single-family dwellings intended to limit the extent of noise transmitted into habitable spaces. The standard
specifies the extent to which walls, doors, and floor-ceiling assemblies must block or absorb sound in between units and the amount of attenuation needed to limit noise from exterior
sources. The standard sets forth an interior noise level of 45 dBA (CNEL or Ldn) in any habitable room with all doors and windows closed and requires an acoustical analysis demonstrating
how dwelling units have been designed to meet this interior standard where such units are proposed in areas subject to noise levels greater than 60 dBA (CNEL or Ldn). Title 24 requirements
are enforced as a condition of building permit issuance by the Building Division. The City, through its General Plan, adopted the Noise Guidelines of the State Department of Health Services
in their Noise Element (1999). Table 9.2-1, Land Use Criteria for Noise Impacted Areas, contained in the Noise Element of the General Plan (page 280) guides land use decisions based
upon noise thresholds and acoustical analysis and mitigation. Additionally, the General Plan (page 279) also guides and mitigates development in light of aircraft noise. The City implements
the Federal Aviation Administration adopted noise contours and participates in an aircraft noise insulation program. Figure 9-1 of the General Plan Aircraft Noise and Noise Insulation
Program (page 279) identifies the noise contours and program area. The East of 101 Area Plan requirement for interior ambient noise for commercial, office and retail is 45 dBA, Leq,
echoing state law. Residential land uses are prohibited. The Noise Guidelines are implemented by the Planning Division through new project review. Noise Exterior Ambient Noise: The City
of South San Francisco regulates exterior noise through the South San Francisco Municipal Code (Section 8.32.030). The Municipal Code regulates noise pursuant to land use and time of
day. Lower density residential maximum noise exposure (excluding vehicle horns and emergency vehicles) is restricted to 50 dB 10 P.M. to 7 A.M. and 60 db from 7 A.M. and 10 P.M. Higher
density residential and commercial is restricted to 55 dB from 10 P.M. to 7 A.M. and 65 db from 7 A.M. and 10 P.M. Industrial land uses are restricted to 70 dB anytime of the day. These
noise standards are implemented largely through enforcement actions (i.e., citizen complaint and governmental response). The Fire Department through its Code Enforcement Officer implements
these regulations. Construction noise is also regulated through the Municipal Code (8.32.050(d)). Hours of construction are exempt from the standards identified in the preceding paragraph
and are limited to 8 A.M. to 8 P.M. Monday through Friday, 9 A.M. to 8 P.M. on Saturdays and 10 A.M. to 6 P.M. on Sundays and holidays. The Building Division enforces and monitors these
regulations. Exceptions to the hours of construction may be granted by the Chief Building Official.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 160 SOUTH LINEN/COMPASS– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 1-17 1.3 Lead Agency’s Determination On the basis of the evaluation in the Initial Study in Chapter 2: I find that
the proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Project have been made by or agreed to by the Project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT will be prepared. I find that the
proposed Project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, although 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.
Therefore, a FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT will be prepared and shall analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed Project could have
a significant effect on the environment, however, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant
to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed Project that an ADDENDUM to a previous EIR/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-1 2 ENVIRONMENTALCHECKLIST This Environmental Checklist (Initial Study) provides the technical analysis and discussion of
potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project at160 South Linden Avenue, South San Francisco, California. 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 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.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-2 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY 2.1 AESTHETICS Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental
Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS — Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect
on a scenic vista? x b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? x c) Substantially
degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? x d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area? x SETTING/BACKGROUND PROJECT SITE The Project site is in the Lindenville neighborhood and planning area which is within the southern and central portion of South San
Francisco. The Lindenville area contains a variety of land uses including industrial, residential and office. The site is fronted by South Linden Avenue on its eastern property line.
The site is immediately surrounded by industrial land uses including steel fabrication, concrete and statuary manufacturing, a tour bus facility and the existing location of Compass
Transport, the peninsula rail line and construction and storage uses. The Project site is accessed by South Linden Avenue, a minor arterial. Airport Boulevard, a major arterial, provides
access to the site via San Mateo Avenue, another minor arterial. Parking is not permitted on either side of the street along the frontage of the Project site The site is currently occupied
with industrial, office and designer (fashion, jewelry, art) studios. Land uses include a construction company, limousine service, video production studio, medical supply company, artist
studios, jewelry and fashion designers, a small florist and offices. 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
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-3 the City, and Sign Hill and San Bruno Mountain in the distance are visual landmarks. Much of the
City’s topography is rolling, resulting in distant views from many neighborhoods. Geographically, the City is relatively small, extending approximately two miles in a northsouth direction
and about five miles from east to west. The Lindenville area is built on a rather flat landscape and in some areas, north and east of the Project site, on fill in old marshlands. The
Project is located in the southern central area, west of Highway 101 in an area of industrial uses dating to the early part of the 1900’s. The 5.3 acre Project site is flat (less than
a three percent slope) and ranges in elevation from 10 to 25 feet above mean sea level. The closest residential land use is approximately 0.16 (845 feet) south of 160 South Linden Avenue
in the City of San Bruno. Project Description The Project would construct 1,040 square feet of additional office space and a 6,600 square foot new service garage to the site that currently
has 64,323 square feet of floor area. Total new floor area would be 71,963 square feet of which Compass Transport would occupy approximately 8,380 square feet. Compass Transport would
use approximately 75,100 square feet of the existing yard area for bus parking. Existing structures on the site are one to three stories and range from 62 feet, for architectural features
such as the two towers on the site, 50 feet for the third floor, 31 feet for the second floor and 17 feet for the first floor. The Project would not exceed the existing height of the
built structures. The Project involves work on the first and third floors, restriping the parking area, adding landscaping and constructing a service garage. East elevation work (South
Linden frontage) would include relocating an existing chain link fence and reconstructing with concrete brick and metal picket fencing; replacing two windows and a door on the third
floor and and extending the metal stairway to the third floor to match existing; adding a universal (accessible) ramp, removing a portion of the canopy on the first floor to accommodate
a new drive isle and various structural improvements. Work on the north elevation would include extending the stairway to the third floor; replacing third floor glazing to accommodate
offices, constructing a new universal ramp and replacing glazing and doors on the first floor. West elevation construction would include removing a third story window; adding first floor
windows; adding a metal stair and guard and hand rails to match existing and removing a portion of the existing canopy to accommodate the drive aisle. The service garage would be placed
in the west and central portion of the site and be constructed of metal siding built to accommodate four service bays (16 spaces within the building), a parts room, break room and office.
The Project would add 759 square feet of landscaping to the existing 14,557 square feet for a total of 15,316 square feet of landscaping. The hardscaped yard area would be restriped
to accommodate 184 parking stalls inclusive of six universal spaces.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-4 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Design Review Board As identified in Chapter 1.2.A, the Project
is required by law to undergo review by the City’s Design Review Board and incorporate changes by this Board, the Planning Commission and City Council. This review regulates signage,
site layout, design and light and glare. General Plan The South San Francisco General Plan identifies maximum heights for structures with respect to potential aircraft hazards as well
as areas with special scenic considerations. The maximum permitted height in the Project area is 80 feet (Figure 2-3, Special Area Height Limitations, General Plan, page 35). The height
limitation is related to the airport height limitations pursuant to the Airport Land Use Commission oversight. The ALUC height limitation is based upon safety factors, whereas the zoning
ordinance height limit of 80 feet (Table 20.090.003 Development Standards, page 58) is based upon design and community value considerations. The maximum existing height of the Project
is 62 feet and the Project modifications would not penetrate that height. The Project site is not located within or nearby a scenic vista or scenic corridor (General Plan, and General
Plan Background Report). Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20 Zoning of the South San Francisco Municipal Code contains prescriptive standards with respect to light and glare. Chapter 20.300.009
Lindenville and East of 101 Area, identifies prescriptive standards with respect to lighting and glare, section G, Lighting and Glare, subsection 3 prohibits incidental or direct glare
from site operations to be visible beyond the boundaries of the site. Figure 20.300.008 (B)(4) Shielding, prescribes cutoff luminaries to prevent off site light seepage. Chapter 20.300.005,
Fences and Walls, addresses the use of certain materials visible from public streets, prohibiting the use of chain link fencing and untextured concrete block. IMPACTS a) Scenic Vistas
Significance Criteria: For the purpose of assessing impacts of a Project on scenic vistas, the threshold of significance is exceeded when a Project would result in the obstruction of
a designated public vista, or in the placement of an arguably offensive or negative-appearing project within such a vista. Any clear conflict with a General Plan policy or other adopted
planning policy regarding scenic vistas would also be considered a potentially significant adverse environmental impact.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-5 The Project is not located within a formally designated public vista, nor would it result in the
obstruction of a formally designated public vista (Figure 2-4 Viewshed, General Plan, page 36). The Project would not clearly conflict with an adopted planning policy regarding scenic
vistas. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact with an adopted planning policy regarding scenic vistas. b) Scenic Resources and Scenic Routes Significance Criteria: For
the purposes of assessing impacts of the Project on scenic resources, the threshold of significance is exceeded by any Project-related action that would substantially damage scenic resources
(i.e., trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state [or local] scenic highway). The Project would not be visible from a state scenic highway. The Project site does
not contain historic buildings, trees, significant rock outcroppings, or other scenic resources. Therefore the Project would have no impact on scenic resources. c) Visual Character Significance
Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The
Project is visible from the public right of way, South Linden Avenue, but is not an identified viewpoint (Figure 2-4 Viewshed, General Plan, page 36). Although not a viewpoint, site
development does engender some significance as it is visible from South Linden Avenue. The site is currently developed with a chain link fence visible from South Linden Avenue. Current
site landscaping, along the South Linden Avenue frontage is not well maintained and in some areas weedy and dead. The zoning ordinance, Chapter 20.300.005, Fences and Walls subsections
C. 2 and 3, prohibits the use of chain link fences that area visible from public streets. Also prohibited is the use of untextured concrete block. The Project would remove the chain
link fence fence and replace it with a metal picket fence. The Project proposes the use of untextured concrete block in portions of the fence. Should the Project be approved, a condition
of approval would require textured concrete block (Billy Gross, Associate Planner, January 25, 2011). The Project proposes to improve the existing landscaping by restoring existing landscaping
and adding approximately 759 square feet of new landscaping. The Design Review Board reviewed the Project on July 20, 2010 and has required the replacement of Crape Myrtle trees with
pear trees on the landscape plan and the use of Platanus acerifolia ‘Columbia’ in place of Platanus acerifolia Yarwood on the site.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-6 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY The Project would result in an improvement over existing conditions by removing a chain
link fence as well as improving and adding landscaping. The concrete block would be textured as a condition of Project approval. The Project would bring site design (i.e., aesthetics)
into conformance with zoning. 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 impact. Project implementation would involve installation
of new light standards at various locations. Lighting design, as a matter of law, is required to comply with Chapter 20.300.008, Lighting and Illumination and Figure 20.300.008 (B)(4),
Shielding, which prescribes the type of light shielding to prevent glare and offsite seepage. No substantial increase of light and glare emanating from the Project site is anticipated,
therefore the impact would be considered less than significant. Finding: The 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. The Project’s new construction at 20 feet would not
exceed the 80 foot height limit posed for safety concerns by the ALUC. The site is developed to 62 feet in height at two architectural features. The addition of floor area would occur
on the first floor and as such would be less than 20 feet in height.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-7 2.2 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? x b) Conflict
with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? x 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? x SETTING/BACKGROUND The Project site was graded in the early 1900’s and has supported industrial
uses since its development. 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. 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 Zoning Ordinance) Therefore, the Project would have no impact on agricultural resources. Finding: The Project would not adversely affect any existing
agricultural operations. The Project site is not planned or zoned for agricultural use and is not in agricultural use. The
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-8 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY Project would not impact agricultural resources individually or cumulatively. 2.3 AIR
QUALITY Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant
Impact No Impact III. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon
to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? x b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? x c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? x d) Expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? x e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? x This air quality analysis is based on an air quality assessment
that was prepared for the Project (see Appendix A) that was performed using methodologies and assumptions recommended within the existing and proposed air quality impact assessment guidelines
of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).1 This section describes existing air quality, air pollutant construction and operations impacts, and air quality Conditions
of Approval (see Chapter 1, Section 1.2.B) that are required to be implemented as part of the Project pursuant to the City of South San Francisco’s project review process. SETTING/BACKGROUND
1 The BAAQMD Board approved and adopted new revised CEQA Air Quality Guidelines on June 2, 2010.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-9 CLIMATE The peninsula region of the Bay Area Air Basin (Bay Area) extends from the area northwest
of San Jose to the Golden Gate. The Santa Cruz Mountains extend up the center of the peninsula, with elevations exceeding 2,000 feet at the south end, and gradually decreasing to an
elevation of 500 feet in South San Francisco, where it terminates. San Francisco is at the north end of the peninsula and because most of the topography of San Francisco is below 200
feet, the marine layer is able to flow across most of the city, making its climate relatively cool and windy (Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Bay Area Climatology http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divi
sions/Communications-and-Outreach/Air-Quality-in-the-Bay-Area/Bay-Area-Climatology.aspx, accessed February 4, 2011 (BAAQMD, 2011). Meteorological data collected at the San Francisco
International Airport (SFO), which is approximately four miles southeast of the project site, are representative of general conditions in South San Francisco. Average maximum and minimum
winter (i.e., January) temperatures at SFO are 56 and 42 ºF, respectively, while average summer (i.e., July) maximum and minimum temperatures are 72 and 54 ºF, respectively. Precipitation
at SFO averages approximately 20 inches per year (Western Regional Climate Center, 2010. Local Climate Data Summaries for San Francisco International Airport, California. Obtained online
(http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/clilcd.pl?ca23234 on February 4, 2011 (BAAQMD, 2011). Annual average wind speeds range from five to 10 miles per hour (mph) throughout the peninsula.
The east side of the mountains has a westerly wind pattern; however, it is influenced by local topographic features. That is, a few hundred feet rise in elevation will induce flow around
that feature instead of over it during stable atmospheric conditions. This can change the wind pattern by as much as 90 degrees over short distances. On mornings without a strong pressure
gradient, areas on the east side of the peninsula often experience eastern flow in the surface layer, induced by upslope flow on the east-facing slopes and by the bay breeze. The bay
breeze is rarely seen in the afternoon because the stronger sea breeze dominates the flow pattern (BAAQMD, 2010)1. SENSITIVE RECEPTORS People that are more susceptible to the effects
of air pollution within the general population include children, elderly, and those that suffer from certain illnesses or disabilities. Therefore, schools, convalescent homes, and hospitals
are considered to be sensitive receptors to air pollution. Residential areas are also considered sensitive to poor air quality because people usually stay home for extended periods of
time, which results in greater exposure to localized air pollutants. The closest sensitive receptor in the vicinity of the Project site is a residential use 845 feet to the south of
the Project in the City of San Bruno.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-10 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Criteria Pollutants The BAAQMD monitors and regulates air quality
pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act, as amended, and the 1988 California Clean Air Act. The BAAQMD adopts and enforces controls on stationary sources of air pollutants through its
permit and inspection programs. Other BAAQMD responsibilities include monitoring air quality, preparation of clean air plans, and responding to citizen air quality complaints. The BAAQMD
has also published CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, June 2010, to assist lead agencies in evaluating air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed in the Bay Area. CURRENT AIR QUALITY
The BAAQMD operates a regional monitoring network for ambient concentrations of six criteria pollutants. Currently, the criteria pollutants of most concern in the Bay Area are ozone
and particulate matter. The monitoring station closest to the Project is in San Francisco on Arkansas Arkansas Street. This air quality monitoring station monitors levels of ozone, particulate
matter in the form of PM10 and PM2.5, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide). Air Quality Table 1 summarizes the most recent three years of data published by the California
Air Resources Board (ARB) for the San Francisco, Arkansas Street air monitoring station, which is approximately eight miles to the north-northeast of the Project. The State 24-hour PM10
standard was exceeded two times in 2007. The federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard was exceeded five times in 2007 and once in 2009. No other State or federal air quality standards were exceeded
during the three year period. AIR QUALITY TABLE 1 AIR QUALITY DATA SUMMARY SAN FRANCISCO, ARKANSAS STREET, CA, 2007 – 2009 Pollutant Standard Days Standard Exceeded 2007 2008 2009 Ozone
State 1–Hour 0 0 0 Ozone Federal 8–Hour 0 0 0 Ozone State 8–Hour 0 0 0 PM10 Federal 24–Hour 0 0 0 PM10 State 24–Hour 2 0 0 PM2.5 Federal 24–Hour 5 0 1 Carbon Monoxide State/Federal 8–8–Hour
0 0 0 Nitrogen Dioxide State 1–Hour 0 0 0 Sulfur Dioxide State 24-Hour 0 0 0 Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Annual Bay Area Air Quality Summaries, 2011. The Bay Area
is currently designated “nonattainment” for State and national (1-hour and 8-hour) ozone standards, for the State PM10 standards, and for State and national (annual average and 24-hour)
PM2.5 standards. The Bay Area is designated “attainment” or “unclassified” with respect to the other ambient air quality standards.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-11 IMPACTS a) Conflicts with the Current Air Quality Plan Significance Criteria: Any project that
would not support the goals of the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan (CAP) would not be considered consistent with the 2010 CAP. On September 15, 2010, the BAAQMD adopted the 2010 CAP. The
2010 Bay Area CAP updates the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy in accordance with the requirements of the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) to implement all feasible measures to reduce ozone;
provide a control strategy to reduce ozone, particulate matter, air toxics, and greenhouse gas emissions in a single, integrated plan; and establish emission control measures to be adopted
or implemented in the 2010 through 2012 timeframe. The primary goals of the 2010 Bay Area CAP are to: • Attain air quality standards; • Reduce population exposure and protecting public
health in the Bay Area; and • Reduce GHG emissions and protect the climate. The recommended measure for determining project support of these goals is consistency with BAAQMD-approved
CEQA thresholds of significance. Therefore, if approval of a project would not result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts after the application of all feasible mitigation,
the project would be considered consistent with the 2010 Bay Area CAP. The Project would be consistent with the 2010 Bay Area CAP, and thus, the impact is less than significant. b and
c) Violation of Standards and a Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would exceed BAAQMD’s construction
and/or operational mass emission thresholds for exhaust emissions and/or if appropriate air pollutant control measures are not implemented. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommend
that cumulative air quality effects from criteria air pollutants also be addressed by comparison to the mass daily and annual thresholds. These thresholds were developed to identify
a a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant regional air quality impact. Air quality impacts are associated with both construction and operation of a project. BAAQMD
rules and regulations govern certain aspects of the construction phase of projects. BAAQMD regulations applicable to the construction of the project relate to portable equipment (e.g.,
gasoline-or diesel-powered engines used for power generation, pumps, compressors, and cranes), architectural coatings, fugitive dust, and paving materials. Project construction and operation
impacts are discussed below.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-12 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY Construction Related Impacts The Project would involve the demolition and reconstruction
of floor space on the ground and third floors and the addition of 1,040 square feet of floor area to create a 1,781 square foot office area. The Project involves new construction of
a 6,600 square foot service garage and restriping of the parking area. Approximately 1,000 cubic yards of cut and fill is proposed. Approximately 80,000 square feet of surface area would
be affected by grading. Depth of cut is expected to be 12 inches and approximately 2,500 cubic yards of soil and paving would be hauled from the site. Grading and site preparation is
anticipated to take 10 weeks. Types of equipment on the site during this phase of construction would be a grader, skip loaded, front loader, standard asphalt paving equipment and excavator.
Project construction would take approximately an additional two to three months to complete, for a total construction period of five months. Types of equipment on the site during this
phase of construction would be mobile cranes, concrete trucks, delivery trucks and private vehicles. Project construction would generate short-term emissions of criteria pollutants,
including fugitive dust and equipment exhaust emissions. The recently adopted BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommend quantification of construction-related exhaust emissions and
comparison of those emissions to significance thresholds. Therefore, this analysis includes quantification of construction emissions and comparison of the emissions to the BAAQMD’s construction
significance thresholds. The URBEMIS 2007 Version 9.2.4 model was used to quantify project construction emissions of criteria pollutants (see Appendix A for emissions estimate assumptions).
Air Quality Table 2 provides the estimated short-term construction emissions that would be associated with the Project and compares those emissions to the BAAQMD’s thresholds for construction
exhaust emissions. Total construction emissions would be well below the BAAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, Project impacts that would be associated with construction related
exhaust emissions would be less than significant. AIR QUALITY TABLE 2 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA POLUTANT EMISSIONS (pounds per day) Emission Sources ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 CO Total Construction
Emissions 6 46 3 3 31 Significance Thresholds 54 54 82 54 ---Significant Impact? No No No No No Notes: Refer to Appendix A for all assumptions used as input to the URBEMIS2007 model.
Although construction-related emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds for criteria pollutants, the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines recommend the implementation of Basic
Construction Mitigation Measures for all projects, whether or not significant impacts have been identified. The City of South San Francisco has required BAAQMD measures to be implemented
into Project construction as a matter of law. (see Introduction, Chapter 1, Section 1.2.1).
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-13 Long-Term Operational Impacts The URBEMIS2007 (Version 9.2.4) model was used to estimate emissions
that would be associated with natural gas space heating, water heating, and landscape maintenance emissions expected to occur due to implementation the Project. Emission factors obtained
from ARB’s EMFAC emissions model were used to estimate emissions that would be associated with employee vehicles and commuter buses. Of note, the existing and proposed commuter bus fleet
would use biodiesel fuel. Biodiesel fuel produces fewer emissions of PM, CO, ROG, SO2, and CO2 emissions and a slight increase in NOx emissions compared to conventional diesel fuel.
Estimated operational daily and annual emissions that would be associated with the proposed Project are presented in Air Quality Tables 3 and 4, and are compared to BAAQMD’s thresholds
of significance. As indicated, the estimated operational emissions that would be associated with the Project would be below the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds and would be less than
significant. Taking into account the reduction in vehicle miles that would otherwise occur without the commuter buses, the overall effect of the project would be an insignificant increase
in regional emissions of ROG, NOx, and PM and a net reduction in CO emissions. AIR QUALITY TABLE 3 PROJECT DAILY OPERATIONAL CRITERIA POLUTANT EMISSIONS (pounds per day) Emission Sources
ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 CO Area Sources 0.4 1 0.0 0.0 2 Mobile Sources -0.4 32 -0.2 0.0 -53 Total 0.1 33 -0.2 0.0 -51 Significance Thresholds 54 54 82 54 ---Significant Impact? No No No No
No Notes: Refer to Appendix A for all assumptions used as input to estimate emissions. AIR QUALITY TABLE 4 PROJECT ANNUAL OPERATIONAL CRITERIA POLUTANT EMISSIONS (tons per year) Emission
Sources ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 CO Area Sources 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 Mobile Sources 0.0 5 0.2 0.2 -7 Total 0.1 6 0.2 0.2 -6 Significance Thresholds 10 10 15 10 ---Significant Impact? No No
No No No No Notes: Refer to Appendix A for all assumptions used as input to estimate emissions. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) screening analysis method states
that projects would not create a violation of the CO standard if intersections affected by the
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-14 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY project would not be reduced from Level of Service A through D to E or F (i.e., significantly
deteriorated). Based on a traffic analysis, no intersections would reduce the Level of Service from acceptable to unacceptable levels. The Project is expected to accommodate 80 commuter
buses, a minimal number compared to the regional and local roadways surrounding the Project. Thus, the Project is considered to result in a less than significant impact on localized
CO emissions at nearby intersections. Therefore, impacts that would be associated with long-term operational exhaust emissions would be less than significant. Cumulative Impacts The
BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommend that cumulative air quality effects from criteria air pollutants also be addressed by comparison to the BAAQMD’s mass daily and annual significance
thresholds. As shown in Air Quality Tables 2 through 4, Projectrelated emissions would be below the thresholds. Therefore, the Project would not be cumulatively considerable and cumulative
impacts would be less than significant. d) Impacts to Sensitive Receptors Significance Criteria: The significance of impact to sensitive receptors is dependent on the chance of contracting
cancer from exposure to toxic air contaminants (TACs) or of having adverse health effects from exposure to non-carcinogenic TACs. A project is considered to be significant if the incremental
cancer risk at a receptor exceeds 10 in a million. For cumulative analysis of cancer risk, BAAQMD recommends that the risks from all sources within a 1,000 foot radius of the source
or receptor be assessed and compared to a cumulative increased risk threshold of 100 in one million. The non-cancer hazard index significance threshold of one is defined in the BAAQMD
CEQA Air Quality Guidelines and is consistent with the value requiring public notification in the AB2588 regulation and in Proposition 65. For cumulative analysis of non-cancer hazard
index, BAAQMD requires that the hazards from all sources within a 1,000 foot radius of the source or receptor be assessed and compared to a cumulative hazard index threshold of 10. Because
emissions of PM2.5 are associated with health risks, the BAAQMD has established a separate significance threshold for PM2.5 to protect public health. For individual projects, the BAAQMD
significant threshold for PM2.5 impacts is an average annual increase of 0.3 μg/m3. For cumulative analysis, BAAQMD recommends that the PM2.5 concentrations from all sources within a
1,000 foot radius of the receptor be assessed and compared to a cumulative threshold of an average annual increase of 0.8 μg/m3. Cancer Risk Cancer risk is defined as the lifetime probability
of developing cancer from exposure to carcinogenic substances. Cancer risks are expressed as the chances in one million of contracting cancer, for example, ten cancer cases among one
million people exposed. Following HRA guidelines established by California Office Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and BAAQMD’s Health Risk Screening Analysis
Guidelines,
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-15 incremental cancer risks (i.e., the additional risk above baseline levels attributable to the Project)
were calculated by applying toxicity factors to modeled TAC concentrations in order to determine the inhalation dose (milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day [mg/kgday]). See
Appendix A for details. As a result of construction activities, the maximum cancer risk for a residential receptor (the nearest of which is located approximately 845 feet south of the
proposed Project) would be 0.1 per million. The maximum cancer risk for a worker receptor (adjacent to the proposed Project) would be 0.1 per million. The cancer risk due to construction
activities alone is below the BAAQMD threshold of 10 per million and would be less than significant. The maximum cancer risk from operations at a residential receptor would be 0.7 per
million. The maximum cancer risk from operations at a worker receptor would be 0.3 per million. million. The cancer risk due to operations would be well below the BAAQMD threshold of
10 per million and would be less than significant. The maximum cancer risks from construction and operations of the Project would be well below the BAAQMD threshold of 10 per million
and less than significant. Non-Cancer Health Impacts Both acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) adverse health impacts unrelated to cancer are measured against a hazard index (HI),
which is defined as the ratio of the predicted incremental exposure concentration from the Project to a published reference exposure level (REL) that could cause adverse health effects.
The RELs are published by OEHHA based on epidemiological research. The ratio (referred to as the Hazard Quotient [HQ]) of each noncarcinogenic substance that affects a certain organ
system is added to produce an overall HI for that organ system. The overall HI is calculated for each organ system. If the overall HI for the highest-impacted organ system is greater
than one, then the impact is considered to be significant. As a result of Project-related construction and operations, the chronic HI would be 0.01. The chronic HI would be well below
the BAAQMD threshold of 1 and the impact of the project would therefore be less than significant. PM2.5 Concentration Dispersion modeling was also used to predict exposure of sensitive
receptors to projectrelated concentrations of PM2.5. Because emissions of PM2.5 are associated with health risks the BAAQMD has established a separate significance threshold to protect
public health. The BAAQMD guidance suggests inclusion of PM2.5 exhaust emissions only in this analysis (i.e., fugitive dust emissions are addressed under BAAQMD dust control measures
to be implemented into Project construction). The maximum annual PM2.5 concentration as a result of Project construction and operations would be 0.03 μg/m3. The annual PM2.5 concentration
due to implementation of the Project would be well below the BAAQMD threshold of 0.3 μg/m3, and hence is considered less than significant.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-16 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY Cumulative Impacts BAAQMD has published health risk information for major roadways within
San Mateo County, including State Route 101 and Interstate 380; freeways to the east and south of the proposed Project. The BAAQMD also developed a geo-referenced database of permitted
TAC emissions sources throughout the Bay Area, and has developed the Stationary Source Risk & Hazard Analysis Tool for estimating cumulative health risks from permitted sources. The
Project is approximately 2,200 feet to the west of Route 101 and approximately 2,500 feet to the north of Interstate 380. The cumulative health impacts from the two major roadways were
based on conservative (overestimation) estimates within BAAQMD’s Roadway Screening Tables. Air Quality Table 5 lists the BAAQMD-permitted facilities and major roadways within 1,000 feet
of the Project. Air Quality Table 5 also shows the cumulative cancer risk, chronic hazard risk, acute health risk, and PM2.5 concentrations (in μg/m3) associated with these facilities
(developed by BAAQMD), as with the Project. The total cumulative cancer risk, chronic hazard, and PM2.5 concentrations associated with the nearby major roadways and the permitted facilities
would be less than significant. AIR QUALITY TABLE 5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Site # Facility Type Address Cancer Risk Chronic Impact Acute Impact PM2.5 Concentrati on 7693 Printing 264 South
Maple Ave 0 0 0 0 1805 3 Auto Body 1379 San Mateo Ave 0 0 0 0 1225 3 Auto Body 1255 Montgomery St 0.0199 0.000064 0.0000 2 0 1862 4 Auto Body 887 San Mateo Ave 0 0 0 0 1239 6 Auto Body
1229 Montgomery St 0 0.000493 0.0000 4 0 1594 3 Painting 1212 Montgomery St 0.0627 0.00114 0.0001 75 0 1694 6 Auto Body 1200 Montgomery St 0 0 0 0 1261 7 Auto Body 1172 Montgomery St
0 0.000106 0.0000 34 0 1558 2 Emergency Generator 1172 Huntington Ave 1.67 0.000595 0 0.00298 8006 Auto Body 240 Ryan Way 0 0 0 0 1582 5 Printing 219 Ryan Way 0 0.00181 0.0000 12 0
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-17 Site # Facility Type Address Cancer Risk Chronic Impact Acute Impact PM2.5 Concentrati on 5910
Auto Body 233 Ryan Way 0.000172 0.000089 0.0000 28 0.00158 1908 7 Auto Body 233 South Maple Ave 0 0 0 0 1190 3 Coffee Roaster Oven 233 South Maple Ave 0.000028 0 0 0.0437 1830 2 Auto
Body 233 South Maple Ave 0 0 0 0 8314 Fishery 203 South Maple Ave 0 0 0 0.0369 1823 7 Auto Body 140 South Linden Ave 0 0 0 0 1681 4 Auto Body 136 South Linden Ave 0 0 0 0 1862 1 Auto
Body 112 South Linden Ave 0 0 0 0 1433 3 Auto Body 104 South Linden Ave 0 0.00202 0.0003 42 0 1851 1 Auto Body 1331 San Mateo Ave 0 0 0 0 1149 6 Chrome Plating 1104 San Mateo Ave 16
0.000319 0 0.000064 1863 2 Auto Body 325 Victory Ave 0 0 0 0 Permitted Sources Total 18 0.01 <0.01 0.09 Route 101 24 0.06 0.06 0.24 US 380 0.50 0 0 0.11 Roadways Total 25 0.06 0.06 0.35
Project 0.8 0.01 0 0.03 Grand Total 44 0.08 0.06 0.47 BAAQMD Cumulative Significance Criteria 100 10 10 0.8 Significant Cumulative Impact? No No No No e) Odor Impacts Significance Criteria:
The BAAQMD’s significance criteria for odors are more subjective and are based on the number of odor complaints generated by a Project. Generally, the BAAQMD considers any project with
the potential to frequently expose members of the public to objectionable odors to cause a significant impact. Projects that would site a new odor source or a new receptor farther than
the applicable BAAQMD-established screening distances from an existing receptor or odor source, respectively, would not likely result in a
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-18 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY significant odor impact. An odor source with five more confirmed complaints per year
averaged over three years is considered to have a significant impact on receptors within the screening distances. Existing uses (i.e., artist studios, storage, handicraft manufacturing)
at the Project are not considered odor sources that would result in odor complaints and surrounding the site are industrial uses, including cement manufacturing, steel fabrication, and
statuary manufacturing. The proposed uses (i.e., bus parking and maintenance building) are not considered odor sources that would frequently expose the public to objectionable odors.
During construction, various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on the site would create odors. These odors would be temporary and intermittent and not likely to be noticeable
beyond the Project boundaries. The impact of the Project with regard to odors would be less than significant. The maximum cancer risk from operations at a residential receptor would
be 0.7 per million. The maximum cancer risk from operations at a worker receptor would be 0.3 per million. The cancer risk due to operations would be well below the BAAQMD threshold
of 10 per million and would be less than significant. The maximum cancer risks from construction and operations of the Project would be well below the BAAQMD threshold of 10 per million
and less than significant. The chronic HI would be well below the BAAQMD threshold of 1 and the impact of the project would therefore be less than significant. No mitigation measures,
above those required by the City as a matter of law, are identified in this Initial Study. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental
Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS —Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse
gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? x b) Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? x Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
because they capture heat radiated from the sun as it is reflected back into the atmosphere, similar to a greenhouse. The accumulation of GHG emissions has been implicated as a driving
force for Global Climate Change (GCC). Definitions of climate change vary between and across regulatory authorities and the scientific community, but in general can be described as the
changing of the Earth’s climate caused by natural fluctuations and the impact of human activities that alter the composition of the global atmosphere. Both natural processes and human
activities emit GHG emissions. The major concern is that increases in GHG emissions are causing GCC. GCC is a change in the average weather on earth that can be measured by wind patterns,
storms, precipitation,
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-19 and temperature. Although there is disagreement as to the speed of global warming and the extent
of the impacts attributable to human activities, the vast majority of the scientific community now agrees that there is a direct link between increased GHG emissions and long term global
temperature increases. Potential global warming impacts in California may include, but are not limited to, loss in snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high
ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years. Secondary effects are likely to include a global rise in sea level, impacts to agriculture, changes in disease vectors, and
changes in habitat and biodiversity. The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates the Earth’s temperature and emissions from human activities, such as electricity production
and motor vehicles, have elevated the concentration of GHG emissions in the atmosphere. This accumulation of GHG emissions has contributed to GCC as an increase in the temperature of
the Earth’s atmosphere. GHGs include all of the following gases; carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, nitrogen trifluroide
(NF3), and sulfur hexafluoride (California Health and Safety Code section 38505(g)). CO2 is the reference gas for climate change because it gets the most attention and is considered
the most important GHG. To account for the warming potential of GHGs, GHG emissions are often quantified and reported as CO2 equivalents (CO2e). The effects of GHG emission sources (i.e.,
individual projects) are reported in metric tons per year of CO2e. California and Bay Area GHG Emissions GHG emissions contributing to GCC are attributable in large part to human activities
associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors.2 The State of California alone produces about 2% of the entire world’s GHG
emissions, with major emitting sources here including fossil fuel consumption from transportation (41%), industry (23%), electricity production (20%), and agricultural and forestry (8%).
The State of California is looking at options and opportunities for drastically reducing GHG emissions with the hope of thereby delaying, mitigating, or preventing at least some of the
anticipated impacts of GCC on California communities. In 2008, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) completed a baseline inventory of GHG emissions for the year 2007.
According to that inventory, 102 million metric tons of CO2e were emitted in the Bay Area that year.3 GHG Emissions Table 1 shows the emissions breakdown by pollutant. 2 California Energy
Commission (CEC). California’s Major Sources of Energy. http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/overview/energy_sources.html, 2008. 3 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Source Inventory
of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions, December 2008.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-20 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY GHG EMISSIONS TABLE 1 2007 BAY AREA CO2e EMISSIONS BY POLLUTANT Pollutant Percentage
CO2e (Million Metric Tons/Year) Carbon Dioxide 91.4 93.7 Methane 2.4 2.5 Nitrous Oxide 2.2 2.3 HFC, PFC, SF6 3.9 4.0 Total 100 102.6 Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District,
2008. The Bay Area’s transportation sector contributes 40% of the CO2e GHG emissions, followed by industrial and commercial sources (34%), electricity and co-generation (15%), residential
fuel usage (7%), off-road equipment (3%), and agriculture and farming (1%). Bay Area emissions by sector are illustrated in GHG Emissions Chart 1. Absent policy changes, Bay Area GHG
emissions are expected to grow at a rate of 1.4% a year due to population growth and economic expansion.4 Economic activity variations and the fraction of electric power generation in
the region will cause year-to-year fluctuations in the emissions trends. GHG Emissions Chart 2 shows the emission trends by major sources for the period of 1990 to 2029. GHG EMISSIONS
CHART 1 BAY AREA GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY SECTOR, AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL EMISSIONS Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2008. 4 Ibid.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-21 GHG EMISSIONS CHART 2 BAY AREA GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS TRENDS BY SECTOR Source: Bay Area Air Quality
Management District, 2008. Greenhouse Gas Emissions in South San Francisco In 2005, the City of South San Francisco emitted approximately 526,766 metric tons of CO2e. As shown in GHG
Emissions Table 2, the transportation sector is the largest contributor to GHG emissions, responsible for 46% of all emissions, with emissions from cars traveling on State highways within
the city almost twice as much as emissions from cars traveling on city roads. This reflects the regional nature of trip making in South San Francisco and through-traffic through the
city. The commercial/industrial sector accounts for approximately 35% of emissions, while the residential sector accounts for 13% of total emissions. Emissions from natural gas usage
are higher than emissions from electricity usage for both the residential and commercial sectors. sectors. The waste sector accounts for 6% of total emissions.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-22 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY GHG EMISSIONS TABLE 2 2005 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY EMISSIONS Sector1 2005 GHG
Emissions (CO2e) GHG Emissions (% CO2e) Residential 70,059 13% Electricity 22,258 4% Natural Gas 47,801 9% Commercial/Industrial 185,240 35% Electricity 80,723 15% Natural Gas 104,517
20% Transportation 240,257 46% City Roads (Non-Highway) 87,406 17% State Highways 152,851 29% Waste2 31,210 6% Solid Waste 31,210 6% Total 526,766 100% GHG Emissions Per Capita 8.5 1.
Emission Factors and Calculation Methods: ICLEI, Community Greenhouse Gas Inventory Methodology for Bay Area Governments, prepared as part of the BAAQMD-ICLEI Workshop, December 6, 2007.
2. EPA WARM Model was used. Model accessed: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/calculators/Warm_Form.html, May 2009. Source: Dyett & Bhatia, 2009; ABAG Projections 2007; City
of South San Francisco/ICLEI, 2009. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Federal Regulations Global Change Research Act (1990) (15 United States Code Sections 2921 et seq.) In 1990, Congress passed
and the President signed Public Law 101-606, the Global Change Research Act. The purpose of the legislation was: “…to require the establishment of a United States Global Change Research
Program aimed at understanding and responding to global change, including the cumulative effects of human activities and natural processes on the environment, to promote discussions
towards international protocols in global change research, and for other purposes.” To that end, the Global Change Research Information Office (GCRIO) was established in 1991 (it began
formal operation in 1993) to serve as a clearinghouse of information. The Act requires a report to Congress every four years on the environmental, economic, health and safety consequences
of climate change; however, the first and only one of these reports to-date, the National Assessment on Climate Change, was not published until 2000. In February 2004, operational responsibility
for GCRIO shifted to the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-23 Energy Policy Act of 2005 The Energy Policy Act of 2005 seeks to reduce reliance on non-renewable
energy resources and provide incentives to reduce current demand on these resources. For example, under the Act, consumers and businesses can attain federal tax credits for purchasing
fuel-efficient appliances and products. Driving fuel-efficient vehicles and installing energy-efficient appliances can provide many benefits, such as lower energy bills, increased indoor
comfort, and reduced air pollution, therefore businesses are eligible for tax credits for buying hybrid vehicles, building energy efficient buildings, and improving the energy efficiency
of commercial buildings. Additionally, tax credits are given for the installation of qualified fuel cells, stationary microturbine power plants, and solar power equipment. Massachusetts
v. EPA (2007) (549 U.S. 497) In this U.S. Supreme Court case, 12 states, three cities, and 13 13 environmental groups filed suit that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should
be required to regulate CO2 and other GHGs as pollutants under the federal Clean Air Act. In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the EPA has a statutory authority to formulate
standards and regulations to address GHG emissions, which it historically has not done. In April 2009, EPA released an Endangerment Finding that GHGs significantly contribute to air
pollution, triggering the process under the Clean Air Act for potentially developing National Ambient Air Quality Standards for GHGs and establishing emissions standards for stationary
and mobile sources. Federal Fuel Efficiency Standards In December 2007, President Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140, at 42 USC Section
7545(o) (2)). This energy bill increased the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion
gallons gallons of biofuel in 2022. It also tightened the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards that regulate the average fuel economy in the vehicles produced by each major
automaker, requiring that these standards be increased such that, by 2020, the new cars and light trucks sold each year deliver a combined fleet average of 35 miles per gallon. In mid-May
2009, President Barack Obama ordered vehicle makers to increase mileage standards to 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016, four years earlier than required by law. The nationwide fuel-economy
standards would be phased in beginning in 2012. Rules were finalized in April 2010. Carmakers had wanted a national standard, saying that meeting a quilt of state standards would be
too difficult. The EPA in June 2009 approved California's rules to regulate GHG emissions from cars and light trucks, putting the standards into effect immediately for much of the nation
and reversing a Bush administration policy. California had urged the EPA to allow the state's rules to go into effect immediately, arguing that the lengthy federal rulemaking process
would delay action that could begin immediately. California's rules apply beginning with the
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-24 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY sale of 2009 model year cars, and extend to much of the nation, since 13 other states
and the District of Columbia have adopted the California standard. In 2012, companies may comply with the national standard in place of the state standard. State Regulations California
Public Utilities Commission As a public utility that provides electricity and natural gas to the City, PG&E is under the jurisdiction of the CPUC. PG&E provides service in accordance
within the policies and extensions rules on file with the CPUC. Senate Bill 1771 Sher (Chapter 1018, Statutes of 2000) SB 1771 requires the California Energy Commission (CEC) to prepare
an inventory of the state’s GHG emissions, to study data on GHG, and to provide government agencies and businesses with information on the costs and methods for reducing GHG emissions.
It also established the California Climate Action Registry to serve as a certifying agency for companies and local governments to quantify and register their GHG emissions for possible
future trading systems. State of California Integrated Energy Policy (2002) The CEC adopts and transmits to the Governor and Legislature a report of findings biannually. The Legislature
passed Senate Bill 1389 in 2002. The legislation reconstituted the state’s responsibility to develop an integrated energy plan for electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuels,
known as the Energy Report. The CEC adopted the 2003 Integrated Energy Policy during a Special Business Meeting on November 12, 2003. The 2004 Update to the Integrated Energy Policy
was adopted by the Energy Commission on November 3, 2004. The 2005 Integrated Energy Policy was adopted by the Energy Commission on November 21, 2005. The plan calls for the state to
assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and
energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies a number of strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators in implementing incentive programs for Zero
Emission Vehicle and addressing their infrastructure needs, and encouragement of urban design that reduces vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and accommodates pedestrian and bicycle access.
Assembly Bill 1493 (Chapter 200, Statutes of 2002) (Calif. Health & Safety Code Sections 42823 and 43018.5) Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 (Pavley) amended California Health & Safety Code sections
42823 and 43018.5 requiring the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to develop and adopt, by January 1, 2005, regulations that achieve maximum feasible reduction of GHGs emitted by
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-25 passenger vehicles, light-duty trucks, and other vehicles used for noncommercial personal transportation
in California. The regulations apply to motor vehicles manufactured in 2009 or later model year. Pursuant to AB 1493, the ARB approved regulations to reduce GHG emissions from new motor
vehicles in September 2004. Under the regulation, one manufacturer fleet average emission standard is established for passenger cars and the lightest trucks, and a separate manufacturer
fleet average emission standard is established for heavier trucks. The regulation took effect on January 1, 2006 and set near-term emission standards, phased in from 2009 through 2012,
and mid-term emission standards, phased in from 2013 through 2016 (referred to as the Pavley Phase 1 rules). The ARB intends to extend the existing requirements to obtain further reductions
in the 2017 to 2020 timeframe (referred to as Pavley Phase 2 rules). The ARB has included both Pavley 1 and 2 rules in its Climate Change Scoping Plan (December 2008), pursuant to the
Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), which outlines the State’s strategy to achieve 2020 GHG emission reductions. After initially refusing to grant a waiver, on June 30, 2009
the EPA granted a waiver that allows California to implement these standards. The ARB calculates that in calendar year 2016, the Pavley Phase 1 rules will reduce California’s GHG emissions
by 16.4 million metric tons of CO2e, and by 2020, Pavley Phase 2 will reduce emissions by 31.7 million metric tons of CO2e. Further, the AB 1493 new vehicle requirements will cumulatively
produce 45% more GHG reductions by 2020 compared to the federal CAFE standard in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (above). Without Pavley rules, both state and regional
CO2 emissions will increase steadily between now and 2035 as VMT increases with population growth; with Pavley rules, CO2 emissions are projected to decrease between now and 2035. This
decrease in regional 2035 CO2 emissions compared to current levels is in large part a result of technological changes expected to reduce CO2 emissions per VMT. The regulations will reduce
climate change emissions from the light duty passenger vehicle fleet by 12.6% statewide and 22.9% in the Bay Area in the 2035 calendar year compared to 2006. Senate Bill 1078 Sher (Chapter
516, Statutes of 2002) The Sher bill established a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requiring electricity providers to increase purchases of renewable energy resources by 1% per year
until they have attained a portfolio of 20% renewable resources by 2010. Executive Order S-20-04 (Gov. Schwarzenegger, July 2004) Executive Order S-20-04, signed on July 27, 2004, requires
that the State commit to aggressive action to reduce state building electricity use, and more specifically, that State agencies, departments, and other entities take measures to reduce
energy use by 20% by 2015. In addition, the Order requires that the CEC increase energy efficiency standards by 20% by 2015, compared to the 2003 Titles 20 and 24 standards.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-26 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY Executive Order S-3-05 (Gov. Schwarzenegger, June 2005) Executive Order S-3-05, signed
on June 1, 2005, recognizes California’s vulnerability to climate change, noting that increasing temperatures could potentially reduce snow pack in the Sierra Nevada, which is a primary
source of the State’s water supply. Additionally, according to this Order, climate change could influence human health, coastal habitats, microclimates, and agricultural yield. The Order
set the GHG reduction targets for California: by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; by 2020 reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; by 2050 reduce GHG emissions to 80% below 1990
levels. Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (2005) Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations is the California Building Code, governing all aspects of building construction.
Included in Part 6 of the Code are standards mandating energy efficiency measures in new construction. Since its establishment in 1977, the building efficiency standards (along with
standards for energy efficiency in appliances) have contributed to a reduction in electricity and natural gas costs in California. The standards are updated every three years to allow
new energy efficiency technologies to be considered. The latest update to Title 24 standards became effective on October 1, 2005. The standards regulate energy consumed in buildings
for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting. Title 24 is implemented through the local plan check and permit process. California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006
(AB 32) (Calif. Health & Safety Code Sections 38500 et seq.) In September 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act
(Health and Safety Code Section 38500 et. seq.). The Act requires the reduction of statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. This change, which is estimated to be a 30%
reduction from business as usual emission levels projected for 2020, will be accomplished through an enforceable statewide cap on GHG emissions that will be phased in starting in 2012.
The Act also directs the ARB to develop and implement regulations to reduce statewide GHG emissions from stationary sources and address GHG emissions from vehicles. The ARB has stated
that the regulatory requirements for stationary sources will be first applied to electricity power generation and utilities, petrochemical refining, cement manufacturing, and industrial/commercial
combustion. The second group of target industries will include oil and gas production/distribution, transportation, landfills, and other GHG-intensive industrial processes. The ARB developed
a Climate Change Scoping Plan, finalized in December 2008, outlining the State’s strategy to achieve 2020 GHG emission limits (CARB, 2008). The Plan proposes a comprehensive set of measures
designed to reduce overall GHG emissions. These measures, shown below in GHG Emissions Table 3 by sector, also put the State on a path to meet the long-term 2050 goal of reducing California’s
GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. The measures will be developed over the next two years and be in place by 2012.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-27 GHG EMISSIONS TABLE 3 LIST OF RECOMMENDED MEASURES BY SECTOR Measure No. Measure Description GHG
Reductions (Annual Million Metric Tons CO2e) Transportation T-1 Pavley I and II – Light Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Standards 31.7 T-2 Low Carbon Fuel Standard (Discrete Early Action)
15 T-31 Regional Transportation-Related Greenhouse Gas Targets 5 T-4 Vehicle Efficiency Measures 4.5 T-5 Ship Electrification at Ports (Discrete Early Action) 0.2 T-6 Goods Movement
Efficiency Measures. • Ship Electrification at Ports • System-Wide Efficiency Improvements 3.5 T-7 Heavy-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Measure – Aerodynamic Efficiency
(Discrete Early Action) 0.93 T-8 Medium-and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Hybridization 0.5 T-9 High Speed Rail 1 Electricity and Natural Gas E-1 Energy Efficiency (32,000 GWh of Reduced Demand)
• Increased Utility Energy Efficiency Programs • More Stringent Building & Appliance Standards Additional Efficiency and Conservation Programs 15.2 E-2 Increase Combined Heat and Power
Use by 30,000 GWh (Net reductions include avoided transmission line loss) 6.7 E-3 Renewables Portfolio Standard (33% by 2020) 21.3 E-4 Million Solar Roofs (including California Solar
Initiative, New Solar Homes Partnership and solar programs of publicly owned utilities) • Target of 3000 MW Total Installation by 2020 2.1 CR-1 Energy Efficiency (800 Million Therms
Reduced Consumptions) • Utility Energy Efficiency Programs • Building and Appliance Standards • Additional Efficiency and Conservation Programs 4.3 CR-2 Solar Water Heating (AB 1470
goal) 0.1 Green Buildings GB-1 Green Buildings 26 Water
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-28 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY Measure No. Measure Description GHG Reductions (Annual Million Metric Tons CO2e) W-1
Water Use Efficiency 1.4† W-2 Water Recycling 0.3† W-3 Water System Energy Efficiency 2.0† W-4 Reuse Urban Runoff 0.2† W-5 Increase Renewable Energy Production 0.9† W-6 Public Goods
Charge (Water) TBD† Industry I-1 Energy Efficiency and Co-Benefits Audits for Large Industrial Sources TBD I-2 Oil and Gas Extraction GHG Emission Reduction 0.2 I-3 GHG Leak Reduction
from Oil and Gas Transmission 0.9 I-4 Refinery Flare Recovery Process Improvements 0.3 I-5 Removal of Methane Exemption from Existing Refinery Regulations 0.01 Recycling and Water Management
RW-1 Landfill Methane Control (Discrete Early Action) 1 RW-2 Additional Reductions in Landfill Methane • Increase the Efficiency of Landfill Methane Capture TBD† RW-3 High Recycling/Zero
Water • Commercial Recycling • Increase Production and Markets for Compost • Anaerobic Digestion • Extended Producer Responsibility • Environmentally Preferable Purchasing 9† Forests
F-1 Sustainable Forest Target 5 High Global Warming Potential (GWP) Gases H-1 Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Systems: Reduction of Refrigerant Emissions from Non-Professional Services
(Discrete Early Action) 0.26 H-2 SF6 Limits in Non-Utility and Non-Semiconductor Applications (Discrete Early Action) 0.3 H-3 Reduction of Perfluorocarbons in Semiconductor Manufacturing
(Discrete Early Action) 0.15 H-4 Limit High GWP Use in Consumer Products Discrete Early Action (Adopted June 2008) 0.25
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-29 Measure No. Measure Description GHG Reductions (Annual Million Metric Tons CO2e) H-5 High GWP Reductions
from Mobile Sources • Low GWP Refrigerants for New Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Systems • Air Conditioner Refrigerant Leak Test During Vehicle Smog Check • Refrigerant Recovery from
Decommissioned Refrigerated Shipping Containers • Enforcement of Federal Ban on Refrigerant Release during Servicing or Dismantling of Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Systems 3.3 H-6
High GWP Reductions from Stationary Sources • High GWP Stationary Equipment Refrigerant Management Program: o Refrigerant Tracking/Reporting/Repair Deposit Program o Specifications for
Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Systems • Foam Recovery and Destruction Program • SF Leak Reduction and Recycling in Electrical Applications • Alternative Suppressants in Fire
Protection Systems • Residential Refrigeration Early Retirement Program 10.9 H-7 Mitigation Fee Fee on High GWP Gases 5 Agriculture A-1 Methane Capture at Large Dairies 1.0† 1 This is
not the SB 375 regional target. CARB will establish regional targets for each of California’s 18 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO’s) regions following the input of the regional
targets advisory committee and a consultation process with MPO’s and other stakeholders per SB 375 † GHG emission reduction estimates are not included in calculating the total reductions
needed to meet the 2020 target Senate Bill 1368 (Chapter 598, Statutes of 2006) (Calif. Public Utilities Code Sections 8340 et seq.) Senate Bill (SB) 1368 required the CPUC to establish
a GHG emissions performance standard for “baseload” generation from investor-owned utilities by February 1, 2007. The CEC was required to establish a similar standard for local publicly-owned
utilities by June 30, 2007. The legislation further required that all electricity provided to California, including imported electricity, must be generated from plants that meet or exceed
the standards set by the CPUC and the CEC. In January 2007, the CPUC adopted an interim performance standard for new long-term commitments (1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour), and
in May 2007, the CEC approved regulations that match the CPUC standard.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-30 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY Executive Order S-01-07 (Gov. Schwarzenegger, January 2007) A Low-Carbon Fuel Standard
was established by Executive Order S-01-07 in January 2007. The Order calls for a statewide goal to be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels
by at least 10% by 2020 (“2020 Target”), and that a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) for transportation fuels be established for California. Further, it directed the ARB to determine
if an LCFS could be adopted as a discrete early action measure pursuant to AB 32, and if so, ARB was required to consider the adoption of a LCFS on the list of early action measures
required to be identified by June 30, 2007, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 38560.5 (see GHG Emissions Table 3; Measure T-2). The LCFS applies to all refiners, blenders, producers
or importers (“Providers”) of transportation fuels in California, and will be measured on a full fuels cycle basis, and may be met through market-based methods by which Providers exceeding
the performance required by a LCFS shall receive credits that may be applied to future obligations if traded to Providers not meeting the LCFS. Senate Bill 97 (Chapter 185, Statutes
of 2007) (Calif. Public Resources Code Sections 21083.5 and 21097) Senate Bill (SB) 97 directed the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare, develop, and transmit to the California
Resources Agency guidelines for feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions, by July 1, 2009. The Resources Agency was required to certify and adopt amendments
to the Guidelines implementing the CEQA Guidelines on or before January 1, 2010. OPR submitted recommended Amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for GHG emissions to the Natural Resources
Agency on April 13, 2009 (OPR, 2010). On July 3, 2009, the Natural Resources Agency commenced the Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process for certifying and adopting these amendments
pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.05. The Natural Resources Agency transmitted the adopted Amendments and the entire rulemaking file to the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL) on December
31, 2009. The Office of Administrative Law approved the Amendments, and filed them with the Secretary of State for inclusion in the California Code of Regulations on February 16, 2010.
The Amendments became effective on March 18, 2010 (OPR, 2010). Senate Bill 375 (Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008) September 30, 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Senate Bill (SB) 375
into law. SB375 links transportation and land use planning with the CEQA process to help achieve the GHG emission reduction targets set by AB 32. Regional transportation planning agencies
are required to include a sustainable community strategy (SCS) in regional transportation plans. The SCS must contain a planned growth scenario that is integrated with the transportation
network and policies in such a way that it is feasible to achieve AB 32 goals on on a regional level. SB 375 also identifies new CEQA exemptions and streamlining for projects that are
consistent with the SCS and qualify as Transportation Priority Projects (TPP). TPPs must meet three requirements: 1) contain at least 50% residential use; commercial use must have floor
area ratio (FAR) of not less than 0.75; 2) have a minimum net density of 20 units per
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-31 acre; and 3) be located within one-half mile of a major transit stop or high quality transit corridor
included in the regional transportation plan. Executive Order S-14-08 (Gov. Schwarzenegger, November 2008) Executive Order S-14-04, signed on November 17, 2008, mandates a RPS of 33%
by 2020. Regional Coordination In the Bay Area, the Joint Policy Committee (JPC) coordinates the regional planning efforts of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the BAAQMD,
the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The JPC commenced a six-month program to study the issue of
climate change and to recommend an initial set of actions to be pursued jointly by the four regional agencies in the fall of 2006. The study recommends that the regional agencies build
their Joint Climate Protection Strategy in service of this key goal: To be a model for California, the nation, and the world. The JPC then organizes initial actions by the following
six strategy elements: establish priorities; increase public awareness and motivate action; provide assistance; reduce unnecessary driving; prepare to adapt; and break old habits. The
region plans to invest $400 million towards a five-year Transportation Climate Action Campaign aimed at smart traveling and smart driving. The investment is an effort to reduce GHG emissions
from the transportation sector as part of the proposed investments in the Transportation 2035 Plan. The action campaign, to be implemented by the four regional agencies, focuses on outreach/education
, Safe Routes to Schools, Safe Routes to Transit, transit priority measures (TPMs) for local bus transit, and grants/incentive programs. City of South San Francisco Regulations The City
of South San Francisco does not currently have any adopted policies or plans regarding the reduction of GHG emissions. The City participated in a training workshop held by BAAQMD and
ICLEI on community GHG emission inventories in December 2007 to begin the process of conducting a government and community-wide GHG emissions baseline inventory. South San Francisco
is currently in the process of completing the baseline inventory. Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (Chapter 20.120 of the Municipal Code) South San Francisco’s current Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance states that for non-residential sites generating more than 100 daily trips, a minimum of 28% of all trips must be made through alternative mode use.
For projects that seek a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus in accordance with the General Plan, 30% to 45% of all trips must be made through alternative mode use, depending on the type of
development and requested FAR.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-32 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY IMPACTS a) Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Significance Criteria: The BAAQMD
CEQA Air Quality Guidelines identify a project specific threshold of either 1,100 metric tons of CO2e per year or 4.6 metric tons of CO2e per year per service population (i.e., the number
of residents plus the number of employees associated with a new development) as resulting in a cumulatively considerable contribution of GHG emissions and a cumulatively significant
impact to GCC. Alternatively, a project that is found to be consistent with a Qualified Climate Action Plan would have a less than significant impact to global climate change. This analysis
applies the 1,100 metric tons of CO2e per year significance criterion. URBEMIS2007 and the BAAQMD GHG Model (Version 1.1.9) were used to quantify GHG emissions associated with Project
construction activities (for informational purposes), as well as long-term operations associated associated with natural gas space and water heating, electricity, landscape maintenance,
and vehicles. Estimated construction GHG emissions that would be associated with the Project are presented in GHG Emissions Table 4. As indicated, shortterm annual construction related
GHG emissions would be 241 metric tons. GHG Emissions Table 4 also provides the estimated operational GHG emissions that would be associated with the Project, assuming an average of
ten commuting vehicle trips are eliminated from the region for each proposed commuter bus. Given this assumption, the GHG impacts would be a net reduction and thus, would result in a
less than significant impact to GCC. GHG EMISSIONS TABLE 4 PREFERRED PROJECT RELATED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Emission Source GHG CO2e Metric Tons Per Year Construction 241 Operations
Area Sources 0.2 Electricity 110 Natural Gas 9 Water & Wastewater 1 Solid Waste 28 Motor Vehicles -364 Operations Total -216 BAAQMD Threshold 1,100 Significant? No Notes: Refer to Appendix
A for all assumptions used as input to estimate emissions.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-33 b) Potential Conflicts with an Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation The City of South San Francisco
currently does not have an applicable adopted plan, policy, or regulation regarding the reduction of GHG emissions. The City is currently in the process of establishing a baseline government
and community-wide inventory of GHG emissions. The Project would result in a significant impact if it would be in conflict with AB 32 State goals for reducing GHG emissions. The assumption
is that AB 32 will be successful in reducing GHG emissions and reducing the cumulative GHG emissions statewide by 2020. The State has taken these measures, because no project individually
could have a major impact (either positively or negatively) on the global concentration of GHG. Therefore, the Project has been reviewed relative to the AB 32 measures and it has been
determined that the Project would not conflict with the goals of AB 32. Finding: The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact with respect to GHG emissions
or GCC.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-34 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY 2.4 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 directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? x b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? x c) Have a
substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? x d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? x e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? x f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? x SETTING/BACKGROUND The Project would be located on a flat site developed with and surrounded by industrial land uses. The site
was graded in the late 1920’s, contains no wetlands, and no trees of significance and is landscaped with ornamental bush and groundcover (site visit, General Plan Background Report,
State Water Resource Control Board website, http//geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov/profile report.asp?global id=T0608100658).
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-35 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. South San Francisco General Plan Open Space and Conservation
Element-Habitat and Biological Resources Conservation Figure 7-1, General Plan Policies for Sensitive Biological Resources (page 225), identifies areas within the City that habitat and
resource conservation policies shall apply. Figure 7-2, Special Environmental Studies Required for for Development Proposals, (page 227) identifies areas that require additional biological
and geotechnical engineering studies prior to entitlement review. State of California California Department of Fish 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 Act (MBTA: 16 U.S.C., Section 703-71) There are over 900 species of birds protected by the MBTA. The MBTA prohibits killing,
possessing, or trading in migratory birds, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. This Act 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.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-36 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY 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 water. Suitable wildlife habitat is located approximately 1.5 miles east of the Project in San Francisco Bay. The Project site itself is void of vegetation,
such as large trees, and water suitable for wildlife habitat. The proximity of suitable habitat (San Francisco Bay) is approximately 1.5 miles east of the site which further renders
the habitat value of the Project site as insignificant. 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. e) and f) Local Policies and Ordinances and Habitat Conservation Plans Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact
if it were to conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. There are no Protected Trees on the site. The Project site is not identified on General Plan
Figures 7-1 and 7-2. No Habitat or Conservation Plan 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, does not contain habitat and would have no impact on General Plan policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-37 2.5 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 §15064.5? x b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
x c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? x d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
x SETTING/BACKGROUND The Project is located approximately 1.5 miles west of San Francisco Bay. U.S. Geological maps show old marshlands, covered with man made fill begin approximately
500 feet northeast of the site. As noted in previous sections, the Project site site was graded and developed in the late 1920’s. Native Americans, over 5,000 years ago, typically settled
along creek banks and the margins of San Francisco Bay. The South San Francisco General Plan (page 242) identifies three cultural resources within its jurisdiction. Two on San Bruno
Mountain and one along Colma Creek within the El Camino Corridor planning area. The sites are not within the vicinity of the Project site. IMPACTS a) Historic Resources Significance
Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5.
The Project site or buildings contained therein are not identified on Figure 7-3 Designated Historic Resource in the City’s General Plan (page 241). There are no historical resources
or structures on the Project site. The Project would have no impact on historic resources. b -d) Archaeological Resources
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-38 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY 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. The site is not known or suspected to contain cultural resources as noted
on page 242 of the General Plan. The Project site was historically located over 500 feet from the Bay margins and as such was not likely to support Native American populations. Moreover,
extensive groundwater and soil borings conducted since 1999 (see Geology and Soils Section 3.6) did not uncover shell bits associated with previous habitation associated with Native
Americans. The soil is composed of and, sandy clay, and silty sand. The Project would have no impact on archaeological resources Finding: The Project is located on a previously graded
parcel and in a developed area. There are no historic, archaeological or paleontological resources or human remains located on the Project site. The Project would have a no impact on
cultural resources.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-39 2.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental
Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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. x ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? x iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? x iv) Landslides? x b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
x c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in onor off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? x d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
x e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
x SETTING/BACKGROUND Geotechnical investigation has been performed on the Project site since 2003 as part of the characterization and remediation of hazardous material present therein
(see Section 2.7, Hazardous Materials). Boring logs are available for inspection on the State Water Resources Control Board’s “GeoTracker” website.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-40 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY (Geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T06088100658). The City’s senior
civil engineer, Mr. Sam Bautista, has not required additional geotechnical review of the Project site prior to completion of environmental review, given the amount of information available
on the site and available in the public domain. Soil borings on the site were conducted from 2003 to 2007 (GeoTracker, Summary Section, Site Maps boring logs, URS, 2003-2007) at depths
ranging from eight to 20 feet below ground surface (bgs). The Project site is part of the Coast Range geomorphic province and underlain by the Quaternary age Colma Foundation composed
of sand, sandy clay, and silty sand. Site soils contain approximately four feet of artificial fill, atop soils of sandy silt, clayey silt and silty sand. Site soils are low to moderate
in plasticity (GeoTracker, URS, 2003-2007). The United States Geological Survey (USGS) characterizes the soil as Type C (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/nca/soiltype); within the
middle range of ground acceleration from a seismic event. Depth to groundwater on October 24, 2008, the last monitoring date, ranged from 6.49 to 9.48 feet below ground surface (bgs),
similar to the monitoring results on June 14, 2007 which were 5.38 to 8.57 feet bgs. The average direction of groundwater flow in October, 2008 was northeast at an average gradient of
0.008 feet per foot and in June, 2007 at an average of 0.013 feet per foot (GeoTracker, Groundwater Monitoring Report, 160 South Linden, South San Francisco, CA, URS, December 16, 2008).
The San Andreas and San Gregorio faults lie approximately two and eight miles, respectively, west of the site. The Hayward fault is approximately 16 miles east of the site. The Calavaras
fault is approximately 25 miles east of the site. IMPACTS Seismic Hazards Seismic hazards are generally classified as two types, primary and secondary. Primary geologic hazards include
surface surface fault rupture. Secondary geologic hazards include ground shaking, liquefaction, dynamic densification and seismically induced ground failure. i) Surface Fault Rupture
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with the
surface rupture of a known earthquake fault. The site is not underlain by an active earthquake fault. The San Andreas and San Gregorio faults lie approximately two and eight miles, respectively,
west of the site. The Hayward fault is approximately 16 miles east of the site. The Calavaras fault is approximately 25 miles east of the site. There would no impact associated with
ground rupture. ii) Strong Seismic Ground Shaking
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-41 Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to
expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with strong seismic ground shaking. Given that there are no active faults within the Project site, damage
from a seismic event is most likely to occur from the secondary impact of strong seismic ground shaking originating on a nearby fault. Estimates of actual ground shaking intensity at
a particular location are made according to the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale, which accounts for variables such as the size and distance from the earthquake. For the Project site,
Mercalli Intensity estimates indicate that earthquake-shaking intensity would vary depending upon where the seismic event originates. USGS identifies the site and Project area as Soil
Type C. Soil Type C exhibits moderate ground amplification during a seismic event. Soil types A and B exhibit less ground amplification during a seismic event and types D and E exhibit
more amplification with Soil Type E exhibiting the strongest ground amplification. Additional development on the Project would slightly 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 California Building Code (CBC) standards for seismic safety. Conformance with the 2010 California Building Code would ensure that the impact of seismic
ground-shaking is reduced to a level of less than significant. iii) Liquefaction Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose
people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with seismicrelated 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. These soils are often, but not exclusively, located along the bay and ocean margins and in areas of
artificial fill. Soil borings taken by URS (Geotracker, Site Maps, URS, 2003-2007) as a part of the site characterization and remediation of hazardous substances (see Section 2.7 Hazards
and Hazardous Materials) indicate the site soils are low to moderate in plasticity. Soil borings were taken throughout the site and to a depth of 20 feet.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-42 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY USGS maps show the Project outside of liquefaction areas (earthquake.USGS.gov/regional/nca/gmap).
The Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to liquefaction of subsurface materials. iv) Landslides Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant
environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to substantial hazards from landslides. A landslide is a mass of rock, soil and debris displaced down slope by sliding,
flowing or falling. The civil drawings and site inspections indicate that the site contains a less than two percent slope (topographic survey, Keir and Wright, September, 2010). The
Project area is relatively flat; there are no hills or rock outcroppings. There is no threat of landslides on the site; therefore the Project would have no impact with respect to landslides.
b) Erosion or Loss of Topsoil Significance Criteria: The Project would result in a significant environmental impact if it were to result in substantial soil erosion or in the loss of
topsoil. The Project would have very little potential to increase erosion during construction. The site is flat and the NPDES C-3 erosion control requirements would be implemented during
and post construction. Chapter 1, Section 1.2.D and Section 2.8: Hydrology and Water Quality,describes these measures in detail. The erosion control measures are required as a matter
of law and as a result this impact is considered to be less than significant. c) Geologic Instability and d) Expansive Soils Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant
environmental impact if located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide,
lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse; and if located on expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life or property. Available data, identified in the Setting/Background
Section and in a and b, above, indicate that the site is relatively stable. Soil borings indicate the site soils are low to moderate in plasticity and as such do not introduce the potential
for substantial risks to life or property. The Project would result in a less than significant impact with respect to a geologic unit becoming unstable and the Project would not result
in the potential for on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. The Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to expansive
soils. 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.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-43 The Project does not propose to build any new septic tank or alternate waste disposal systems.
The Project site is and will continue to be connected to the City’s sanitary sewer system as a requirement of general engineering conditions of approval. Therefore, the Project would
have no impact on soils due to septic systems. Finding: The Project site is not underlain by an earthquake fault and as such the potential for ground rupture is very low. Conformance
with the 2010 California Building Code would reduce seismic shaking impacts to less than significant. The site soils are low to moderate in plasticity. Ground acceleration is in the
mid-range (Type C soils, USGS Site soils are considered
low impact with respect liquefaction. Subsidence would be considered negligible. The Project would not be connected to a septic system and as such would not contribute to ground failure.
The site is flat (i.e., less than 2% slope) and not subject to landsliding. Based on the analysis, the Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to Geology and Soils.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-44 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY 2.7 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? x b) Create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? x c) Emit hazardous
emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? x d) Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? x
e) For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? x f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the Project area? x g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? x h) Expose people
or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands? x
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-45 SETTING/BACKGROUND INTRODUCTION The term “hazardous materials”, for the purposes of this analysis,
refers to both hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. Under federal and State laws, any material, including wastes, may be considered hazardous if it is specifically listed by statute
as such or if it is toxic (causes adverse human health effects), ignitable (has the ability to burn), corrosive (causes severe burns or damage to materials), or reactive (causes explosions
or generates toxic gases). The term “hazardous material” is defined as any material that, because of quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant
present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment (State of California, Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.95,
Section 25501(o)). Hazardous materials, including but not limited to pesticides and herbicides, heavy metals, volatile organic compounds, oil and gas, may be present in soil and groundwater
in areas where land uses have resulted in leaking fuel or chemical storage tanks or other releases of hazardous materials have occurred. Land uses that typically involve the handling
of hazardous materials include commercial or industrial operations, as well as agricultural areas where soils may contain pesticides and herbicides. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Various federal,
State, and local regulatory agencies maintain lists of hazardous materials sites where soil and/or groundwater contamination is known or suspected to have occurred, typically as a result
of leaking storage tanks or other spills. These facilities are readily identified through regulatory agency database searches, such as the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
GeoTracker online database, the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Envirostor online database, and several other federal,
State and local regulatory agency databases. There are numerous federal, State, and local laws, regulations, ordinances and guidance intended to protect public health and safety and
the environment. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), CalEPA, DTSC, RWQCB, California Air Resources Board (CARB), federal and California Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), CAL FIRE and the local oversight agencies are the major federal, State, and regional agencies
that enforce these regulations. The main focus of OSHA is to prevent work-related injuries and illnesses, including from exposures to hazardous materials. CalRecycle is mandated to reduce
waste, promote the management of materials to their highest and best use, and protect public health and safety and the environment (CalRecycle, 2010). CAL FIRE implements fire safety
regulations. In accordance with Chapter 6.11 of the California Health and Safety Code (§ 25404, et seq.), local regulatory agencies enforce many federal and state regulatory programs
through the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) program, including:
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-46 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY • Hazardous materials business plans (Chapter 6.95 of the Health and Safety Code, §25501
et seq.). • State Uniform Fire Code requirements (§80.103 of the Uniform Fire Code as adopted by the state fire marshal pursuant to Health and Safety Code §13143.9). • Underground storage
tanks (Chapter 6.7 of the Health and Safety Code, §25280 et seq.). • Aboveground storage tanks (Health and Safety Code §25270.5[c]). • Hazardous waste generator requirements (Chapter
6.5 of the Health and Safety Code, §25100 et seq.). SAN MATEO COUNTY-LEAD AGENCY FOR SITE REMEDIATION AND CLOSURE As noted throughout this document, the Project site historically contained
hazardous substances. The lead agency for site remediation is the San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health (SMCDEH), and the contact person is Mr. Jacob Madden, Haz-Mat Specialist
III, with SMCDEH. SMCDEH has worked in concert with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and has enforced their environmental screening levels (ESL’s) for water considered
for commercial use (discussed below); the criteria established for site ground water remediation. The Project site has been undergoing site characterization and remediation since 1991.
The following discussion will focus on site remediation and the summary of activities that have occurred from 1991 to date. The following information is derived from the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker website (http://geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov/profile) and conversations and documentation from Mr. Jacob Madden. Pending Site Closure The site closure
process began in December, 2010 and was noticed to SWRCB pursuant to environment regulations (Appendix A, San Mateo County Groundwater Protection Program Case Closure memorandum, Mr.
Madden, December 21, 2010, pages 1-52 [Madden Memo]). All requirements have been met for closure save the destruction of the monitoring wells that are on the site (see discussion below).
Mr. Madden has requested the wells to be destroyed (e-mail, Jacob Madden, February 16, 2011). Subsequent to the removal/destruction of the monitoring wells, the site will be inspected
again by SMCDEH and the site will be closed and considered to have met remediation levels. Deed Restriction The property has a recorded deed restriction (2006-174154 CONF, Recorded in
the Official Records, County of San Mateo, see Appendix A, Madden Memo, page 40) with respect to limiting land uses to industrial, commercial, retail and office. The property shall not
be used for residences, hospice, day care, schools for persons under 21 years of age, hospitals or other similar sensitive land uses. The deed restriction also requires that SMCDEH review
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-47 grading and development activities prior to the city of South San Francisco issuing grading permits.
The deed restriction is on file with SMCDEH and with the City of South San Francisco, Planning Division. SMCDEH Findings for Site Closure and Analysis -Summary Appendix A (Madden Memo)
contains the memorandum Mr. Maden prepared December 21, 2010 recommending site closure. The memorandum analyzed the site’s performance with respect to the six criteria developed by the
California Regional Water Quality Board, San Francisco Bay Region’s Supplemental Instructions for State Water Board December 18, 1995 Interim Guidance on Required Cleanup at Low Risk
Fuel Sites. The following is a summary of those findings including background information provided by GeoTracker. 1. The leak has stopped and ongoing sources, including free product,
have been removed or remediated. All below-and above ground storage tanks were removed in 2000. Source removal activities were also conducted in 2000 for lead and arsenic and in the
former tank farm area for VOC’s and SVOC’s. Additional soil excavation occurred in November, 2010 to remove arsenic concentrations in the former rail spur area. The source of contamination
has been removed from the site. 2. The site has been adequately characterized. The extent of hydrocarbon-impacted soil is limited in extent and has been adequately characterized. The
maximum concentrations detected in unsaturated soil samples were from the former tank farm area. The soil has been removed. Arsenic impacted soils, located in the former railroad spur
area have been defined and removed. The extent of hydrocarbon-impacted groundwater has been adequately defined. Residual concentrations exceed drinking water environmental screening
levels (ESL’s) however there is no current exposure pathway to human or environmental receptors. Monitoring data indicate that the plume is decreasing with time and residual concentrations
should reach reach drinking water maximum contaminant levels (MCL’s)’s within a reasonable amount of time. A commercial deed restriction is recorded on the site. 3. The dissolved hydrocarbon
plume is not migrating. The groundwater contaminant plume is stabilized and does not extend significantly off the site. Monitoring data from 2000 to date indicate that the plume is stable
or decreasing and is fully delineated. The plume characterization reports conclude the upgradient, downgradient and cross gradient extent of the main toluene contaminant plume in shallow
groundwater on the site have attenuated substantially since groundwater investigations began in 1999.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-48 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY 4. No wells, deeper than drinking water aquifers, surface water, or other sensitive
receptors are likely to be impacted. Since the groundwater plume is stabilized and does not extend significantly off the site there is no potential for significant transport of concentration
of contaminants in sensitive ecological habitats. 5. The site presents no significant risk to human health. The site is governed by a deed restriction prohibiting residential and sensitive
land uses. The deed restriction limits land uses to industrial, commercial, retail and office. The property shall not be used for residences, hospice, day care, schools for persons under
21 years of age, hospitals or other similar sensitive land uses (2006-174145 CONF, 11/17/06, County of San Mateo, 17 pages). The deed restriction prohibits the use of on-site wells for
drinking water. Mr. Madden also notes that the RWQCB Basin Plan classifies groundwater in the vicinity of the site as a potential drinking water resource. Contaminant levels exceed ESL’s
for groundwater for potential drinking resource, and further notes based upon evidence that the dissolved plume is decreasing with time residual concentrations should reach MCL’s within
a reasonable amount of time. Moreover, groundwater sample results did not exceed the site specific threshold limits or the ESL’s for indoor air impact in commercial or industrial buildings
with highly permeable soils. 6. The site presents no significant risk to the environment. The groundwater contaminant plum is stabilized and does not extend significantly off the site.
There is no potential for significant transport and concentration of contaminants in sensitive ecological habitats. The site is covered with buildings, concrete, asphalt and gravel surfaces,
all of which contribute to the absence of any potential habitat. The area surrounding the site is developed, and has no wetlands, streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, marine shorelines or
other areas where protected or endangered species are present adjacent to or near the site. Since the groundwater contaminant plume is stabilized and does not extend significantly offsite,
there is no potential for significant transport and concentration of contaminants in sensitive ecological habitats. Therefore, ecological risks are not a concern at the site. SITE HISTORY
AND CHARACTERIZATION The following is intended to provide a summary of the activities and most recent data associated with site monitoring and remediation that occurred prior to SMCDEH
recommendation for site closure.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-49 The site is located approximately 1.5 miles west of San Francisco Bay and at an elevation of 20
feet above sea level. Old marshlands covered with man-made fill begin approximately 500 feet northeast of the site (GeoTracker andhttp://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/nca/soiltype). The
site is underlain by Quaternary age Colma Foundation composed of sand, sandy clay, and silty sand. As noted in Section 3.6, Geology and Soils, USGS characterizes the soil as Type C.
Depth to groundwater on October 24, 2008, the last monitoring date ranged from 6.49 to 9.48 feet below ground surface (bgs), similar to the monitoring results on June 14, 2007 which
were 5.38 to 8.57 feet bgs. The average direction of groundwater flow in October, 2008 was northeast at an average gradient of 0.008 feet per foot and in June, 2007 at an average of
0.013 feet per foot. Several phases of soil and groundwater investigation and monitoring were conducted to characterize the site’s soil and groundwater quality and hydrogeologic conditions.
These investigations were designed to evaluate the extent of impacted soils and groundwater beneath the Project site, the adjacent Bay Cities Building Materials site (to the north) and
South Linden Avenue, to the east. All work plans, work and laboratory results were approved by, monitored and reviewed by SMCDEH. Approximately 22 soil boring sites, five shallow soil
testing sites and 20 ground water borings have been conducted since 1991. The main areas of soil contamination surround two areas of the site known as the former tank farm and the railroad
spur. The former tank farm is located in the northeast section of the site adjacent to South Linden Avenue and the northern property line of the site that is shared with Bay Cities Building
Materials. The railroad spur is located along the northwestern property line (see Appendix A, Madden Memo Figure 4, page 31). Results from investigations indicate a petroleum hydrocarbon
plume in groundwater that extends from the former tank farm area to South Linden Avenue. The site groundwater is impacted by historic releases of paint solvent components, primarily
toluene from the former tank farm area. The rail spur area was found to contain elevated levels of lead and arsenic in soil samples. Toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, total petroleum hydrocarbons
as gasoline (TPH-gas), and total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel (TPHdiesel) were detected in more than half of the soil samples. Benzo(a)pyrene, di-nbutylphthalate, and naphthalene
were detected in soil samples from the tank farm area. BTEX, acetone, 2-butanone, 1,2-dichloroethane, and several semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) were detected in groundwater
samples. In 2000, a 10,000 gallon underground storage tank was removed. The bulk of lead and arsenic contaminated soils were removed as well as the source of SOV and SVOC’s from the
former tank farm area. Subsequent soil removal occurred in the railroad spur area in 2010. The following reports are located in GeoTracker and contain the most recent site data and summary
of historic activities. These reports form the basis of the analysis contained herein. • Supplemental Site Investigation Work Plan, October 23, 2009. • Supplemental Site Investigation
Report, April 28, 2010. • Supplemental Site Investigation Remedial Excavation Work Plan, August 30, 2010.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-50 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY • Parsons, Supplemental Site Investigation /Remedial Excavation Former DuPont Automotive
Products Plant Site, 160 South Linden Avenue, South San Francisco, California, December 16, 2010. • URS, Oakland CA Supplemental Site Groundwater Plume Stability Characterization Report,
October 8, 2007. • URS, Oakland CA Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Former DuPont Automotive Products Site, 160 South Linden Avenue, South San Francisco, December 16, 2008. Site
Characterization Groundwater Testing and Monitoring A quarterly groundwater monitoring plan was put into effect in 2000 (Groundwater Monitoring and Reporting Plan, DuPont Automotive
Products Site,160 South Linden Avenue, South San Francisco, California, URS, November 14, 2000). The groundwater monitoring data from this sampling event was used to evaluate: • The
lateral extent of impacted groundwater; • The groundwater flow direction and gradient; and, • Trends in contaminant concentrations and natural attenuation parameters. Data were collected
four times per year, subsequently reduced to bi-annually and now annually. The most recent reports (Supplemental Site Groundwater Plume Stability Characterization Report, October 8,
2007, URS, Oakland, CA and Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Former DuPont Automotive Products Site, 160 South Linden Avenue, South San Francisco, December 16, 2008, URS, Oakland,
CA) conclude that the upgradient, downgradient and crossgradient extents of the main toluene contaminant plume in shallow groundwater have been fully delineated. The reports note that
contaminant concentrations in shallow groundwater on-site have attenuated substantially since previous groundwater investigations. Analytical data from the four monitoring wells (MW-1
through MW-4) on site provide information for evaluating trends in contaminant concentrations and possible natural attenuation parameters. Monitoring wells MW-1 through MW-4 are located
in the north and northeastern portion of the site (see Appendix A, Madden Memo, Figure 8, page 35). Groundwater data and water level measurements suggest that MW-2 (along the eastern
edge of the property near South Linden Avenue) is located near the cross-gradient lateral edge (southeast side) of the plume. MW-4’s placement demonstrates the probable cross-gradient
lateral extent of impacted groundwater to the east of the source area. BTEX concentrations in all four of the wells appear to be stable or generally decreasing over time, with seasonal
fluctuations; somewhat due to the active natural attenuation of BTEX compounds. The recent increase in acetone concentration in well MW-4 (along the northern property line) during the
2008 monitoring event is still within the historical range (Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Former DuPont Automotive Products Site, 160 South Linden Avenue, South San Francisco,
December 16, 2008, URS Oakland CA).
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-51 The October 2008 sampling results (op. cit.) were compared to the RWQCB Interim Final May 2008
residential environmental screening levels (ESL’s) for drinking water to identify exceedances. The drinking water ESL for benzene was exceeded in wells MW-1, MW-3, and MW-4 and respective
ESLs for toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, and MIBK were exceeded in well MW-1. BTEX concentrations in the site monitoring wells over the past eight years are relatively stable or decreasing.
Soil Testing and Monitoring The final phase of soil remediation occurred on November 3 and 11, 2010. This investigation further delineated arsenic in soil at the former railroad spur
area and was conducted in response to a request for further soil characterization by SMCDEH. Soil was excavated, tested and removed from the site and at three locations adjacent to the
site. The remedial excavation work removed soil with residual arsenic concentrations greater than the background screening value of 20 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). The work and results,
submitted to SMCDEH, are summarized in a report (Supplemental Site Investigation /Remedial Excavation Former DuPont Automotive Products Plant Site, 160 South Linden Avenue, South San
Francisco, California, Parsons, December 16, 2010) and is available for review on GeoTracker. Mr. Jacob Madden, SMCDEH, was onsite during the morning of November 3, 2010, to observe
part of the excavation work and to confirm the excavation confirmation soil sample locations. Additional samples were taken on November 11, 2010. Three areas of the site were excavated;
the former railroad spur at the western property edge, an area along the northern property and one in the eastern area. The results showed that arsenic concentrations were delineated
and excavated. The residual arsenic is at concentrations less than the site established background screening value of 20 mg/kg. Excavated soil was off hauled from the site and disposed
of as non-RCRA and non-California hazardous waste (Supplemental Site Investigation /Remedial Excavation Former DuPont Automotive Products Plant Site, 160 South Linden Avenue, South San
Francisco, California, Parsons, December 16, 2010). IMPACTS a) and b) Hazardous Materials Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were
to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or if it were to create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The Project would affect
approximately 80,000 square feet of surface area by grading. Depth of cut is expected to be 12 inches and approximately 2,500 cubic yards of soil and paving would be hauled from the
site. Therefore, pursuant to the deed restriction, SMCDEH is required to review the grading plans for the Project prior to any grading activities being conducted on the site. The City
has noted this requirement in their project tracking
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-52 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY database. Moreover, The City will impose a condition of Project approval, should the
Project be approved, to insure that SMCDEH authorization is received prior to issuing grading permits for the Project. (Mr. Billy Gross, Associate Planner, February 15, 2011). SMCDEH
oversight is required by law and as such is not added as a mitigation measure herein. The Project would continue as a commercial/industrial land use. Diesel and solvents would continue
to be used on the site. As noted in the Setting/Background Discussion contaminants from previous land uses have been abated and removed from the site. Site soils were disposed as a non
RCRA (i.e., non hazardous) waste. The groundwater contaminant plume is stabilized and does not extend significantly off the site. Monitoring data from 2000 to date indicate that the
plume is stable or decreasing and is fully delineated. The South San Francisco Fire Department did not identify any concerns with respect to the Project during internal review. Moreover,
the South San Francisco Fire Department conducts routine inspections of all commercial and industrial land use activities within the city for compliance with fire codes which include
proper hazardous materials handling and disposal. The impact of the Project with regards to hazardous materials transport or spill would be less 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 List”). There are no schools within a quarter mile of the Project site. Handling of hazardous materials on the Project site, identified above,
would be monitored. The Project site is in the final stage of receiving closure from SMCDEH. SMCDEH found that the site does not pose a risk to the environment or human health; no water
wells, deeper than drinking water aquifers, surface water, or other sensitive receptors are likely to be impacted; the dissolved hydrocarbon plume is not migrating; the site has been
adequately characterized with respect to hazardous materials; and the leak has stopped and ongoing sources, including free product, have been removed or remediated. Therefore, the Project
would have a less than significant impact from the emission or handling of hazardous materials or wastes or from any environmental contamination posed by sites listed on the Cortese
List. The Project would have no impact with regards to the presence or release of hazardous materials or waste within a quarter mile of a school. e) and f) Safety Hazards Due to Nearby
Airport or Airstrip Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were located within an airport land use plan (or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport), if it would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area; or if it were located
within the vicinity of a private airstrip, if it would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-53 Project area. The Project site is located approximately 1.4 miles southeast of San Francisco International
Airport, and within the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission’s (ALUC) jurisdiction. The maximum permitted height in the Project area is 80 feet (Special Area Height Limitations,
Figure 2-3, General Plan, page 35). The height limitation is related to the airport height limitations pursuant to the Airport Land Use Commission oversight. The ALUC height limitation
is based upon safety factors. The maximum existing height of the Project is 62 feet and the Project modifications would not penetrate that height. The Project would be 18 feet below
that established by the ALUC as requisite to protect public safety and would not result in a safety hazard for people working or living at the Project site. The Project would have no
impact with respect to safety hazards or height limitations due to a nearby airport. g) Conflict with Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan Significance Criteria: The
Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan. There are no emergency response or evacuation plans in effect in the Project vicinity. 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 Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental
impact if it were to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. The Project site is neither within a wildland fire management
area (Fire Hazard Management Units, Figure 8-4, General Plan, page 265) nor at an urban/wildland interface zone. The Project would have no impact on fighting wildland fires. Finding:
The Project site is is appropriate for
continued commercial/industrial land use. The Project would not introduce fire, safety or hazardous materials risk into the area beyond that normally anticipated with commercial/industrial
land use; would not expose a school to the risk from hazardous materials; and would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact from hazardous materials exposure. The
Project would not impede emergency response. The site is in the final phase of receiving site closure with respect to hazardous materials remediation from SMCDEH (e-mail, Mr. Jacob Madden,
February 16, 2011).
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-54 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY 2.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination
of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the Project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? x b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that
there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? x c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? x d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result
in flooding on-or off-site? x e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff? x f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? x g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? x h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? x i) Expose people
or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? x
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-55 Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially
Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? x SETTING/BACKGROUND 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 into San Francisco Bay. Depth to groundwater at the Project site ranges from 5.38 to 9.48
feet below ground surface (bgs). The average direction of groundwater flow in October, 2008 was northeast at an average gradient of 0.008 feet per foot and in June, 2007 at an average
of 0.013 feet per foot (2008 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, URS, December 16, 2008). The site is located in Flood Zone C defined as “areas of minimal flooding” on the City’s Federal
Emergency Mapping Act (FEMA) map (Community Panel # 065062 0007B, September 2, 1982). FEMA is in the process of updating flood maps. The draft flood map (not adopted) identifies the
site as in Zone X, an area determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance of flooding. The Project site is developed. The 5.3 acre site is developed with 31,460 square feet, or 13.6
percent lot coverage. The Project would add 7,640 square feet. Lot coverage would be 16.9 percent. If approved, the Project shall comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Storm filtration, retention and drainage requirements (see Regulatory Framework, below and Chapter 1, Section 1.2.D, Hydrology and Water Quality). REGULATORY FRAMEWORK National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Storm Water Discharge Permit The City of South San Francisco is a member of the San Mateo Countywide Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP),
an organization of the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo County holding a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Discharge permit.
STOPPP's goal is to prevent polluted storm water from entering creeks, wetlands, and the San Francisco Bay. The City requires the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP’s)
for new development and construction as part of its storm water management program, as levied through standard City conditions of project approval.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-56 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY The City requires the implementation of BMP’s to ensure the protection of water quality
in storm runoff from the Project site. In brief, the measures presented in the BMP handbook address pollution control and management mechanisms for contractor activities, e.g. structure
construction, material delivery and storage, solid waste management, employee and subcontractor training, etc. The handbook also provides direction for the control of erosion and sedimentation
as well as the establishment of monitoring programs to ensure the effectiveness of the 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 (BASMAA) Start at the
Source Design Guidance Manual for Storm Water Quality Protection (available from BASMAA @510-622-2465) for a comprehensive listing of required measures. Typical storm water quality protection
measures are identified in Chapter 1, Section 1.2.D of this document. State Water Quality Control Board’s 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 require the applicant to secure a Construction Activities
Storm Water General Permit, complete a Notice of Intent (NOI) and prepare and obtain approval of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The state issues a Waste Discharge Identification
number within 10 days of receipt of a complete NOI and SWPPP. The applicant is then required to submit copies of the NOI and SWPPP to the City of South San Francisco, Public Works Department
Division of Water Quality, prior to issuance of building and/or grading permits. 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 (see Chapter
1.2.D, Hydrology and Water Quality). The Project would present a less than significant impact with respect to violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. b)
Deplete or Interfere Substantially with Groundwater
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-57 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 increase impervious surfaces on the site by less than four percent. The 5.3 acre site is predominately paved save for 14,555 square feet of existing landscape
area. The project would add 759 square feet of landscaping for a total of 15,345 square feet. Some water percolation would occur on the site, but not a significant amount. Water would
be directed into the storm drain system. The Project would not, and would be prohibited to by deed restriction, draw its water source from groundwater but from California Water Service.
The Project’s impact on depletion or interference with groundwater would be less than significant. c and d) Alter Existing Drainage Patterns/Erosion and Siltation Effects or 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 in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation. 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 be required
to incorporate BMP’s into construction and design of the site and as such would not alter drainage patterns or cause siltation into the storm drain system. There would be no impact related
to altered drainage patterns or siltation at the Project site. 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 SWPPP and an Erosion Control Plan to the City Engineer and the Water Quality Control Division prior
to the commencement of any grading or construction of the proposed Project. The SWPPP as noted in the Background/Setting Section, above, and Chapter 1, Section 1.2.D 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
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-58 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY Engineering Division of the Public Works Department as well as the Water Quality Control
Division conducts routine inspections of this and all project sites to insure compliance. Failure to comply with the approved construction BMPs would result in the issuance of correction
notices, citations 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 with respect runoff, polluted runoff and storm
drain capacity. f) Otherwise Degrade Water Quality Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to degrade water quality. The Project has
been undergoing water and soil characterization and remediation since 1991. The SMCDEH found that as a result of site remediation, the site does not pose a risk to the environment or
human health; no water wells, deeper than drinking water aquifers, surface water, or other sensitive receptors are likely to be impacted; the dissolved hydrocarbon plume is not migrating;
the site has been adequately characterized with respect to hazardous materials; and the leak has stopped and ongoing sources, including free product, have been removed or remediated
(memorandum, SMCDEH, Mr. Jacob Madden, December 21, 2011). Therefore, there would be less than significant impact on water quality from point source water pollution at the Project site.
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 site
is located in Flood Zone C defined as “areas of minimal flooding” on the City’s Federal Emergency Mapping Act (FEMA) map (Community Panel # 065062 0007B, September 2, 1982). FEMA is
in the process of updating flood maps. The draft flood map (not adopted) identifies the site as in Zone X, an area determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance of flooding. The Project
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. 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.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-59 The City’s General Plan estimates that potential wave run-up of a 100-year tsunami would be approximately
4.3 feet above mean sea level (msl) and approximately 6.0 feet above msl for a 500-year tsunami (Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, adopted October 1999, page 250).
The Project site is not located in a tsunami hazard zone (ABAG,http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/eqfloods/floods.html). The closest area identified by ABAG for potential tsunami
impact is approximately 0.6 miles east of the Project, and east of Highway 101. 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. 2.9 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? x b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including,
but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? x c) Conflict
with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? x
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-60 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY SETTING /BACKGROUND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK City of South San Francisco General Plan The
Project site is located within the Lindenville planning area of the City; the only industrial area west of Highway 101 within South San Francisco. The planning area abuts residential
to the north and east. The San Bruno BART station lies at the southern tip of the Lindenville area. General Plan goals for the planning area include reducing land use conflicts between
industrial and residential uses. The General Plan also identifies maintaining the industrial character in the area roughly from the Spruce Avenue corridor in the west to San Mateo Avenue
in the east and south of Railroad Avenue to the San Bruno BART station (Guiding Policy 3.2-G-1, General Plan, page 79). The General Plan also encourages mixed-use and transit oriented
development in and around the BART/CalTrain station area. The Lindenville Planning Area includes the sub-planning areas of South Spruce Corridor and the San Bruno BART Station Area.
The Lindenville Planning Area recognizes the need to retain industrial land use in certain areas predominately north and east of South Linden Avenue. Land uses transition to Business
Commercial and Office on the south side of South Linden Avenue. A Regional Commercial land use designation lies south of Canal Street, north of Shaw Road and along the Highway 101 corridor.
The San Bruno BART and CalTrain sub area contain the Office land use designation. The Project site lies on the south side of South Linden Avenue, the street that separates industrial
uses to the north and transitioning to business and office uses to the south. The Project site is approximately 2,000 feet from the San Bruno BART station planning area. The General
Plan notes that the San Bruno BART station is closer, about half the distance, to the Downtown area than is the South San Francisco BART station. The location of the BART station, coupled
with the street improvements identified in the General Plan will provide the Project site and planning area with relatively convenient transit opportunities. Zoning The site was recently
rezoned from Mixed Industrial to Business and Professional Office (BPO) (August, 2010). The rezoning was a part of the City`s zoning ordinance update to implement the General Plan revision
(1999). The stated intent of the BPO District is to provide sites for development of administrative, financial, business, professional, medical, and public offices within close proximity
of CalTrain and BART stations. The City envisions a transition of industrial land uses, to those stated, within close proximity of CalTrain and BART stations by the year 2024. The General
Plan also proposes new street connections between South Spruce and South Maple Avenues to provide the critical access needed from the Project area to the transit stations. Therefore,
until 2024 or such time that the infrastructure is in place industrial, general service, warehousing and related uses are
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-61 permitted in the BPO District in order to maintain the economic viability of the area and provide
a range of employment opportunities (South San Francisco Municipal Code, Zoning, Chapter 20.090.001-BPO Business and Professional Office). The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) is 0.4 (op.,
cit). The Project proposes a 0.28 FAR. San Mateo County County of San Mateo Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) State law establishes an ALUC in each county where one or more airports
exist to coordinate the compatibility of new development near airports. The ALUC 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 ALUC 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 80 foot maximum permitted height limit (Figure 2-3, Special Area Height Limitations, General Plan,
page 35). The height limitation is related to the airport height limitations pursuant to the Airport Land Use Commission oversight. The ALUC height limitation is based upon safety factors.
The maximum existing height of the Project is 62 feet and the Project modifications would not penetrate that height. IMPACTS a) Division of an Established Community Significance Criteria:
The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to physically divide an established community. The Project is located within an area that is developed industrially.
Long range planning documents identify the Project site and land south of South Linden Avenue as transitioning to business professional around the year 2024, or at such time the necessary
infrastructure is in place to support the transition. The Project site does contain a mix of land uses including a video production studio, medical supply company, artist studios, jewelry,
fashion designers, a small florist and offices as well as more industrial uses such as a construction company and limousine service. The Project would not divide an established community
with its mix of uses and could foster the transition envisioned given some of the more commercial uses that are currently on the site and would therefore have no impact.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-62 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY b) Conflicts with Land Use Plan and Zoning Significance Criteria: 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 is designated as one with a maximum height limit of 80 feet identified by the Federal Aviation Administration
deemed necessary to protect public safety. The FAA height limits are adopted in the City’s General Plan. The Project would be 18 feet below that established by the ALUC as requisite
to protect public safety and would not result in a safety hazard for people working or living at the Project site. As noted in Section 2.8, Hazards and Hazards Materials, the Project
would not impact airport height limitations. The Project site is not identified on Figure 7-1, General Plan Policies for Sensitive Biological Resources or Figure 7-2, Special Environmental
Studies Required for Development Proposals (pages 225 and 227, General Plan). As such the Project would have no impact with respect to land use or zoning controls developed to address
environmental concerns. c) Conflict with Conservation Plan Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in a conflict with any
applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. There are no conservation plans either currently in force or proposed for the subject property as discussed
in Section 2.4, Biological Resources. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on conservation plans. Finding: The Project would not physically divide an established community. The
Project site is not in a conservation plan area, or under special study for conservation. The Project would not result in any individually or cumulatively considerable impacts.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-63 3.10 MINERAL RESOURCES Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental
Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? x b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? x SETTING/BACKGROUND The Project site is in a built-out industrial area. IMPACTS a and b) Loss
of Mineral Resources Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region and the residents of the state, or if it were to result in the 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 or
within the Project area (General Plan Background Report, General Plan). 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.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-64 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY 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? x b) Exposure of persons to or generation
of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? x c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the
Project? x d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? x e) For a Project located within
an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in
the Project area to excessive noise levels? x f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive
noise levels? x SETTING/BACKGROUND NOISE SOURCES The dominant influences on sound levels in the Project area are derived from a combination of U.S. 101 highway noise and aircraft flyovers.
The loading and unloading of trucks associated with industrial land uses occasionally peppers the noise landscape but to a much lesser extent than U.S. 101. The Project is an industrial/commercial
land use. NOISE DEFINED Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Whether a sound is unwanted depends on when and where it occurs, what the listener is doing when it occurs, characteristics
of the sound (loudness, pitch and duration, speech or music content, irregularity) and how intrusive it is above background sound levels. In determining the daily level of environmental
noise, it
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-65 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, schools and open space recreational uses are generally considered to be noisesensitive uses
or sensitive receptors. To quantify the noise over a 24-hour period, the Day/Night Average Sound level (DNL or Ldn) or Community Noise equivalent Level (CNEL) is used. These noise descriptors
include a 10 decibel (dB) penalty (addition to the
actual measures levels) during nighttime hours (10 PM to 7AM) and a five dB penalty during evening hours (7 PM to 10 PM) for the CNEL to account for people’s sensitivity during these
hours. Noise is measured and quantified with an A-weighted filter which closely approximates the way the human ear hears sound; a deemphasis low-frequency and high-frequency sound. The
resulting measurement is quantified as a dBA. A change of three dBA is considered just noticeable to the human ear. A five dBA change is clearly noticeable and a ten dBA change is perceived
as doubling in loudness. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK South San Francisco General Plan The City adopted the state Noise Compatibility Guidelines promulgated by the Department of Health Services.
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 guidelines identified in Table 9.2-1 of the General Plan (page 280) state that a noise environment 75 dBA, CNEL5 or less is acceptable for industrial lands use and 70
dBA, CNEL or less is acceptable for commercial land use. South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32, Section 8.32.050) The City’s Noise Ordinance restricts construction activities
to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. This ordinance also limits noise generation
of any individual piece of equipment to 90 dBA, at the property line (Section 8.32.050 (d) (2)). 5 The decibel (dB) is a logarithmic unit used to quantify sound intensity. Since the
human ear is not equally sensitive to all sound frequencies within the entire spectrum, human response is factored into sound descriptions in a process called "A-weighting" written as
"dBA". CNEL: Community Noise Equivalent Level. Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, state law requires that for
planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be added to quiet time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL).
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-66 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY The California Building Code (CBC) Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 2.35 of the California
Code of Regulations The regulation is collectively known as Title 24 which contains acoustical requirements for interior sound levels in habitable rooms for multi-family residential
land uses. Title 24 contains requirements for construction of new hotels, motels, apartment houses, and dwellings other than detached single-family dwellings intended to limit the extent
of noise transmitted into habitable spaces. The standard specifies the extent to which walls, doors, and floor-ceiling assemblies must block or absorb sound in between units and the
amount of attenuation needed to limit noise from exterior sources. The standard sets forth an interior noise level of 45 dBA (CNEL or Ldn) in any habitable room with all doors and windows
closed and requires an acoustical analysis demonstrating how dwelling units have been designed to meet this interior standard where such units are proposed in areas subject to noise
levels greater than 60 dBA (CNEL or Ldn). Title 24 requirements are enforced as a condition of building permit issuance. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) The
USEPA identifies 70 dBA, Leq as the noise level based on continuous exposure (i.e., 365 and 24-hour a day exposure) below which the public is protected from hearing loss due to ambient
noise sources. The Leq measurement is not a “weighted” noise descriptor as is the Ldn. EXISTING AND PROJECTED NOISE ENVIRONMENT The Project site is within the 65 dBA, CNEL 2000 FAA approved
noise contour identified on Figure 9-1, Aircraft Noise and Noise Insulation Program Area, (General Plan, page 279), within the 65 dBA, CNEL identified by the FAA as requisite for special
insulation features to mitigate aircraft noise sources (Figure 9-3, Potential Infill Residential Areas Relative to Noise Contours, General Plan, page 288) and is within the 65 to 70
dBA, CNEL noise noise contour influenced by rail and road noise sources (Figure 9-2, Projected Road and Rail Noise, General Plan, page 283). 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 (i.e., 75 dBA, CNEL for industrial and in excess of
70 dB, CNEL without insulation for commercial land uses), the City’s Noise Ordinance (90 dBA, CNEL at the property line) or the USEPA’s threshold of 70 dBA, Leq continuous noise exposure
(i.e. 365 and 24-hour a day exposure,). Project Construction
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-67 Project construction would result in temporary short-term noise increases due to the operation
of grading and some construction equipment. Noise levels from grading operations typically range from about 75 to 95 dBA at 50 feet for certain types of earthmoving and impact equipment.
Construction noise would be lower ranging from 75 to 85 dBA at 50 feet for most types of construction equipment. Noise levels would attenuate approximately six dBA per doubling distance
from the source. Grading and site preparation is expected to take two months to complete. Grading would be predominately in the central portion of the site, providing some attenuation
due to distance to adjacent industrial land uses. Grading activities would not be a continuous source of noise on any given day. Construction and finishing work would take up to another
four to five months to complete. During site preparation with the use of heavy equipment, such as as a tractor, an increase in noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site would
occur. The sound levels would decrease somewhat during construction as noted above. The Project area is industrial and as such is not considered a noise sensitive land use. There are
no noise sensitive land uses within the Project area. Construction related noise would be considered a less than significant impact given that the Project and surrounding land uses are
not considered noise sensitive, attenuation would occur due to distance to adjacent industrial uses and that construction noise exposure would not be continuous and would be short-term
in duration. Project Operational Noise The operation of a Project could increase ambient noise levels in two ways, through the creation of additional traffic on local roadways and the
operation of exterior mechanical equipment. Typically, traffic volumes need to double in order to result in a barely perceptible increase in noise levels (i.e., 3-5 dB). The Project
area’s main source of noise is from traffic on U.S. 101 which supports 204,000 average daily trips (ADT’s) north of I 380. The Project plus cumulative, assuming a very conservative analysis
which would realize the Tanforan Avenue site developed with the highest intensity land use and the Project site developed at 60 percent more than existing Compass transport operations,
would result in 324 ADT’s, or 1.29 percent over existing surface street traffic volumes (Section 2.13 Traffic and Circulation). The increase would not represent a doubling of trip volumes
from one specific location, but two, and coupled with background levels from U.S. 101 would not result in a perceptible increase in noise. The Project, as shown in Section 2.15, Traffic
and Circulation, would not result in a doubling of traffic volumes area-wide. The Project is within the 65 to 70 dBA, CNEL noise contour (Figure 9-2, Projected Road and Rail Noise, General
Plan, page 283) which is under the 75 dBA, CNEL standard for industrial land use and at the 70 dBA standard for commercial land uses. The Project is in compliance with the General Plan
standards for noise. Operational noise impacts are considered to be less than significant for industrial and commercial land uses. e) and f) Aircraft Noise
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-68 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if
it were located within an airport land use plan (or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport) or in the vicinity of a private
airstrip and were to expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. The Project site is 1.4 miles from San Francisco International Airport. The Project
site is within 65 dBA, CNEL 2000 FAA approved noise contour identified on Figure 9-1, Aircraft Noise and Noise Insulation Program Area, (General Plan, page 279) and is within the 65
to 70 dBA, CNEL noise contour influenced by rail and road noise sources (Figure 9-2, Projected Road and Rail Noise, General Plan, page 283). The Project, based on the City’s land use
criteria would result in a less than significant impact with respect to aircraft noise. Finding: The Project, existing, plus Project and cumulative noise environment is and would remain
within the acceptable 75 dBA, CNEL for industrial land uses and 70 dBA, CNEL noise levels for commercial land uses. 2.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING Environmental Factors and Focused Questions
for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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)? x b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? x c) Displace substantial numbers
of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? x SETTING/BACKGROUND The Project proposes 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
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-69 Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to
induce either directly of indirectly substantial population growth. The Project proposed a land use that is consistent with planning documents, and the growth assumptions contained therein.
The Project would have no impact on population growth. b and c) Displacement of Housing or People Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if
it would result in the displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing units or people living at the Project site. There are no residential units on the Project site. The Project
would not require the displacement of any existing residential units or persons living on-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 General Plan. The Project does not contain housing and would not displace housing units or residents. The
Project would have no impact on population or housing.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-70 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY 2.13 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? x ii) Police protection? x iii) Schools? x iv) Parks? x v) Other public facilities? x SETTING/BACKGROUND The Project proposes a land use and development
density that is consistent with the City’s General Plan and Zoning as noted above in Section 2.9 Land Use and Planning. IMPACTS i-iv) 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 2.9 Land Use and Planning and Section 2.12 Population and
Housing, the Project would not increase the City of South San Francisco’s population beyond the population projections contained in these plans. The Project would be developed in an
area planned, used and zoned for industrial land use and within the development density envisioned by these planning documents. No significant increase in the demand for public services
would be expected with no increase in population. The Project would result in no impact associated with public services.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-71 Finding: The Project would not exceed the development and growth assumptions contained in the General
Plan. School impact fees are collected by the City’s Building Division based upon the square footage of residential, commercial and industrial construction. These fees are used by the
school districts for school services. Development of the Project site would not increase the demand for public services individually or cumulatively. 2.14 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? x b) Does the Project include recreational facilities or require require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment? x SETTING /BACKGROUND Parks and recreational open space areas provide residents, employees and visitors opportunities for passive and active recreation.
A range of recreational opportunities exist in South San Francisco, from shoreline open space on San Francisco Bay; Sign Hill Park, with an elevation of 600 feet; neighborhood parks;
linear parks; recreational opportunities at schools; and San Bruno Mountain County Park. Although San Bruno Mountain County Park is outside the City limits, walking trails within the
Terrabay and Centennial Towers developments on the northern boundary of the City provide recreational opportunities. Moreover, San Bruno Mountain County Park is within minutes, either
by bicycle or vehicle, to South San Francisco. South San Francisco recently completed improvements to Orange Memorial Park and the Centennial Way linear park, a linear park above Colma
Creek, extending from Noor Avenue to the City’s northern boundary. The Project is within a quarter mile radius of Centennial Way. Chapter 5, Parks, Recreation and Open Space of the General
Plan (page 174), states that the City has 319.7 acres of parks and open space, or 5.4 acres or parkland per 1,000 residents6. This includes 70 acres of developed parkland which includes
community, neighborhood, linear and mini parks. There are three community parks, six neighborhood parks, 12 mini parks, 11 school parks and five open space areas within South San Francisco.
In addition, there are two linear parks, one along the bayshore and the other as mentioned, Centennial 6 This number does not reflect the recently completed Centennial Way linear park.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-72 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY Way. Within the bayshore area is located the Oyster Point Marina park, within the Terrabay
is a recreation center and within Centennial Towers is a history and nature walk. The City has identified future development of six parks (Figure 5-1, Schools, Parks and Open Space,
General Plan, page 175). Figure 5-1 identifies a “rail-to-trail” conversion to park land in the Lindenville area. The conversion would repurpose the old rail spur land adjacent to and
extending beyond the Project between South Maple Avenue, northwest of the site and Tanforan Avenue to the south, to a mini parkland area of approximately 2.0 acres. Parkland improvements
are in part funded by Quimby Act fees, as a part of the subdivision process. Quimby Act fees enable a lead agency to levy park-in-lieu fees to developments based upon population estimates
and a targeted acreage of recreational land per person. The Project is not subject to Quimby Quimby Act fees as no subdivision is being proposed. IMPACTS a and b) Recreation Significance
Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in an increase in the use of existing parks or recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of these facilities could be anticipated, or if it were to include recreational facilities, the construction of which might have adverse physical effects on the
environment. Parks and recreational needs within the City are identified from the development assumptions contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. The Project proposes 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.
The general Plan and Zoning Ordinance both note that a gradual conversion from industrial to commercial land uses is envisioned. Through the entitlement process the City may investigate
park land offsets, based upon community values and goals identified in the General Plan. However, from an environmental perspective, the Project’s impact on recreation facility demand
or construction would be less than significant. Finding: Parks and recreational needs within the City are derived from the development assumptions contained in the South San Francisco
General Plan. The Project is proposing development consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, the Project would not result in an individual or cumulatively considerable impact on parks
and recreation.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-73 2.15 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 XV. 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)? x b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by
the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? x c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change
in location that results in substantial safety risks? x d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)? x e) Result in inadequate emergency access? x f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? x SETTING/BACKGROUND PROJECT SITE The 160 South Linden Avenue site is located in the southeastern section of South San Francisco, within half a mile of both the U.S.101
and I-380 freeways. The site is now partially occupied by light industrial and commercial uses and is accessed via two driveway connections to South Linden Avenue. The northerly driveway
would provide access to the proposed bus operation moving from 54 Tanforan Avenue. The 54 Tanforan Avenue site would, for purposes of this analysis, be reused with 25,000 square feet
of light industrial development. Traffic from this reuse is also considered part of the Project. Project access to the U.S.101, I-280 and I-380 freeways is provided by a variety of major
streets. Each is described below (see Figure 1).
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-74 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-75 FREEWAYS & STREETS Freeways U.S.101 is an eight-lane freeway running in the north-south direction.
U.S.101 is approximately half a mile east of the Project site. U.S.101 is over 1,500 miles long and runs between Los Angeles and Olympia, WA, and is a major regional freeway on the peninsula.
The freeway has an Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) of approximately 229,000 vehicles south of I-380 including 15,900 vehicles during the peak hour. Additionally, north of I-380 the
AADT is approximately 204,000 vehicles and 14,700 vehicles during the peak hour. The project site is accessed to the south via an interchange with San Bruno Avenue (in the City of San
Bruno) and to the north via an interchange with S. Airport Boulevard and Produce Avenue (in the City of South San Francisco). I-280 is an eight-lane freeway that generally runs in the
north-south direction 1.25 miles west of the Project site. It is one of two major regional freeways on the peninsula and has its northern and southern termini respectively in San Francisco
and San Jose. I-280 supports four mixed use lanes in each direction, in the vicinity of the Project site. I-280 has an Annual AADT of approximately 101,000 vehicles south of I-380 including
12,000 during the peak hour; and approximately 165,000 north of I-380 including 12,900 during the peak hour. Additionally, access to and from I-280 from the Project site is via interchanges
with either San Bruno Avenue or Sneath Lane. I-380 is an eight-lane spur freeway that runs in the east-west direction for 1.5 miles between I-280 and U.S.101 and is a little more than
half a mile south of the Project site. I-380 has an AADT of approximately 120,000 vehicles west of S.R.82 with 9,200 vehicles during the peak hour; and approximately 142,000 vehicles
east of S.R.82 with 10,700 vehicles during the peak hour. Access to and from I-380 from the Project site is most nearly accessed from El Camino Real /S.R.82 or via the U.S.101 freeway.
State Route 82 (S.R.82) (El Camino Real) is an arterial which extends north from the Santa Clara County line across the San Francisco County line. The arterial is approximately three
quarters of a mile west of the Project site and has six lanes with three in each direction. In the vicinity of the Project site, the roadway has an AADT of approximately 36,000 vehicles
south of I-380 including 3,200 during the peak hour. North of I-380, the AADT is 41,500 with 3,700 vehicles during the peak hour. Streets South Linden Avenue is a two-lane collector
street running in a general north-south direction from San Mateo Avenue on the south to downtown South San Francisco and Airport Boulevard on the north. The Project site borders the
west side of the street adjacent to a sweeping 60-degree curve near its south end. Adjacent to the Project site the posted speed is 25 miles per hour and on-street parking is prohibited
on both sides of the street. On-street parking is permitted, however, starting just north of the site. There are numerous driveways intersecting South Linden Avenue in the Project vicinity,
serving primarily light industrial
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-76 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY and manufacturing uses. South Linden Avenue has an at-grade crossing of the Caltrain
(Joint Powers) two-track railroad just southwest of the Dollar Avenue intersection (which is just southwest of the site). The crossing is protected by flashing lights and gates. San
Mateo Avenue is a two-lane arterial extending from Produce Avenue on the north to S.R.82 on the south. It has a signalized intersection with South Linden Avenue about 800 feet east of
the Project site. San Bruno Avenue is a four-lane arterial running between South Airport Boulevard to the east and S.R.35 to the west. San Bruno Avenue intersects with U.S.101 and I-280
and provides connections between San Mateo Avenue and these two freeway facilities. On-street parking is not permitted along any segments of San Bruno Avenue. Airport Boulevard is a
four-to six-lane, north-south arterial street that parallels the west side of the U.S.101 freeway. This roadway continues north into the City of Brisbane and the City of San Francisco,
where it is called Bayshore Boulevard. South of San Mateo Avenue, Airport Boulevard changes names to Produce Avenue. In the General Plan, Airport Boulevard is classified as a major arterial.
Dollar Avenue is a two-lane collector street with on-street parking allowed extending southerly from South Linden Avenue (in the City of South San Francisco) into the City of San Bruno.
It changes name in San Bruno to Herman Street and it ends at Huntington Avenue. Tanforan Avenue is a two-lane local street with on-street parking allowed extending westerly one block
from Dollar Avenue to Maple Avenue. VOLUMES Weekday AM and PM peak hour analysis was requested by City of South San Francisco staff at the nine (9) major intersections serving the project
site. All locations are currently in operation. 1. Miller Avenue and Airport Boulevard 2. East Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard 3. East Grand Avenue and Industrial Way /U.S.101 Northbound
Off-Ramp 4. East Grand Avenue and Gateway Boulevard 5. San Mateo Avenue and Airport Boulevard 6. U.S.101 Northbound On/Off-Ramp and South Airport Boulevard 7. South Linden Avenue and
Dollar Avenue 8. Shaw Road and San Mateo Avenue 9. San Bruno Avenue and San Mateo Avenue
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-77 The 160 South Linden Avenue existing traffic volumes were obtained from traffic counts contained
in the Centrum Logistics draft environmental impact report (DEIR) or by counts conducted in 2009 for TJKM Associates as part of the East of 101 Capital Improvement Program Update Study.
December 2010 AM and PM peak hour counts were also conducted for this study by Crane Transportation Group at the existing bus operation (54 Tanforan Avenue) as well as at the two driveways
providing access to the 160 South Linden Avenue site. Existing weekday AM and PM peak hour volumes are presented in Figures 2 and 3, while existing intersection control and approach
lanes are presented in Figure 4. THIS AREA INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-78 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-79
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-80 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-81 INTERSECTION OPERATION Analysis Methodology Signalized Intersections. Intersections, rather than
roadway segments between intersections, are almost always the capacity controlling locations for any circulation system. Signalized intersection operation is graded based upon two different
scales. The first scale employs a grading system called Level of Service (LOS) which ranges from Level A, indicating uncongested flow and minimum delay to drivers, down to Level F,
indicating significant congestion and delay on most or all intersection approaches. The Level of Service scale is also associated with a control delay tabulation (year 2000 Transportation
Research Board [TRB] Highway Capacity Manual [HCM] operations method) at each intersection. The control delay designation allows a more detailed examination of the impacts of a particular
project. Greater detail regarding the LOS/control delay relationship is provided in Traffic Traffic Table 1. TRAFFIC TABLE 1 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS CRITERIA A Operations with very
low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle lengths. ≤ 10.0 B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. 10.1 to 20.0
C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. 20.1 to 35.0 D Operations with longer delays
due to a combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, and/or high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. 35.1
to 55.0 E Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This is considered
to be the limit of acceptable delay. 55.1 to 80.0 F Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to oversaturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths.
> 80.0 Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board). Unsignalized Intersections. Unsignalized intersection operation is also typically graded using the Level
of Service A through F scale. LOS ratings for all-way stop intersections are
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-82 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY determined using a methodology outlined in the year 2000 TRB Highway Capacity Manual.
Under this methodology, all-way stop intersections receive one LOS designation reflecting operation of the entire intersection. Average control delay values are also calculated. Intersections
with side streets only stop sign controlled (two-way stop control) are also evaluated using the LOS and average control delay scales using a methodology outlined in the year 2000 TRB
Highway Capacity Manual. However, unlike signalized or all-way stop analysis where the LOS and control delay designations only pertain to the entire intersection, in side street stop
sign control analysis LOS and delay designations are computed for only the stop sign controlled approaches or individual turn and through movements. Traffic Table 2 provides greater
detail about unsignalized analysis methodologies. TRAFFIC TABLE 2 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS CRITERIA Level of Service DESCRIPTION Average Control Delay (Seconds Per Vehicle) A Little
or no delays ≤ 10.0 B Short traffic delays 10.1 to 15.0 C Average traffic delays 15.1 to 25.0 D Long traffic delays 25.1 to 35.0 E Very long traffic delays 35.1 to 50.0 F Extreme traffic
delays with intersection capacity exceeded (for an all-way stop), or with approach/turn movement capacity exceeded (for a side street stop controlled intersection) > 50.0 Source: 2000
Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board). Scenarios City staff requested intersection evaluation for the following traffic scenarios. • Existing Condition – Operation
analysis based on existing peak hour volumes and existing intersections and roadway segment lane geometry. • 2020 Cumulative No Project Condition – Based on growth factors estimated
from the County of San Mateo’s Transportation Demand Model. • 2020 Cumulative with Project Condition – 2020 Cumulative No Project Condition plus Project-generated traffic estimated for
the Project. • • 2030 Cumulative No Project Condition – Based on growth factors estimated from the County of San Mateo’s Transportation Demand Model.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-83 • 2030 Cumulative with Project Condition – 2030 Cumulative No Project Condition plus Project-generated
traffic estimated for the Project. Minimum Acceptable Operation The City of South San Francisco considers Level of Service D (LOS D) to be the poorest acceptable operation for signalized
and all-way-stop intersections, with LOS E the poorest acceptable operation for unsignalized city street intersection turn movements. Existing Levels of Service Traffic Table 3 shows
that all analyzed intersections are currently operating at acceptable levels of service during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours. TRAFFIC TABLE 3 EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
INTERSECTION AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR 1. Airport Blvd./Miller Ave./U.S.101 SB Off-Ramp (Signal) B-19.1 (1) B-17.0 2. Grand Ave./Airport Blvd. (Signal) C-34.5 (1) C-32.1 3. Grand Overcrossing/E.
Grand Ave. (Signal) B-26.9 (1) B-18.3 4. Grand Ave./Gateway Blvd. (Signal) D-40.2 (1) C-30.9 5. Airport Blvd./San Mateo Ave./Produce Ave. (Signal) C-21.9 (1) D-45.1 6. S. Airport Blvd./Wondercolor
Lane/U.S.101 NB Ramps (Signal) C-30.9 (1) C-20.8 7. S. Linden Ave./Dollar Ave. (Signal) C-20.3 (1) C-21.0 8. San Mateo Ave./S. Linden Ave. (Signal) B-15.5 (1) B-15.9 (1) Signalized level
of service/control delay in seconds. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Source: Crane Transportation Group
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-84 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY TRANSIT, PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE FACILITIES Transit BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT Bay Area Rapid
Transit (BART) operates a commuter rail public transit system with 43 stations through San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa and San Mateo counties. The five lines provide regular service
between 4:00 AM and midnight with trains for each line arriving every 15 minutes. The San Bruno station is approximately one half of a mile south of the 160 South Linden Avenue, the
Project. SAMTRANS There are no SamTrans bus routes running along South Linden Avenue, Dollar Avenue or San Mateo Avenue in the Project vicinity. The closest SamTrans routes are near
the San Bruno BART station, about half a mile to the west. The 38, 43, 133, 140, 141 and 391 bus routes all stop at the San Bruno BART station. Pedestrian Facilities Sidewalks are provided
along both sides of South Linden Avenue in the Project vicinity. Sidewalk is also provided along the west side of Dollar Avenue to the south of South Linden Avenue as well as along both
sides of Tanforan Avenue. Crosswalks are provided at the nearby South Linden Avenue/Dollar Avenue intersection. Bicycle Facilities In the City of South San Francisco, there are three
different bicycle facility classifications: • Bike Paths (Class I facilities) – Paved facilities that are physically separated from roadways used by motor vehicles by space of a physical
barrier and are designated for bicycle use. Bike Lanes (Class II facilities) – Lanes on the outside edge of roadways reserved for the exclusive use of bicycles designated with special
signing and pavement markings. • Bike Routes (Class III facilities) – Roadways recommended for use by bicycles and often connect roadways with bike lanes and bike paths. Bike routes
are designated with signs. South Linden Avenue, Dollar Avenue and San Mateo Avenue are all designated Class III bike routes in South San Francisco. In addition, there is a Class I bike
path (South San Francisco Centennial Trail) along the former railroad right-of-way adjacent to South Maple Avenue that can be accessed at the west end of Tanforan Avenue.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-85 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The City of South San Francisco requires that all nonresidential
development expected to generate 100 or more average daily trips, based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates or a project seeking a floor area ratio (FAR)
bonus implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to reduce vehicle traffic (Chapter 20.120 Transportation Demand Management). The purposes of the TDM ordinance are as
follows: • Implement a program designed to reduce the amount of traffic generated by new nonresidential development, and the expansion of existing nonresidential development pursuant
to the City’s police power and necessary in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare. • Ensure that expected increases in traffic resulting from growth in employment opportunities
in the City of South San Francisco will be adequately mitigated. • Reduce drive-along commute trips during peak traffic periods by using a combination of services, incentives and facilities.
• Promote the more efficient utilization of existing transportation facilities and ensure that new developments are designed in ways to maximize the potential for alternative transportation
usage. • Establish minimum TDM requirements for all new nonresidential development. • Allow reduced parking requirements for projects implementing the requirements of this chapter. •
Establish an ongoing monitoring and enforcement program to ensure that the measures are implemented. YEAR 2020 & 2030 BASE CASE (WITHOUT PROJECT) CIRCULATION SYSTEM OPERATION 1. Year
2020 a. Base Case Volumes Year 2020 Base Case (without project) AM and PM peak hour volumes (which included the Centrum Logistics development with a 15 percent peak hour trip generation
reduction due to their proposed TDM program) were obtained from the Centrum Logistics EIR, or were obtained from more updated traffic projections developed as part of the East of 101
Capital Improvements Update Circulation Study. Year 2020 Base Case (without project) AM and PM peak hour volumes are presented in Figures 5 and 6, respectively, while Figure 7 presents
projected year 2020 intersection control and approach lane geometrics.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-86 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY b. Base Case Intersection Level of Service Traffic Table 4 shows that by 2020 all analyzed
intersections would be experiencing acceptable operation with the following exceptions. AM PEAK HOUR • Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard – LOS F PM PEAK HOUR • Airport Boulevard/San Mateo
Avenue/Produce Avenue – LOS E TRAFFIC TABLE 4 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE YEAR 2020 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION W/O PROJECT WITH PROJECT W/O PROJECT WITH PROJECT 1. Airport
Blvd./Miller Ave./U.S.101 SB Off-Ramp (Signal) B-19.8(1) B-19.8 B-18.1 B-18.1 2. Grand Ave./Airport Blvd. (Signal) D-46.3(1) D-46.3 D-40.6 D-40.8 3. Grand Overcrossing/E. Grand Ave.
(Signal) B-19.7(1) B-19.7 B-12.8 B-12.8 4. Grand Ave./Gateway Blvd. (Signal) F-93.7(1) F-93.7 D-43.2 D-43.2 5. Airport Blvd./San Mateo Ave./Produce Ave. (Signal) C-24.4(1) C-24.8 E-70.2
E-71.4 6. S. Airport Blvd./Wondercolor Lane/U.S.101 NB Ramps (Signal) D-40.2(1) D-40.3 C-31.4 C-31.5 7. S. Linden Ave./Dollar Ave. (Signal) C-27.9(1) C-28.8 C-24.5 C-24.9 8. San Mateo
Ave./S. Linden Ave. (Signal) C-24.7(1) C-24.7 B-19.4 B-19.6 (1) Signalized level of service/control delay in seconds. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Source: Crane
Transportation Group
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-87
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-88 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-89
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-90 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY 2. Year 2030 a. Base Case Volumes Year 2030 Base Case (without project) AM and PM peak
hour volumes (which included the Centrum Logistics development with a 15 percent peak hour trip generation reduction due to their proposed TDM program) were obtained from the Centrum
Logistics EIR, or were obtained from more updated traffic projections developed as part of the East of 101 Capital Improvements Update Circulation Study. Year 2030 Base Case (without
project) AM and PM peak hour volumes are presented in Figures 8 and 9, respectively, while Figure 10 presents projected year 2030 intersection control and approach lane geometrics. b.
Base Case Intersection Level of Service Traffic Table 5 shows that by 2030 all intersections would be experiencing acceptable operation with the following exceptions. AM PEAK HOUR •
Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard – LOS F PM PEAK HOUR • Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue/Produce Avenue – – LOS E
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-91 TRAFFIC TABLE 5 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE YEAR 2030 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION
W/O PROJECT WITH PROJECT W/O PROJECT WITH PROJECT 1. Airport Blvd./Miller Ave./U.S.101 SB Off-Ramp (Signal) B-15.5 (1) B-15.6 B-13.8 B-13.8 2. Grand Ave./Airport Blvd. (Signal) D-49.1
(1) D-49.9 D-37.0 D-37.1 3. Grand Overcrossing/E. Grand Ave. (Signal) C-21.1 (1) C-21.4 B-12.9 B-12.9 4. Grand Ave./Gateway Blvd. (Signal) F-128(1) F-128 D-50.5 D-50.5 5. Airport Blvd./San
Mateo Ave./Produce Ave. (Signal) C-31.3(1) C-31.6 E-67.3 E-68.5 6. S. Airport Blvd./Wondercolor Lane/U.S.101 NB Ramps (Signal) D-43.1(1) D-43.6 C-35.0 C-35.2 7. S. Linden Ave./Dollar
Ave. (Signal) D-39.9(1) D-41.6 C-30.4 C-30.8 8. San Mateo Ave./S. Linden Ave. (Signal) D-44.1(1) D-44.4 C-29.4 C-29.7 (1) Signalized level of service/control delay in seconds. Year 2000
Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Source: Crane Transportation Group
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-92 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-93
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-94 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-95 IMPACTS a and b) Increase in Traffic in Relation to Existing Traffic Load and Street System Capacity
Significance Criteria: CITY OF SAN BRUNO Intersection significance criteria have been adopted from the 2007 San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP). Based on the CMP standards,
the acceptable operating level of service is defined at LOS D. While no CMP intersections in San Bruno are included in this study, based upon the location of the Project the following
criteria have been applied. • The Project will degrade LOS A, B, C or D operation to LOS E or F operation for intersections evaluated within the City of San Bruno. • The Project will
add any additional traffic to an intersection that is currently not in compliance with its adopted level of service standard. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO • The Project would exceed 100
net new peak hour trips on the local roadway system (C/CAG criteria only). • Signalized intersection operation and all-way-stop operation would change from Level of Service (LOS) A,
B, C or D to LOS E or F and total volumes passing through the intersection would be increased by at least two percent. • The proposed Project would increase total volumes passing through
an intersection by two percent or more with signalized or all-way stop operation already at a Base Case LOS E or F, or when the intersection is side street stop sign controlled and the
stop sign controlled Base Case operation is at LOS F (and there are more than 25 vehicles on the stop sign controlled approach). • If, in the opinion of the registered traffic engineer
conducting the EIR analysis, a significant traffic, pedestrian or bicycle safety concern would be created or worsened. Traffic Table 6 presents the existing bus operation AM and PM peak
hour trip generation at the 54 Tanforan Avenue site. Results are from existing counts conducted for Crane Transportation Group in early December 2010. Currently, during the AM peak hour
there are 14 inbound and 2 outbound trips, while during the PM peak hour there are 6 inbound and 14 outbound trips. About 75 to 80 percent of existing AM and PM peak hour traffic is
automobiles, related to administrative and mechanical staff. Based upon input from the Project applicant, it was determined that there could be up to a 60 percent increase in activity
and trip generation once operations move to the 160 South Linden Avenue site. Traffic Table 7 presents the expected bus operation trip generation after expansion at the 160 South Linden
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-96 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY Avenue site, which would result in 23 inbound and 4 outbound vehicles during the AM
peak hour, with 11 inbound and 22 outbound vehicles during the PM peak hour. Traffic Table 8 shows that the net increase in bus operation-related traffic away from the immediate area
of the existing and proposed bus operation sites would be 9 inbound and 2 outbound trips during the AM peak hour, with 5 inbound and 8 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. TRAFFIC
TABLE 6 EXISTING BUS OPERATION TRIP GENERATION 54 TANFORAN AVENUE AM PEAK HOUR (8:00-9:00) PM PEAK HOUR (4:15-5:15) PROJECT VEHICLES IN OUT IN OUT Autos 12 1 3 12 Buses 1 0 2 2 Trucks
1 1 1 0 TOTAL 14 2 6 14 Source: Crane Transportation Group TRAFFIC TABLE 7 PROJECT BUS OPERATION TRIP GENERATION AT 160 SOUTH LINDEN AVENUE AFTER EXPANSION AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
PROJECT VEHICLES IN OUT IN OUT Autos 19 2 5 19 Buses 2 0 4 3 Trucks 2 2 2 0 TOTAL 23 4 11 22 Source: Crane Transportation Group
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-97 TRAFFIC TABLE 8 NET INCREASE IN BUS OPERATION-RELATED TRAFFIC AFTER EXPANSION AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PROJECT VEHICLES IN OUT IN OUT Autos 7 1 2 7 Buses 1 0 2 1 Trucks 1 1 1 0 TOTAL 9 2 5 8 Source: Crane Transportation Group No driveway counts were conducted of daily
traffic flow associated with the existing 54 Tanforan Avenue operation. However, based upon input from the Project applicant regarding the number of employees per shift and the number
of buses entering and leaving the site per day, the existing operation would be expected to have a daily trip generation of about 250 two-way trips (125 in and 125 out). After expansion,
daily trip generation would be at least 400 two-way trips (200 in and 200 out). The circulation analysis of the Project, at City direction, also included evaluation of the new traffic
associated with reuse of 54 Tanforan Avenue. To provide a conservative valuation, the allowable land use with the highest potential trip generation (light industrial) was used for analysis
purposes. Traffic Table 9 shows that light industrial use would be expected to generate 174 daily two-way trips (87 in and 87 out), with 20 inbound and 3 outbound trips during the AM
peak hour as well as 3 inbound and 21 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. Overall, as shown in Traffic Table 10, the combined 60 percent expansion of existing bus operation traffic
in combination with reuse of the 54 Tanforan Avenue site would result in 29 inbound and 5 outbound trips during the AM peak hour, with 8 inbound and 29 outbound trips during the PM peak
hour.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-98 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY TRAFFIC TABLE 9 FORMER PROJECT SITE REUSE/TRIP GENERATION DAILY AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM
PEAK HOUR TRIPS 2-WAY INBOUND OUTBOUND INBOUND OUTBOUND USE SIZE RAT E VOL RAT E VO L RAT E VOL RAT E VOL RAT E VOL Light Industrial 25,000 SQ.FT. 6.97 174 .81 20 .11 3 .12 3 .85 21
Trip Rate Source: Trip Generation, 8th Edition, by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 2008. Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group TRAFFIC TABLE 10 TOTAL PROJECT NET NEW
TRIP GENERATION EXPANDED BUS OPERATION AT 160 SOUTH LINDEN AVENUE AND REUSE OF 54 TANFORAN AVENUE AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS IN OUT IN OUT 29 5 8 29 Source: Crane Transportation
Group Project Trip Distribution Project auto, bus and truck traffic was distributed to the local roadway network in a pattern reflective of existing site driveway and local intersection
traffic flow patterns (see Traffic Table 11). It was determined that subregional distribution flow would be different for auto, bus and truck traffic given the varying origins/destinations
of the three difference vehicle classes. The incremental increase in project traffic is shown in Traffic Figures 11 and 12 for the AM and PM peak hours. The resultant Base Case + project
2020 AM and PM peak hour volumes are show in Traffic Figures 13 and 14, respectively, while year 2030 Base Case + project AM and PM peak hour volumes are shown in Traffic Figures 15
and 16, respectively.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-99
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-100 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-101
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-102 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-103
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-104 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-105 The Project would not generate more than 100 net new trips during either the AM or PM peak hours.
Guidelines for the implementation of the 2003 Draft Congestion Management Program (“C/CAG Guidelines”) specifies that local jurisdictions must ensure that the developer and/or tenants
will mitigate all new peak hour trips (including the first 100 trips) projected to be generated by the development. This would be a less-than-significant impact as the Project would
not generate 100 peak hour trips and no mitigation is required. INTERSECTION OPERATION 2020 The Project would not result in a significant level of service impact at any intersection.
As shown on Traffic Table 4, the PM peak hour unacceptable Base Case LOS E operation at the Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue/Produce Avenue intersection would have vehicle control
delay increased from 70.2 to 71.4 seconds. The Project would add 18 vehicles to this intersection during the PM peak hour, which would be a 0.4 percent increase in volume. Based upon
South San Francisco intersection impact thresholds, a Project is considered to have an impact if it will increase volumes by 2 percent or more at an intersection that is not in compliance
with its adapted level of service standard. This would be a less-thansignificant impact as the Project would not increase PM peak hour volumes by 2 percent. INTERSECTION OPERATION 2030
The Project would not result in a significant level of service impact at any intersection. As shown in Traffic Table 5, the PM peak hour unacceptable Base Case LOS E operation at the
Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue/Produce Avenue intersection would have vehicle control delay increased from 67.3 to 68.5 seconds. The Project would add 18 vehicles to this intersection
during the PM peak hour, which would be a 0.4 percent increase in volume. Based upon South San Francisco intersection impact thresholds, a project is considered to have an impact if
it will increase volumes by 2 percent or more at an intersection that is not in compliance with its adapted level of service standard. In addition, the Project would add no traffic to
the other intersection experiencing unacceptable Base Case operation: Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard. This would be a less-than-significant impact as the Project would not increase volumes
by 2 percent at either intersection. c) Alter Air Traffic Patterns Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to result in a change in air traffic
patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks Air Navigation Hazards are discussed in Section 3.7: 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
with respect to air navigation hazards.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-106 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY d) Hazards due to Design Features or Incompatible Uses Significance Criteria: The Project
would have a significant effect if it were to increase traffic hazards due to its design or the introduction of incompatible traffic. TRAFFIC IMPACT 1: 160 SOUTH LINDEN AVENUE PROJECT
ACCESS UNACCEPTABLE SIGHT LINE Sight lines are acceptable at the 160 South Linden Avenue north access driveway intersection, with one exception. The Project’s access driveway along South
Linden Avenue is located on the outside of a ± 60-degree curve. Available sight lines for drivers exiting the 160 South Linden Avenue north driveway are about 600 feet to the north and
about 260 feet to the east. The sight line for a northbound driver making a left turn into the driveway is about 260 feet to the north to see southbound traffic on South Linden Avenue
if there are no vehicles parked to the north of the driveway on the east side of the street (on the inside of the curve). If there are vehicles parked on the east side of the street,
sight lines can be reduced to about 175 feet. These sight line projections are for auto drivers turning left into the site. Bus drivers will be at a higher level and should be able to
see over any parked vehicles to achieve the full 260-foot sight line. The posted speed limit on South Linden Avenue at the Project site is 25 miles per hour. Prevailing speeds range
from 25 to 30 miles per hour. Minimum required sight lines for driveway intersections are based upon stopping distance contained in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets,
2004, by the American Association of State Highway Officials. Stopping sight distances are as follows. MINIMUM REQUIRED TRAVEL SPEED STOPPING DISTANCE 25 mph 155 feet 30 mph 200 feet
55 mph 250 feet Based upon prevailing speeds, available sight lines are acceptable, with the exception of northbound left turn movements into the site for auto drivers (with on-street
parking occupied on the east side of the street). Sight lines for the northbound left turn movement is a potentially significant impact. TRAFFIC MITIGATION 1: 160 SOUTH LINDEN AVENUE
PROJECT ACCESS UNACCEPTABLE SIGHT LINE Prohibit parking on the east side of South Linden Avenue for the first 50 feet of available onstreet parking to the north of the 160 South Linden
north driveway (see Figure 17). This will increase sight lines for a driver turning left into the site to about 200 feet to see inbound traffic. Implementation of this mitigation would
reduce the impact reduced to a less-thansignificant level. Note: This mitigation would need to be implemented prior to or simultaneously with issuance of a building permit.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-107 Parking reductions along public streets in South San Francisco are reviewed and approved by the
City’s Traffic Advisory Committee. The committee is comprised of City staff from engineering, police, planning and public works. The committee meets the fourth Wednesday of the month.
The Acting City Engineer, Sam Bautista, has indicated that this mitigation measure would be accepted by the Traffic Advisory Committee. e) Emergency Access Significance Criteria: The
Project would have a significant effect if it were to have inadequate emergency access. The Project would keep the existing site access pattern off of South Linden Avenue (two driveway
connections), and would not change the emergency vehicle access to the Project site. In addition, representatives from both the Police and Fire Departments have reviewed the Project
and have not identified impacts associated with emergency vehicle access. The 54 Tanforan Avenue reuse site would maintain its existing driveway access to Tanforan Avenue. The Project
would have no impact on emergency vehicle access. f) Alternative Transportation Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to conflict with adopted
policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks). Both Project components would use existing facilities with existing curb, gutter
and sidewalk. There are existing Class III bike routes along South Linden Avenue, Dollar Avenue and San Mateo Avenue, which will remain. There are no bus routes in the immediate vicinity
of the Project, with the closest service at the San Bruno BART station one half mile to the south. No changes are proposed in transit service
to the immediate Project area. The Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation and would have no impact. It would have the
positive benefit of expanding bus transit operations in the area. Finding: The two components of the Project would result in low levels of net new trip generation on the existing local
area circulation system. Left turn movements into the Project’s 160 South Linden Avenue north driveway would result in significant safety concerns due to inadequate sight lines to the
north. This impact could be mitigated to a lessthan-significant level. The Project would not alter any patterns, impact emergency access to either the 160 South Linden Avenue or 54 Tanforan
Avenue sites or conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. The Project’s expanded bus transit operations would, in fact, promote alternative
transportation.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-108 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-109 2.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination
of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the Project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? x b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities
or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? x c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities
or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? x d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? x e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the Project
that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? x f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs? x g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? x SETTING/BACKGROUND The Project
site is in a built-out industrial portion of the City. Infrastructure and utilities are in place and are currently serving the site.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-110 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY IMPACTS a) Regional Wastewater Treatment Standards Significance Criteria: The Project
would have a significant environmental impact if it were to exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The City’s storm
drain outfalls operate under NPDES permits granted by the RWQCB. The South San Francisco Municipal Code (Title 14) contains regulations related to stormwater management. As identified
in Chapter 1.2.4 as a matter of law, projects are required to implement BMP’s and comply with SWPPP regulations. The Project would have a less than significant impact related to an exceedance
of wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB. b and e) Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact
if it were to result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which may serve the the Project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing commitments. All wastewater produced within the City of South San Francisco is treated at the City’s Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP), which is
located at the end of Belle Air Road, near the edge of San Francisco Bay. 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. Wastewater
The City’s Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP) was upgraded in 2000-01. The City of South San Francisco has a current allocation of 8.74 million gallon per day (MGD) and is currently
generating 5.6 MGD. The capacity allocated to the City of South San Francisco is based upon the growth projections identified in the City’s General Plan. The Project is in conformance
with the development assumptions contained in the General Plan. The Project is not requesting a variance to floor area or density regulations. The Project, as a condition of approval,
would be required to pay a pro rata, fair share sewer improvement fee to cover the costs of the wastewater improvements. The Project would have a less than significant impact with respect
to wastewater treatment. Water See discussion under d, below. c) Storm Water Drainage Facilities
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-111 Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to
require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or in the expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects. The Project is connected into the stormwater facilities, and is required to implement BMP measures as identified in the Introduction Chapter 1.2.D and Section 2.9 Hydrology
and Water Quality. The Project would have a less than significant impact respect to increased water runoff or the building or expansion of new storm water drainage facilities. d) Water
Supply Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to require additional water supply beyond that available from existing entitlements
and resources. Senate Bill 610 (SB 610) was adopted in 2001 and became effective January 1, 2002. SB 610 610 requires cities to consider water supply assessments to determine whether
projected water supplies can meet a project’s water demand. SB 610 and the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15083.5) identify residential projects generally exceeding 500 units and commercial
or industrial projects employing more than 1,000 persons as potential impact thresholds. Potable water is provided for the City of South San Francisco and much of San Mateo County by
the California Water Service Company (CWSC), which purchases most of its supply from the San Francisco Water Department (SFWD). CWSC drafted and adopted an Urban Water Management Plan
(UWMP) in 2006. The UWMP was established in accordance with the California Urban Water Management Planning Act, (Division 6 Part 2.6 of the Water Code, Section 10610-10656). Water Code
Section 10910 subd. (c)(2), Government Code, Section 66473.7, subd. (c)(1) notes that it is acceptable to use the most recently adopted UWMP to assess water supply in accordance with
the California Urban Water Management Planning Act and SB 610. The Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to water supply. The Project is consistent with the
development assumptions identified in the General Plan and the UWMP which builds upon the development and growth assumptions in planning documents. The Project would not result in a
cumulative impact with respect to water usage. The UWMP projects and accounts for the South San Francisco service area within the CWSC jurisdiction. The projected City population is
57,977 which includes the 2,410 additional persons anticipated as a result of land use intensification identified in the South/El Camino Real General Plan Amendment (2010), the latest
planning document anticipating and analyzing growth and population increases due to land use modifications.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-112 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY f) and g) Solid Waste Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental
impact if it were to be served by a landfill with inadequate permitted capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs, or if it were to fail to fully comply with federal,
state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The Building Division, as a requirement of a demolition permit, requires the recycling and /or reuse of demolition materials.
Project plans are required by law to include recycling areas on the building permit drawings. Construction and operation of the Project would generate a less than significant amount
of solid waste, and operation of the Project would be in full compliance with all federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Finding: The City’s wastewater
treatment plant was upgraded in 2000-01 and has adequate capacity to treat Project wastes. The Project as a matter of law would be required to pay wastewater improvement fees. The UWMP
was adopted in 2006 and adequate water is available for the Project. 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.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-113 2.17 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? X b) Does the Project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a Project are considerable when viewed in connection connection with the effects of past Projects, the effects of other current Projects, and the
effects of probable future Projects.) X c) Does the Project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X
a) Quality of the Environment Impacts of the Project are considered to be less than significant with measures that are required by law. 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 within this chapter
are implemented. b) Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts of the Project are considered to be less 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
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-114 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY 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 less than significant. The Project would not expose people to
new hazards such as geologic risks, flooding, or airport hazards. There would be no other adverse effects on human beings. 2.18 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS NO OR LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
AND NO MITIGATION REQUIRED Aesthetics The 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. The Project’s new construction at 20 feet would not exceed the 80 foot height limit posed
for safety concerns by the ALUC. The site is developed to 62 feet in height at two architectural features. The addition of floor area would occur on the first floor and as such would
be less than 20 feet in height. Agriculture The Project would not adversely affect any existing agricultural operations. The Project site is not planned or zoned for agricultural use
and is not in agricultural use. 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 PM10). The City’s building permit procedure captures
the BAAQMD permitting regulations, as well as BAAQMD’s basic control measures. No mitigation measures, above those required by the City as a matter of law, are identified in this Initial
Study. The maximum cancer risk from operations at a residential receptor would be 0.7 per million. The maximum cancer risk from operations at a worker receptor would be 0.3 per million.
The cancer risk due to operations would be well below the BAAQMD threshold of 10 per million and would be less than significant. The maximum cancer risks from construction and operations
of the Project would be well below the BAAQMD threshold of 10 per million and less than significant. The chronic HI would be well below the BAAQMD threshold of 1 and the impact of the
project would therefore be less than significant
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-115 Greenhouse Gas The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact
with respect to greenhouse gas emissions or global climate change. Biology 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, does not contain habitat and would have no impact on General Plan policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources. Cultural Resources The Project is located on a previously graded parcel and in a developed area. There are no historic, archaeological or paleontological resources
or human remains located on the Project site. The Project would have a no impact on cultural resources. Geology and Soils The Project site is not underlain by an earthquake fault and
as such the potential for ground rupture is very low. Conformance with the 2010 California Building Code would reduce seismic shaking impacts to less than significant. The site soils
are low to moderate in plasticity. Ground acceleration is in the mid-range (Type C soils, USGS Site soils are considered low impact with respect liquefaction. Subsidence would be considered
negligible. The Project would not be connected to a septic system and as such would not contribute to ground failure. The site is flat (i.e., less than 2% slope) and not subject to landsliding.
Based on the analysis, the Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to Geology and Soils. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The Project site is appropriate for continued
commercial/industrial land use. The Project would not introduce fire, safety or hazardous materials risk into the area beyond that normally anticipated with commercial/industrial land
use; would not expose a school to the risk from hazardous materials; and would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact from hazardous materials exposure. The Project
would not impede emergency response. The site is in the final phase of receiving site closure with respect to hazardous materials remediation from SMCDEH (e-mail, Mr. Jacob Madden, February
16, 2011). 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. No mitigation measures, above
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-116 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY 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 Project would not physically divide
an established community. The Project site is not in a conservation plan area, or under special study for conservation. The Project would not result in any individually or cumulatively
considerable impacts. Minerals 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 The Project, existing, plus Project and cumulative noise environment is and would remain within the acceptable 75 dBA, CNEL for industrial land uses
and 70 dBA, CNEL noise levels for commercial land uses. Population and Housing The Project would not exceed the development and growth assumptions contained in General Plan. The Project
does not contain housing and would not displace housing units or residents. The Project would have no impact on population or housing. Public Services The Project would not exceed the
development and growth assumptions contained in the General Plan. School impact fees are collected by the City’s Building Division based upon the square footage of residential, commercial
and industrial construction. These fees are used by the school districts for school services. Development of the Project site would not increase the demand for public services individually
or cumulatively. Recreation Parks and recreational needs within the City are derived from the development assumptions contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. The Project is
proposing development consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, the Project would not result in an individual or cumulatively considerable impact on parks and recreation.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PAGE 2-117 Traffic and Transportation The two components of the Project would result in low levels of net
new trip generation on the existing local area circulation system. Left turn movements into the Project’s 160 South Linden Avenue north driveway would result in significant safety concerns
due to inadequate sight lines to the north. This impact could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. The Project would not alter any patterns, impact emergency access to either
the 160 South Linden Avenue or 54 Tanforan Avenue sites or conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. The Project’s expanded bus transit
operations would, in fact, promote alternative transportation. Utilities The City’s wastewater treatment plant was upgraded in 2000-01 and has adequate capacity to treat Project wastes.
The Project as a matter of law would be required to pay wastewater improvement fees. The UWMP was adopted in 2006 and adequate water is available for the Project. 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. LESS
THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH IDENTIFIED MITIGATION Traffic and Transportation Three impacts can be reduced to less than significant with implementation of the identified mitigation measures,
see Section 2.18 Mitigation Monitoring Program.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-118 160 SOUTH LINDEN, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO– INITIAL STUDY 2.18 Mitigation Monitoring Program LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION APPLIED
Traffic and Transportation TRAFFIC IMPACT 1: 160 SOUTH LINDEN AVENUE PROJECT ACCESS UNACCEPTABLE SIGHT LINE Sight lines are acceptable at the 160 South Linden Avenue north access driveway
intersection, with one exception. The Project’s access driveway along South Linden Avenue is located on the outside of a ± 60-degree curve. TRAFFIC MITIGATION 1: 160 SOUTH LINDEN AVENUE
PROJECT ACCESS UNACCEPTABLE SIGHT LINE Prohibit parking on the east side of South Linden Avenue for the first 50 feet of available onstreet parking to the north of the 160 South Linden
north driveway (see Figure 17). This will increase sight lines for a driver turning left into the site to about 200 feet to see inbound traffic. Implementation: This mitigation would
need to be in prior to or simultaneously with issuance of a building permit. A funding agreement would be required to be executed between the City and the Developer. Engineering Division
would oversee the work and insure that the mitigation is in place prior to issuance of a building permit. The Acting City Engineer has indicated staff support of this mitigation measure
and will recommend approval to the Traffic Advisory Committee. 1610185.1
APPENDIX A A-1: Air Quality Methodologies A-2: URBEMIS and BAAQMD Model Output A-3: San Mateo County Groundwater Protection Memorandum, Mr. Jacob Madden, December 21, 2010 APPENDIX A
4-1
Air Quality Methodologies Construction Activities The Proposed Project would involve the demolition and reconstruction of floor space on the ground and third floors and the addition
of 1,040 square feet of floor area to create a 1,781 square foot office area. The Project involves new construction of a 6,600 square foot service garage and restriping of the parking
area. Approximately 1,000 cubic yards of cut and fill is proposed. Approximately 80,000 square feet of surface area would be affected by grading. Depth of cut is expected to be 12 inches
and approximately 2,500 cubic yards of soil and paving would be hauled from the site. Grading and site preparation is anticipated to take 10 weeks. Types of equipment on the site during
this phase of construction would be a grader, skip loaded, front loader, standard asphalt paving equipment and excavator. Project construction would take approximately an additional
two to three months to complete, for a total construction period of five months. Types of equipment on the site during this phase of construction would be mobile cranes, concrete trucks
delivery trucks and private vehicles. Construction emissions were estimated using the URBEMIS 2007 model (Version 9.2.4). The model combines information on vehicle trip generation with
equipment emissions data specific to the Air Basin (home-to-work, work-other, etc.) with CARB’s OFFROAD and EMFAC emission models to estimate emissions. Operations The Proposed Project
would relocate a commuter bus parking facility from its current location at 54 Tanforan Avenue to 160 South Linden Avenue. The facility would operate four shifts beginning at 4:00 am
and commencing at 11:00 pm during each weekday. Approximately 80 buses would be stored on the Project site (an increase of about 62 percent from current operations or an increase of
30 buses). The commuter bus operations will operate 7 days per week. The commuter bus fleet will use biodiesel fuel, which produces lower emissions than conventional diesel. Biodiesel
produces a reduction in PM, CO, ROG, SO2, and CO2 emissions of 12, 12, 20, 20, and 15.7 percent, respectively, and a slight increase (2 percent) in NOx emissions compared to conventional
diesel. The Proposed Project would also result in an increase in emissions associated with onsite stationary sources and area sources (i.e., natural gas combustion emissions from space
and water heating, gasoline combustion emissions from landscape maintenance, etc.) and employee motor vehicles. URBEMIS2007 was used to estimate emissions that would be associated with
natural gas space and water heating, and landscape maintenance. The EMFAC2007 emissions model was used to estimate emissions from motor vehicle emissions. The average daily round trip
distance for the commuter buses and employees was estimated at 50 and 16.6 miles, respectively. The commuter bus trip distance was based on travel distance between South San Francisco
and typical commuting areas such as Berkeley, Cupertino, and San Francisco. The employee trip distance was based on
default information for San Mateo County with URBEMIS. It is assumed that each commuter bus would eliminate at least ten vehicle commute trips from the region. Health Risk Assessment
A health risk assessment (HRA) is accomplished in four steps; hazards identification, exposure assessment, toxicity assessment, and risk characterization. This appendix describes the
methodologies and assumptions that were used to execute each step and presents the detailed results of a HRA that was performed for the Project. TERMS AND DEFINITIONS As the practice
of conducting a HRA is particularly complex and involves concepts that are not altogether familiar to most people, several terms and definitions are provided that are considered essential
to the understanding of the approach, methodology and results: Acute effect – a health effect (non-cancer) produced within a short period of time (few minutes to several days) following
an exposure to toxic air contaminants (TAC). Cancer risk – the probability of an individual contracting cancer from a lifetime (i.e., 70 year) exposure to TAC in the ambient air. Chronic
effect – a health effect (non-cancer) produced from a continuous exposure occurring over an extended period of time (weeks, months, years). Hazard Index (HI) – the unitless ratio of
an exposure level over the acceptable reference dose (RfC). The HI can be applied to multiple compounds in an additive manner. Hazard Quotient (HQ) – the unitless ratio of an exposure
level over the acceptable reference dose (RfC). The HQ is applied to individual compounds. Toxic air contaminants (TAC) – any air pollutant that is capable of causing short-term (acute)
and/or long-term (chronic or carcinogenic, i.e., cancer causing) adverse human health effects (i.e., injury or illness). The current California list of TAC lists approximately 200 compounds,
including particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines. Human Health Effects -comprise disorders such as eye watering, respiratory or heart ailments, and other (i.e., non-cancer)
related diseases. Health Risk Assessment (HRA) – an analysis designed to predict the generation and dispersion of TAC in the outdoor environment, evaluate the potential for exposure
of human populations, and to assess and quantify both the individual and population-wide health risks associated with those levels of exposure. Incremental – under CEQA, the net difference
(or change) in conditions or impacts when comparing the baseline to future year project conditions. Maximum exposed individual (MEI) – an individual assumed to be located at the point
where the highest concentrations of TAC, and therefore, health risks are predicted to occur. Non-cancer risks – health risks such as eye watering, respiratory or heart ailments, and
other non-cancer related diseases. Receptors – the locations where potential health impacts or risks are predicted (schools, residences and work-sites).
HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION TAC emissions associated with the Project would occur from the following project activities: • Off-road equipment and haul trucks during construction activities
• Commuter bus operations along nearby roadways and near the garage facility Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of numerous individual gaseous and particulate compounds emitted from
diesel-fueled combustion engines diesel particulate matter (DPM) is formed primarily through the incomplete combustion of diesel fuel. DPM is removed from the atmosphere through physical
processes including atmospheric fall-out and washout by rain. Humans can be exposed to airborne DPM by deposition on water, soil, and vegetation. In August 1998, the California Air Resource
Board (CARB) identified diesel PM as a TAC. The CARB developed Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles and Risk Management
Guidance for the Permitting of New Stationary Diesel-Fueled Engines and approved these documents documents on September 28, 2000.
The documents represent proposals to reduce DPM emissions, with the goal of reducing emissions and the associated health risk by 75 percent in 2010 and by 85 percent in 2020. The program
aimed to require the use of state-of-the-art catalyzed DPM filters and ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel. EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Dispersion is the process by which atmospheric pollutants disseminate
due to wind and vertical stability. The results of a dispersion analysis are used to assess pollutant concentrations at or near an emission source. The results of this analysis allow
predicted concentrations of pollutants to be compared directly to air quality standards and other criteria such as health risks. Dispersion Modeling Approach This section presents the
methodology used for the dispersion modeling analysis. This section addresses all of the fundamental components of an air dispersion modeling analysis including: • Model selection and
options • Receptor locations • Meteorological data • Source release characteristics Model Selection and Options The AERMOD dispersion model (Version 09292) was used for the modeling
analysis. AERMOD is the US EPA preferred dispersion model for general industrial sources. The model can simulate point, area, volume, and line sources. The AERMOD model is the appropriate
model for this analysis based on the coverage of simple, intermediate, and complex terrain. It also predicts both short-term and long-term (annual) average concentrations. The model
was executed using the regulatory default options (stack-tip downwash, buoyancy-induced dispersion, final plume rise), default wind speed profile categories, default potential temperature
gradients, and no pollutant decay.
The selection of the appropriate dispersion coefficients depends on the land use within three kilometers (km) of the project site. The land use typing was based on the classification
method defined by Auer (1978); using pertinent United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1:24,000 scale (7.5 minute) topographic maps of the area. If the Auer land use types of heavy industrial,
light-tomoderate industrial, commercial, and compact residential account for 50 percent or more of the total area, the EPA Guideline on Air Quality Models recommends using urban dispersion
coefficients; otherwise, the appropriate rural coefficients were used. Based on observation of the area surrounding the project site, rural dispersion coefficients were applied in the
analysis. Receptor Locations Sensitive receptors such as residences, schools, offsite workers, and outdoor recreational areas near the Project were chosen as the receptors to be analyzed.
Receptors were placed at a height of 1.8 meters (typical breathing height). Residences Residences are located to the south about 845 feet of the project site, while offsite worker receptors
are generally located to the north, east, and west of the project site. Terrain elevations for receptor locations were used (i.e., complex terrain) based on available USGS information
for the area. Meteorological Data Air quality is a function of both the rate and location of pollutant emissions under the influence of meteorological conditions and topographic features
affecting pollutant movement and dispersal. Atmospheric conditions such as wind speed, wind direction, atmospheric stability, and air temperature gradients interact with the physical
features of the landscape to determine the movement and dispersal of air pollutants, and consequently affect air quality. Hourly meteorological data from San Francisco International
Airport (surface data) and Oakland (upper air) were used in the dispersion modeling analysis. The data from 2005 through 2009 were used. Exhibit 1 within Attachment A displays the wind
rose during this period. Wind directions are predominately from the west and there is a high frequency of calm and low wind conditions. Emissions Estimates The emissions from construction
activities were derived from the URBEMIS emission model. The emissions from commuter buses and employee trips were derived from the EMFAC2007 emissions model. Commuter buses were considered
to be urban buses. The DPM emissions are based on estimated daily truck trips for the baseline and proposed project. Commuter buses and employee trips were assigned a speed of 35 miles
per hour. Source Release Characteristics Construction equipment was treated as an area source within the facility expansion area. The release height of the off-road equipment exhaust
was 3.05 meters. Commuter buses and employee trips were treated as a line source (i.e., volume sources placed at regular intervals) located along the access road from/to Route 101. The
commuter buses were assigned a release height of 3.05 meters and an initial vertical dimension of 4.15 meters, which accounts for dispersion from the movement of vehicles.
Terrain elevations for emission source locations were used (i.e., complex terrain) based on available USGS DEM for the area. AERMAP (Version 09040) was used to develop the terrain elevations,
although the project site is generally flat. The commuter bus operations account for the operating profile: • 4:00 AM to 2:00 PM: Approximately 15 drivers; • 6:00 AM to 8:00 PM: Approximately
20 drivers; • 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM: Approximately 12 office staff and mechanics whom are on site until the end of their work day; and • 2:00 PM to 11:00 PM: Approximately 15 drivers. Dispersion
Modeling Results Using AERMOD, the maximum annual and 70-year average annual concentrations were determined for DPM emissions for the emission sources of concern. These concentrations
were estimated for a unit emission rate (1 gram per second) and adjusted based on the calculated emission rate. TOXICITY ASSESSMENT The HRA was conducted following methodologies in BAAQMD’s
Health Risk Screening Analysis Guidelines and in the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) guidelines. This was accomplished by applying the highest estimated
concentrations at the receptors analyzed to the established cancer risk estimates and acceptable reference concentrations (RfC) for non-cancer health effects. The toxicity values used
in this analysis were based on OEHHA guidance. These toxicity values are for carcinogenic effects and chronic health impacts. The primary pathway for exposures was assumed to be inhalation
and carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects were evaluated separately. The incremental risks were determined for these sources of TAC as described above and summed to obtain an estimated
total incremental carcinogenic health risk. The 80th percentile adult breathing rate of 302 L/kg-day was used to determine cancer risks to residents from exposure to TAC. The residential
exposure frequency and duration was assumed to be 350 days per year and 70 years. An adult breathing rate of 149 L/kg-day was used to determine cancer risks to workers from exposure
to TAC. The worker exposure frequency and duration of 245 days per year and 40 years (at eight hours per day) was used. The modeled TAC concentrations were used to represent the exposure
concentrations in the air. The inhalation absorption factor was assumed to be 1. Cancer risk estimates also incorporate age sensitivity factors (ASFs). This approach provides updated
calculation procedures that factor in the increased susceptibility of infants and children to carcinogens as compared to adults. OEHHA recommends that cancer risks be weighted by a factor
of 10 for exposures that occur from the third trimester of pregnancy to 2 years of age, and by a factor of 3 for exposures from 2 years through 15 years of age. For estimating cancer
risks for
residential receptors over a 70 year lifetime, the incorporation of the ASFs results in a cancer risk adjustment factor (CRAF) of 1.7. ASFs are not applied to offsite worker calculations.
RISK CHARACTERIZATION For the cancer risk assessment, emission rates were determined based on the average emission rate over the 70-year lifetime (i.e., the project emission rate divided
by 70 years). However, for the chronic and acute health impacts, the maximum emission rate was used. In the case of DPM, these maximum emission rates occur in the beginning of the time
period. Cancer risk is defined as the lifetime probability of developing cancer from exposure to carcinogenic substances. Cancer risks are expressed as the chance in one million of contracting
cancer (i.e., number of cancer cases among one million people exposed). The cancer risk is the probability of an individual developing cancer as a result of exposure to air toxics. The
cancer risks are assumed to occur exclusively through the inhalation pathway. The cancer risk based on a oneyear exposure can be estimated by utilizing the cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day),
the 70-year annual average concentration (μg/m3), and the lifetime exposure adjustment. The cancer risks occur exclusively through the inhalation pathway; therefore, the cancer risks
can be estimated from the following equation: Dose-inh = Cair * {DBR} * A * CRAF * EF * ED * 10-6 AT Where: Dose-inh = Dose of the toxic substance through inhalation in milligrams per
kilogram (kg) of body weight per day (mg/kg-day) 10-6 = Micrograms to milligrams conversion, Liters to cubic meters conversion Cair = Concentration in air (microgram (μg)/cubic meter
(m3)) {DBR} = Daily breathing rate (liter (L)/kg body weight – day) A = Inhalation absorption factor CRAF = Cancer Risk Adjustment Factor, Age Sensitivity Factor EF = Exposure frequency
(days/year) ED = Exposure duration (years) AT = Averaging time period over which exposure is averaged in days (25,550 days for a 70 year cancer risk) Non-cancer adverse health impacts,
acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term), are measured against a hazard index (HI), which is defined as the ratio of the predicted incremental exposure concentration from the project
to a published reference exposure level (REL) that could cause adverse health effects as established by OEHHA. The ratio (referred to as the Hazard Quotient [HQ]) of each non-carcinogenic
substance that affects a certain organ system is added to produce an overall HI for that organ system. The overall HI is calculated for each organ system. If the overall HI for the highest-impacted
organ system is greater than one, then the impact is considered to be significant.
The Hazard Index is an expression used for the potential for non-cancer health effects. The relationship for the non-cancer health effects is given by the annual concentration (μg/m3)
and the Reference Exposure Level (μg/m3). The acute hazard index was determined using the “simple” concurrent maximum approach, which tends to be conservative (i.e., overpredicts). The
relationship for the non-cancer health effects is given by the following equation: HI = C/REL where, HI Hazard index; an expression of the potential for non-cancer health effects. C
Annual average concentration (μg/m3) during the 70 year exposure period REL Reference exposure level (REL); the concentration at which no adverse health effects are anticipated. The
chronic reference exposure level for DPM was established by the California OEHHA as 5 μg/m3.
Attachment C URBEMIS and BAAQMD GHG Model Output
PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2 0.11 2,847.92 Construction Unmitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated ROG NOx
CO SO2 PM10 Dust TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 1.87 3.26 20.30 0.02 0.18 1,881.48 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS
(lbs/day, unmitigated) 1.58 2.45 19.62 0.02 0.18 0.11 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 0.29 0.81 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 966.44
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 2.57 4.47 5,294.59 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES CO2 2011 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 18.84 46.02 31.19 0.01 9.05 2.80 11.85 1.90 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5
Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Project Location: San Mateo County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary
Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 Page: 1 1/11/2011 12:33:41 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: Project Name:
Linden Bus Facility 2011 Construction and Area Source Emissions
Page: 1 1/11/2011 12:33:41 PM Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.00 9.00 1.88 0.00 1.88 0.00 Fine Grading 03/01/2011-1.17 10.18 1.88 1.08 2.96 2,349.30 05/20/2011 2.86 23.49
12.93 0.00 9.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.00 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.10 Architectural Coating 12.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating 05/20/2011-08/20/201
1 12.70 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.10 Building Worker Trips 0.10 0.18 3.20 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 334.97 Building Vendor Trips 0.17 2.43 1.61 0.00 0.02
0.09 0.11 0.01 0.08 0.09 535.02 Building Off Road Diesel 1.11 8.51 4.68 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.54 0.00 0.50 0.50 893.39 Building 05/20/2011-08/20/2011 1.39 11.11 9.49 0.01 0.04 0.64 0.68 0.01
0.59 0.60 1,763.37 Paving Worker Trips 0.05 0.09 1.71 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 178.48 Paving On Road Diesel 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.10 Paving Off
Road Diesel 1.83 11.26 6.91 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.98 0.00 0.90 0.90 979.23 Paving Off-Gas Gas 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt 03/01/2011-05/20/2011 1.90 11.40
8.63 0.00 0.01 0.98 0.99 0.00 0.90 0.91 1,166.81 Time Slice 5/20/2011-5/20/2011 2.80 11.85 1.90 2.57 4.47 5,294.59 Active Days: 1 18.84 46.02 31.19 0.01 9.05 Fine Grading Worker Trips
0.03 0.05 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 101.99 Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.83 23.44 11.96
0.00 0.00 1.17 1.17 0.00 1.08 1.08 2,247.32 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.00 9.00 1.88 0.00 1.88 0.00 Fine Grading 03/01/2011-1.17 10.18 1.88 1.08 2.96 2,349.30 05/20/2011
2.86 23.49 12.93 0.00 9.00 Paving Worker Trips 0.05 0.09 1.71 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 178.48 Paving On Road Diesel 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.10 Paving
Off Road Diesel 1.83 11.26 6.91 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.98 0.00 0.90 0.90 979.23 Paving Off-Gas 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt 03/01/2011-05/20/2011 1.90 11.40
8.63 0.00 0.01 0.98 0.99 0.00 0.90 0.91 1,166.81 Time Slice 3/1/2011-5/19/2011 Active 2.16 11.17 1.88 1.98 3.87 3,516.11 Days: 58 4.76 34.90 21.56 0.00 9.01
Page: 1 1/11/2011 12:33:41 PM Phase: Paving 3/1/2011 -5/20/2011 -Default Paving Description Acres to be Paved: 0.45 Off-Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at
a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating
at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55
load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase Assumptions Phase: Fine Grading 3/1/2011 -5/20/2011 -Default Fine Site
Grading Description Total Acres Disturbed: 1.8 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 0.45 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 20 lbs per acre-day Coating Worker Trips 0.00 0.01 0.14 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.10 Architectural Coating 12.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating 05/20/2011-08/20/2011 12.70 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 15.10 Building Worker Trips 0.10 0.18 3.20 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 334.97 Building Vendor Trips 0.17 2.43 1.61 0.00 0.02 0.09 0.11 0.01 0.08 0.09 535.02 Building
Off Road Diesel 1.11 8.51 4.68 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.54 0.00 0.50 0.50 893.39 Building 05/20/2011-08/20/2011 1.39 11.11 9.49 0.01 0.04 0.64 0.68 0.01 0.59 0.60 1,763.37 Time Slice 5/23/2011-8/19/2011
0.64 0.68 0.01 0.59 0.60 1,778.48 Active Days: 65 14.08 11.12 9.63 0.01 0.04 Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 101.99 Fine Grading On Road Diesel
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.83 23.44 11.96 0.00 0.00 1.17 1.17 0.00 1.08 1.08 2,247.32
Page: 1 1/11/2011 12:33:41 PM Area Source Changes to Defaults TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 0.29 0.81 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 966.44 Architectural Coatings 0.23 Consumer Products 0.00 Landscaping
-No Winter Emissions 966.44 Hearth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Natural Gas 0.06 0.81 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005
ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE
EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOx CO SO2 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp)
operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Architectural Coating 5/20/2011 -8/20/2011 -Default Architectural Coating Description Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins
1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load
factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 5/20/2011 -8/20/2011 -Default Building
Construction Description Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 4 hours per day
PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2 0.12 3,159.49 Construction Unmitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated ROG NOx
CO SO2 PM10 Dust TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 2.00 2.43 21.20 0.02 0.19 2,190.24 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS
(lbs/day, unmitigated) 1.59 1.60 18.97 0.02 0.18 0.11 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 0.41 0.83 2.23 0.00 0.01 0.01 969.25
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 2.57 4.47 5,294.59 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES CO2 2011 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 18.84 46.02 31.19 0.01 9.05 2.80 11.85 1.90 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5
Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Project Location: San Mateo County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary
Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 Page: 1 1/11/2011 12:33:03 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: Project Name:
Linden Bus Facility 2011 Construction and Area Source Emissions
Page: 1 1/11/2011 12:33:03 PM Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.00 9.00 1.88 0.00 1.88 0.00 Fine Grading 03/01/2011-1.17 10.18 1.88 1.08 2.96 2,349.30 05/20/2011 2.86 23.49
12.93 0.00 9.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.00 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.10 Architectural Coating 12.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating 05/20/2011-08/20/201
1 12.70 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.10 Building Worker Trips 0.10 0.18 3.20 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 334.97 Building Vendor Trips 0.17 2.43 1.61 0.00 0.02
0.09 0.11 0.01 0.08 0.09 535.02 Building Off Road Diesel 1.11 8.51 4.68 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.54 0.00 0.50 0.50 893.39 Building 05/20/2011-08/20/2011 1.39 11.11 9.49 0.01 0.04 0.64 0.68 0.01
0.59 0.60 1,763.37 Paving Worker Trips 0.05 0.09 1.71 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 178.48 Paving On Road Diesel 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.10 Paving Off
Road Diesel 1.83 11.26 6.91 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.98 0.00 0.90 0.90 979.23 Paving Off-Gas Gas 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt 03/01/2011-05/20/2011 1.90 11.40
8.63 0.00 0.01 0.98 0.99 0.00 0.90 0.91 1,166.81 Time Slice 5/20/2011-5/20/2011 2.80 11.85 1.90 2.57 4.47 5,294.59 Active Days: 1 18.84 46.02 31.19 0.01 9.05 Fine Grading Worker Trips
0.03 0.05 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 101.99 Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.83 23.44 11.96
0.00 0.00 1.17 1.17 0.00 1.08 1.08 2,247.32 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.00 9.00 1.88 0.00 1.88 0.00 Fine Grading 03/01/2011-1.17 10.18 1.88 1.08 2.96 2,349.30 05/20/2011
2.86 23.49 12.93 0.00 9.00 Paving Worker Trips 0.05 0.09 1.71 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 178.48 Paving On Road Diesel 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.10 Paving
Off Road Diesel 1.83 11.26 6.91 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.98 0.00 0.90 0.90 979.23 Paving Off-Gas 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt 03/01/2011-05/20/2011 1.90 11.40
8.63 0.00 0.01 0.98 0.99 0.00 0.90 0.91 1,166.81 Time Slice 3/1/2011-5/19/2011 Active 2.16 11.17 1.88 1.98 3.87 3,516.11 Days: 58 4.76 34.90 21.56 0.00 9.01
Page: 1 1/11/2011 12:33:03 PM Phase: Paving 3/1/2011 -5/20/2011 -Default Paving Description Acres to be Paved: 0.45 Off-Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at
a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating
at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55
load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase Assumptions Phase: Fine Grading 3/1/2011 -5/20/2011 -Default Fine Site
Grading Description Total Acres Disturbed: 1.8 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 0.45 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 20 lbs per acre-day Coating Worker Trips 0.00 0.01 0.14 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.10 Architectural Coating 12.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating 05/20/2011-08/20/2011 12.70 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 15.10 Building Worker Trips 0.10 0.18 3.20 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 334.97 Building Vendor Trips 0.17 2.43 1.61 0.00 0.02 0.09 0.11 0.01 0.08 0.09 535.02 Building
Off Road Diesel 1.11 8.51 4.68 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.54 0.00 0.50 0.50 893.39 Building 05/20/2011-08/20/2011 1.39 11.11 9.49 0.01 0.04 0.64 0.68 0.01 0.59 0.60 1,763.37 Time Slice 5/23/2011-8/19/2011
0.64 0.68 0.01 0.59 0.60 1,778.48 Active Days: 65 14.08 11.12 9.63 0.01 0.04 Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 101.99 Fine Grading On Road Diesel
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2.83 23.44 11.96 0.00 0.00 1.17 1.17 0.00 1.08 1.08 2,247.32
Page: 1 1/11/2011 12:33:03 PM Area Source Changes to Defaults TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 0.41 0.83 2.23 0.00 0.01 0.01 969.25 Architectural Coatings 0.23 0.01 2.81 Consumer Products
0.00 Landscape 0.12 0.02 1.55 0.00 0.01 966.44 Hearth -No Summer Emissions PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Natural Gas 0.06 0.81 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005
ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE
EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOx CO SO2 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp)
operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Architectural Coating 5/20/2011 -8/20/2011 -Default Architectural Coating Description Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins
1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load
factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 5/20/2011 -8/20/2011 -Default Building
Construction Description Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 4 hours per day
PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2 0.02 557.57 Construction Unmitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated ROG NOx CO
SO2 PM10 Dust TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.35 0.49 3.76 0.00 0.03 380.94 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS
(tons/year, unmitigated) 0.29 0.34 3.50 0.00 0.03 0.02 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.06 0.15 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00
176.63 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 0.08 0.13 162.42 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES CO2 2011 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 0.61 1.40 0.95 0.00 0.27 0.08 0.35 0.06 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10
PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Project Location: San Mateo County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 Page: 1 1/11/2011 12:33:51 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year) File Name: Project
Name: Linden Bus Facility 2011 Construction and Area Source Emissions
Page: 1 1/11/2011 12:33:51 PM On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day Phase Assumptions Phase: Fine Grading
3/1/2011 -5/20/2011 -Default Fine Site Grading Description Total Acres Disturbed: 1.8 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 0.45 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 20 lbs per acre-day
Coating Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 Architectural Coating 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating 05/20/2011-08/20/2011
0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 Building Worker Trips 0.00 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.05 Building Vendor Trips 0.01 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.66 Building Off Road Diesel 0.04 0.28 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 29.48 Building 05/20/2011-08/20/2011 0.05 0.37 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02
0.02 58.19 Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.01 Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fine Grading
Off Road Diesel 0.08 0.69 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 66.30 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.27 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.00 Fine Grading 03/01/2011-0.03 0.30 0.06
0.03 0.09 69.30 05/20/2011 0.08 0.69 0.38 0.00 0.27 Paving Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.27 Paving On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 Paving Off Road Diesel 0.05 0.33 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 28.89 Paving Off-Gas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt 03/01/2011-05/20/2011
0.06 0.34 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 34.42 2011 0.61 1.40 0.95 0.00 0.27 0.08 0.35 0.06 0.08 0.13 162.42
Page: 1 1/11/2011 12:33:51 PM Landscape 0.01 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 176.38 Hearth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Natural Gas 0.01 0.15 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rule:
Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated Source ROG NOx CO SO2 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for
6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Architectural Coating 5/20/2011 -8/20/2011 -Default Architectural Coating
Description Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a
VOC of 250 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day Phase: Building
Construction 5/20/2011 -8/20/2011 -Default Building Construction Description Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 4 hours per
day Phase: Paving 3/1/2011 -5/20/2011 -Default Paving Description Acres to be Paved: 0.45 Off-Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6
hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
(108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
Page: 1 1/11/2011 12:33:51 PM Area Source Changes to Defaults TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.06 0.15 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 176.63 Architectural Coatings 0.04 Consumer Products 0.00
Summary Results Project Name: Linden Bus Facility 2011 Construction and Area Source Emissions Project and Baseline Years: 2012 N/A Results Transportation: 352.23 352.23 Area Source:
0.23 0.23 Electricity: 110.25 110.25 Natural Gas: 8.99 8.99 Water & Wastewater: 1.24 1.24 Solid Waste: 27.60 27.60 Agriculture: 0.00 0.00 Off-Road Equipment: 241.43 241.43 Refrigerants:
0.00 0.00 Sequestration: N/A 0.00 Purchase of Offsets: N/A 0.00 Total: 741.97 741.97 Baseline is currently: OFF Baseline Project Name: Go to Settings Tab to Turn On Baseline Unmitigated
Project-Baseline CO2e (metric tons/year) Mitigated Project-Baseline CO2e (metric tons/year) 352.23 0.23 110.25 8.99 1.24 27.60 0.00 241.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 352.23 0.23 110.25 8.99 1.24
27.60 0.00 241.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00 350.00 400.00 Transportation: Area Source: Electricity: Natural Gas: Water & Wastewater: Solid Waste: Agriculture:
Off-Road Equipment: Refrigerants: Sequestration: Purchase of Offsets: Project-Baseline CO2e CO2e (metric tons/year) Unmitigated Mitigated
Unmitigated CO2 (metric tpy) CH4 (metric tpy) N2O (metric tpy) CO2e (metric tpy) % of Total Baseline CO2 (metric tpy) CH4 (metric tpy) N2O (metric tpy) CO2e (metric tpy) % of Total Transportation*:
352.23 47.47% Transportation*: 0.00 N/A Area Source: 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.03% Area Source: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A Electricity: 110.08 0.00 0.00 110.25 14.86% Electricity: 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 N/A Natural Gas: 8.97 0.00 0.00 8.99 1.21% Natural Gas: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A Water & Wastewater: 1.23 0.00 0.00 1.24 0.17% Water & Wastewater: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A Solid
Waste: 0.20 1.30 N/A 27.60 3.72% Solid Waste: 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A Agriculture: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Agriculture: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A Off-Road Equipment: 239.23 0.01 0.01
241.43 32.54% Off-Road Equipment: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A Refrigerants: N/A N/A N/A 0.00 0.00% Refrigerants: N/A N/A N/A 0.00 N/A Sequestration: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Sequestration: N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A Purchase of Offsets: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Purchase of Offsets: N/A N/A N/A A N/A N/A Total: 741.97 100.00% Total: 0.00 0.00% * Several adjustments were made to transportation
emissions after they have been imported from URBEMIS. After importing from URBEMIS, CO2 emissions are converted to metric tons and then adjusted to account for the "Pavley" regulation.
Then, CO2 is converted to CO2e by multiplying by 100/95 to account for the contribution of other GHGs (CH4, N2O, and HFCs [from leaking air conditioners]). Finally, CO2e is adjusted
to account for th low carbon fuels rule. Detailed Results
Mitigated CO2 (metric tpy) CH4 (metric tpy) N2O (metric tpy) CO2e (metric tpy) % of Total Transportation*: 352.23 47.47% Area Source: 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.03% Electricity: 110.08 0.00
0.00 110.25 14.86% Natural Gas: 8.97 0.00 0.00 8.99 1.21% Water & Wastewater: 1.23 0.00 0.00 1.24 0.17% Solid Waste: 0.20 1.30 N/A 27.60 3.72% Agriculture: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Off-Road Equipment: 239.23 0.01 0.01 241.43 32.54% Refrigerants: N/A N/A N/A 0.00 0.00% Sequestration: N/A N/A N/A 0.00 0.00% Purchase of Offsets: N/A N/A N/A 0.00 0.00% Total: 741.97
100.00%
Mitigation Measures Selected: Transportation: Go to the following tab: Transp. Detail Mit for a list of the transportation mitigation measures selected (in URBEMIS) Electricity: The
following mitigation measure(s) have been selected to reduce electricity emissions. Natural Gas: The following mitigation measure(s) have been selected to reduce natural gas emissions.
Water and Wastewater: The following mitigation measure(s) have been selected to reduce water and wastewater emissions. Solid Waste: The following mitigation measure has been selected
to reduce solid waste related GHG emissions. Ag: No existing mitigation measures available. Off-Road Equipment: No existing mitigation measures available. Refrigerants: The following
mitigation measure has ben selected to reduce refrigerant emissions: Carbon Sequestration: Project does not include carbon sequestration through tree planting. Emission Offsets/Credits:
Project does not include purchase of emission offsets/credits.