Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2016-09-28 e-packet@7:00
City of South San Francisco P.O. BOX 711 South San Francisco, CA Regular Meeting Agenda Wednesday, September 28, 2016 7:00 PM Municipal Services Building, Council Chambers 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA City Council City Council Regular Meeting Agenda September 28, 2016 PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting Council business, we proceed as follows: The regular meetings of the City Council are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Council Chambers, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. The City Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes reading an item, it will be ready for Council action. MARK ADDIEGO, Mayor PRADEEP GUPTA, Vice Mayor KARYL MATSUMOTO, Councilwoman RICHARD A. GARBARINO, Councilman LIZA NORMANDY, Councilwoman FRANK RISSO, City Treasurer KRISTA MARTINELLI, City Clerk MIKE FUTRELL, City Manager JASON ROSENBERG, City Attorney PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES AND PAGERS HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING IMPAIRED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS In accordance with California Government Code Section 54957.5, any writing or document that is a public record, relates to an open session agenda item, and is distributed less than 72 hours prior to a regular meeting will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk's Office located at City Hall. If, however, the document or writing is not distributed until the regular meeting to which it relates, then the document or writing will be made available to the public at the location of the meeting, as listed on this agenda. The address of City Hall is 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080. City of South San Francisco Page 2 Printed on 10/1412016 City Council CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AGENDA REVIEW PRESENTATIONS Regular Meeting Agenda 1. Presentation of New Emplo.. eMich Mercado, HR Manager) 2. Proclamation establishing October as Fire Prevention Month accepted by Marshal Luis Da Silva. (Mark Addiego, Mayor September 28, 2016 3. Certificate of Recognition honoring employee Yvonne Anderson for her years of service and dedication to the Parks and Recreation Department. (Mark Addiego, Mayor) 4. Presentation recognizing Brian McMinn, Public Work Director, and his service to the City of South San Francisco. (Mike Futrell, City Manager) PUBLIC COMMENTS COUNCIL COMMENTS/REQUESTS City of South San Francisco Page 3 Printed on 10/1412016 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda September 28, 2016 PUBLIC HEARING 5. 5a. 6a. 6b. 6c. Report regarding Public Hearing on the 2015 -2016 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report for the Community Development Block Grant Program and Resolution Approving the 2015 -2016 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report and Authorizing its submittal to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. (Weiser Manzano, Community Development Coordinator) Resolution approving the 2015 -2016 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report for the Community Development Block Grant Program and authorizing its submittal to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. Report regarding consideration of the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve an Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration, Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map Amendment to rezone three vacant parcels (APN 015- 114 -420, APN 015- 114 -480, and APN 015- 114 -490) from Freeway Commercial (FC) Zoning District to Mixed Industrial (MI) Zoning District, and modify an existing Minor Use Permit (MUP15 -0001) to allow the operation of a vehicle rental facility at 1440 San Mateo Avenue in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. (Tony Rozzi, Senior Planner) Resolution approving the Initial Stud.. /gated Negative Declaration (ND 16 -0001) prepared for the Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment (RZ15 -0001, ZA15 -0011 at 1440 San Mateo Avenue. An Ordinance amending the South San Francisco Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance to rezone three vacant parcels (APN 015- 114 -420, APN 015- 114 -480, and APN 015- 114 -490) from the Freeway Commercial to the Mixed Industrial zoning district to allow the expansion of a vehicle rental facilitv at 1440 San Mateo Avenue. Resolution modifying the existing Minor Use Permit (MUP15 -0001) to allow an expanded vehicle rental operation at 1440 San Mateo Avenue subject to the draft revised conditions of approval. LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS 7. Report reizardiniz an ordinance repealiniz Section 11.40.240 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, pertaining to parking vehicles for sale. (Master Sergeant Michael Rudis, Police Department) 7a. An Ordinance repealing Section 11.40.240 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, pertaining to o the parking of vehicles for sale. City of South San Francisco Page 4 Printed on 10/1412016 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda September 28, 2016 CONSENT CALENDAR 8. 9. 10. 11. 11 a. 12. 12a. 13. 13a. Motion to approve the minutes from the meetings of August 24, 2016. Motion confirming payment registers for September 28, 2016. (Richard Lee, Finance Director Confirmation of Mayor's Appointment of Employee Representative Adena Friedman to South San Francisco Oversight Board. (Mike Futrell, City Manager Report regarding a resolution authorizing the acceptance of $286,619.39 in rg ant funding from the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, Social Innovation Fund and County of San Mateo Measure A Sales Tax funds for the second year of the Big Lift Little Steps Preschool at the Community Learning Center and amending the Parks and Recreation Department operating budget for fiscal year 2016/17. (Sharon Ranals, Director of Parks and Recreation) Resolution approving the acceptance of $286,619.39 in grant funding from the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, Social Innovation Fund and County of San Mateo Measure A Sales Tax funds for the second vear of the Bia Lift Little Steps Preschool at the Community Learning Center and amending the Parks and Recreation Department operating budget for fiscal year 2016/17. Report regarding a motion to accept the 2015 Street Rehabilitation Project as complete in accordance with the plans and specifications, total construction cost $1,752,789.17. (Robert Hahn, Senior Associate Civil Engineer and Sam Bautista, Principal Engineer) Motion to accept the 2015 Street Rehabilitation Project as complete in accordance with the plans and specifications, total construction cost $1,752,789.17. Report regarding a Resolution approving the Art Purchase Agreement with artist Pokey Park for the purchase of the Electric Slide sculpture in the amount of $8,000 and authorizing the he City Manager to execute said Agreement. (,Sharon Ranals, Director of Parks and Recreation) Resolution approving the Art Purchase Agreement with artist Pokey Park for the purchase of the Electric Slide sculpture in the amount of $8,000 and authorizing the City Manager to execute said Agreement. City of South San Francisco Page 5 Printed on 10/1412016 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda September 28, 2016 14. 14a. 15. 15a. 16. 16a. 17. 17a. 18. Report re ag rding an Ordinance adopting the Second Amendment to the Development Agreement between Alexandria Real Estate Equities, LLC (ARE) -San Francisco No. 12, LLC, ARE -San Francisco No. 44, LLC, and ARE -San Francisco No. 46, LLC, and the City of South San Francisco to allow for a two -year extension of the Development Agreement for the previously entitled Office /R &D Project at 249 - 289 East Grand Avenue in the Business Technology Park (BTP) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 19.60 & 20.110. (Sailesh Mehra, Planning Manager) An Ordinance adopting the Second Amendment to the Development Agreement for the Office/R &D Campus at 249 - 289 East Grand Avenue. Report regarding an Ordinance amending section 2.16.010 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code regarding the Dates Designated for Municipal Elections within the City, in order to consolidate municipal elections with statewide elections, as required by Senate Bill 415. (Jason Rosenberg, City Attorney) An Ordinance amending section 2.16.010 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code regarding the Dates Designated for Municipal Elections within the City, in order to consolidate municipal elections with statewide elections, as required by Senate Bill 415. Report regarding a resolution authorizing the acceptance of $10,000 in grant funding from the San Mateo County Office of Education to continue the Safe Routes to School Program in the Parks and Recreation Department Childcare Program and amending the Parks and Recreation Department 2016/17 operating budget. (Sharon Ranals, Director of Parks and Recreation) Resolution authorizing the acceptance of $10,000 in grant funding from the San Mateo County Office of Education to continue the Safe Routes to School Program the Parks and Recreation Department Childcare Program and amending the Parks and Recreation Department 2016/17 operating budget. Report regarding _ a Motion to accept the Local Agency Biennial Notice for 2016 pursuant to the California Political Reform Act as regulated by the Fair Political Practices Commission and issued by the City Clerk. (Krista Martinelli, Cites) Motion to accept the Local Agency Biennial Notice for 2016 as issued by the City Clerk on September 28, 2016. (Krista Martinelli, Cites) Acknowledgment of Proclamation issued recognizing Bay Day. (Sharon Ranals, Director of Parks and Recreation) ITEMS FROM COUNCIL — COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS City of South San Francisco Page 6 Printed on 10/1412016 City Council ADJOURNMENT Regular Meeting Agenda September 28, 2016 City of South San Francisco Page 7 Printed on 10/1412016 P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 • City of South San Francisco Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA Legislation Text File #: 16 -605, Version: 1 Presentation of New Employees. (Mich Mercado, HR Manager) City of South San Francisco Page 1 of 1 Printed on 9/23/2016 powered by LegistarTM P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 • City of South San Francisco Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA Legislation Text File #: 16 -539, Version: 1 Proclamation establishing October as Fire Prevention Month accepted by Fire Marshal Luis Da Silva. (Mark Addiego, Mayor) City of South San Francisco Page 1 of 1 Printed on 9/22/2016 powered by LegistarTM FIRE PREVENTION MONTH WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco is committed to ensuring the safety and security of all those living, working and visiting our City; and WHEREAS, fire is a serious public safety concern both locally and nationally, and homes are where people are at greatest risk from fire; and WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco first responders are dedicated to reducing the occurrence of home fires and home fire injuries through prevention and education; and WHEREAS, residents are responsive to public education measures and are able to take personal steps to increase their safety from fire; and WHEREAS, residents who have planned and practiced a home fire escape plan are more prepared and therefore more likely to survive afire; and WHEREAS, the 2016 Fire Prevention Month theme, "Don't Wait — Check the Date! Replace Smoke Alarms Every 10 Years, " effectively serves to remind us of the simple actions we can take to stay safe from fire during Fire Prevention Month and year - round; and WHEREAS, the focus on smoke alarm replacement comes as the result of a recent national survey, which showed that only a small percentage of people know how old their smoke alarms are or how often they need to be replaced; and WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco urges all people of the City of South San Francisco to heed the important safety messages of Fire Prevention Month 2016, and to support the many public safety activities and efforts of the South San Francisco Fire Department. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby recognize proclaim October as "Fire Prevention Week" Mark Addiego, Mayor Pradeep Gupta, Vice Mayor Karyl Matsumoto, Councilmember Richard Garbarino, Councilmember Liza Normandy, Councilmember Dated: September 28, 2016 P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 • City of South San Francisco Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA Legislation Text File #: 16 -694, Version: 1 Certificate of Recognition honoring employee Yvonne Anderson for her years of service and dedication to the Parks and Recreation Department. (Mark Addiego, Mayor) City of South San Francisco Page 1 of 1 Printed on 9/22/2016 powered by LegistarTM =I - C_0 0 0 .�. �� trrN►, � 1 i i - ■ ■�� i i ■ ■ ■■ ■i ■ ■ 111 o�Sx SANS ,:..... llm CIO QW c�lIFOR�1� CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Certificate of Recognition This certificate is issued to Yvonne Anderson Honoring her 18 years of service and dedication to the Parks and Recreation Department, Aquatics Division. Presented 28th of September, 2016 by the City Council of South San Francisco. Mark Addiego, Mayor Pradeep Gupta, Vice Mayor Karyl Matsumoto, Councilmember Richard Garbarino, Councilmember Liza Normandy, Councilmember P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 • City of South San Francisco Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA Legislation Text File #: 16 -814, Version: 1 Presentation recognizing Brian McMinn, Public Work Director, and his service to the City of South San Francisco. (Mike Futrell, City Manager) City of South San Francisco Page 1 of 1 Printed on 9/23/2016 powered by LegistarTM P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 • City of South San Francisco Grand Avenue) - South San Francisco, CA Legislation Text File #: 16 -702, Version: 1 Report regarding Public Hearing on the 2015 -2016 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report for the Community Development Block Grant Program and Resolution Approving the 2015 -2016 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report and Authorizing its submittal to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. (Weiser Manzano, Community Development Coordinator) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council hold a public hearing on the Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 -2016 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program and adopt a resolution approving the FY15 -16 CAPER and authorizing its submittal to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). BACKGROUND /DISCUS SION All communities that receive CDBG funds are required to submit a year -end CAPER (Attachment 1). The CAPER describes how CDBG- funded activities addressed the City's housing and community development needs and compares its accomplishments to the goals the City set in the FY15 -16 Annual Action Plan (AAP). The CAPER also provides a comprehensive accounting of all CDBG funds allocated, expended, and/or reprogrammed during FYI 5 -16. Pursuant to the CDBG regulations, the City must provide a 15 -day public comment period and a public hearing on the CAPER, prior to submitting it to HUD. The CAPER has been made available for public review in the Economic & Community Development Department, the City's public libraries, and on the City's website since September 7, 2016, and a public notice was published in the San Mateo County Times on September 7, 2016. Any comments received during the comment period or at the public hearing will be incorporated into the CAPER. In FYI 5-16, the City received a CDBG entitlement grant of $415,864. Combining the entitlement amount with an estimated $35,000 in FY15 -16 program income and $226,000 in uncommitted funds from prior years, the City budgeted $676,864 in the FYI 5-16 AAP. The City also supplemented CDBG funds by spending $8,762 in HOME administration funds received from the San Mateo County HOME Consortium for fair housing activities. At the end of the fiscal year, the City utilized a total of nearly $400,000 in CDBG funding towards serving the community. See Attachment 2 for the full FYI 5-16 Financial Summary. This year, the City used CDBG funds to support affordable housing, public services and economic development. Over 1,000 individuals were served through the City's public service programs, 36 households were served through the City's housing rehabilitation programs, and four right -of -way projects were City of South San Francisco Page 1 of 2 Printed on 9/22/2016 powered by LegistarTM File #: 16 -702, Version: 1 implemented in areas of need, see Attachment 3 for further details. Attachment 4 will be used to present to City Council. CONCLUSION It is recommended that the City Council hold a public hearing on the FYI 5-16 CAPER for the CDBG Program and adopt a resolution approving the FYI 5 -16 CAPER and authorizing its submittal to HUD. Attachments: 1. FY15 -16 CAPER 2. FYI 5-16 Financial Summary 3. FY15 -16 Community Served 4. FYI 5-16 CAPER City Council Presentation City of South San Francisco Page 2 of 2 Printed on 9/22/2016 powered by Legistarl" onsol*idated nnual erformance and valuation eport jolod raw This page is left intentionally blank TABLE OF CONTENTS ExecutiveSummary ........................................................................................................................ .............................iv CR -05 - Goals and Outcomes ..................................................................................................... ..............................A CR -10 - Racial and Ethnic Composition ................................................................................... ............................... 7 CR -15 - Resources and Investments ......................................................................................... ............................... 8 CR -20 - Affordable Housing 91.520(b) ..................................................................................... .............................11 CR -25 - Homeless and Other Special Needs 91.220 (d, e); 91.320(d, e); 91: 520( c) ........ .............................14 CR -30 - Public Housing 91.220(h); 91. 3200) ............................................................................ .............................19 CR -35 - Other Actions 91.2200) -(k); 91. 32( i)- 0) ...................................................................... .............................20 CR -40 - Monitoring 91.220 and 91. 230 .................................................................................... .............................26 CR -45 - CDBG 91.520(c) .............................................................................................................. .............................28 AttachmentA: PR -26 Report ...................................................................................................... .............................29 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) is a year -end performance report for grantees to report on activities assisted through the US Department of Housing & Urban Development's (HUD) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. In utilizing these funds, HUD requires that the City of South San Francisco (City) assists the extremely low, very low, and low - income persons by: 1. Providing decent and affordable housing; 2. Providing a suitable living environment; and 3. Expanding economic opportunities Submitted and approved by HUD, the City's Annual Action Plan (AAP) for FY2015 -2016 identified the following goals to further HUD's program goals: Affordable Housing. Increase, maintain, and improve the supply of housing rehabilitation and minor home repair /accessibility modification programs Public Services. Provide public services to improve the quality of life for low- income individuals and families, including those at risk of becoming homeless and special needs populations Economic Development. Sustain and /or increase the level of business and economic activity in areas that serve or have a high percentage of low- income residents Homeless Services and Housing. Provide service- enriched shelter and housing for homeless families and individuals. With these goals serving as a catalyst, the City has worked diligently to make progress towards these goals in FY2015 -2016. In total, over one thousand City residents have benefited from the use of the City's CDBG entitlement. With a history of utilizing these funds to better the quality of life for the City's residents, the CDBG program continues to be of vital importance in addressing the needs of the community. IV CAPER I FY2015 -2016 CR -05 - GOALS AND OUTCOMES Progress the jurisdiction has made in carrying out its strategic plan and its action plan. 91.520(a) The FY2015 -2016 CAPER describes how the City addressed the issues around housing, economic, and community development needs during FY2015 -2016. Listed below is a brief overview of the City's accomplishments for the year. Housing City- sponsored Housing Rehab Program. The City issued two Debris Box Vouchers, one loan, and zero Emergency Home Repair Vouchers. Although only one loan was issued, five applications were processed. ►• i Pictured above is a 30 -yard debris box Minor Home Repair Programs Center for Independence of Individuals with Disabilities (CID). The City used CDBG funds to support CID's Housing Accessibility Modification (HAM) Program which provided accessibility modifications to five households; Rebuilding Together Peninsula (RTP). The City used CDBG funds to support two RTP programs, National Rebuilding Day and Safe at Home, which served nineteen households in total; El Concilio. The City used CDBG funds to support El Concilio's Peninsula Minor Home Repair Program with a total of nine households. Economic Development & Housing Division Public Services Table 1: CDBG Funds Sub Recipient Individuals Served Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse (CORA) 3 Legal Aid Society of Homesavers 307 Health Mobile 115 John's Closet 89 Rape Trauma Services 44 StarVista - Transitional Housing Placement Plus 20 Samaritan House - Safe Harbor 325 PARCA - Family Support Services 134 Human Investment Pro (HIP) - Home Sharing Program 17 Subtotal 1,054 Table 2: Fair Housing (HOME Admin Fund) Sub Recipient Individuals Served Project Sentinel 8 Subtotal 8 Economic Development - Public Right of Way Improvements Projects Trash receptacles. The City replaced the existing and dated trash receptacles with 28 new dual stream (i.e. trash & recycling) receptacles; Welcome Banners. The City procured 85 banners to be featured on lampposts in the Downtown Area; Customized Bike Racks. The City installed 44 customized bike racks to serve as both a bike rack and public art installation and; Francisco Terrace Playlot. The City replaced Francisco Terrace's flood - vulnerable woodchip surface with all- accessibility rubber flooring (images below). hL i k il Ak Francisco Terrace Park and the Tot Lot resurfaced with all- accessibility rubber flooring 2 CAPER I FY2015 -2016 Comparison of the proposed versus actual outcomes for each outcome measure submitted with the consolidated plan and explain, if applicable, why progress was not made toward meeting goals and objectives. 91.520(g) Table 3: Accomplishments — Program Year & Strategic Plan to Date Goal Category Source/ Indicator Unit of Expected 5 Actual Percent Expected Actual Percent Amount Measure Year 5 Year Complete 15 -16 15 -16 Complete Strategic Strategic Program Program Plan plan Year Year Rental Units Rehabilitated 0 18 - 0 2 - Increase, Maintain, Homeowner Housing 125 95 76% 40 29 73% & Improve Affordable CDBG: Rehabilitated Household Affordable Housing $157,000 Housing Unit Housing for Homeless Added 0 0 - 0 0 - Housing Housing for People with HIV /AIDS Added 0 0 - 0 0 - Preserve and Public Facility or Infrastructure Public Facility Improve Public CDBG: Activities other than Low /Mod Other 5 2 40% 0 0 - Facilities Improvements Inc. Housing Benefit Provide Public Public Service Activities other Services to Non - Housing CDBG: than Low /Moderate Income Persons 5,000 2,171 43% 585 726 125% Improve Quality of Community $50,500 Housing Benefit Assisted Development Life Homelessness Prevention 0 651 0 325 Provide Service- Persons Enriched Homeless CDBG: Homeless Person Overnight Assisted 0 521 69 328 475% $19,250 Shelter Homeless Shelters Public Facility or Infrastructure Non - Housing CDBG: Activities other than Other 0 4 3 4 133% Sustain and /or Community $359,500 Low /Moderate Income Housing Increase Economic Development Benefit General Activity Economic Development Fund: Facade Treatment /Business Businesses 5 19 380% 4 4 100% $200,000 Building Rehabilitation Assisted Economic Development & Housing Division This page is left intentionally blank CAPER I FY2015 -2016 Assess how the jurisdiction's use of funds, particularly CDBG, addresses the priorities and specific objectives identified in the plan, giving special attention to the highest priority activities identified. The City's FY2015 -2016 AAP identified four primary needs in the community and set goals to meet those needs. This year, the City made tremendous efforts to implement activities and expend CDBG funds to meet these goals. Need. Affordable Housing Goal. Increase, maintain, and improve the supply of affordable housing for low to moderate income individuals and families. Activities Implemented. The City was able to rehabilitate and maintain a total of 41 homes this year. See Section CR -20 - Affordable Housing for more information. Need. Public Service Goal. Provide public services to improve the quality of life for low- income individuals and families, including those at risk of becoming homeless and special needs populations. Activities Implemented. Below is a table that shows the individuals served through Public Service activities: Table 1: CDBG Funds Sub Recipient Individuals Served Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse (CORA) 3 Legal Aid Society of Homesavers 307 Health Mobile 115 John's Closet 89 Rape Trauma Services 44 StarVista - Transitional Housing Placement Plus 20 Samaritan House - Safe Harbor 325 PARCA - Family Support Services 134 Human Investment Pro (HIP) - Home Sharing Program 17 Subtotal 1,054 Need. Economic Development Goal. Sustain and /or increase the level of business and economic activity in areas that serve or have a high percentage of low- income residents. Activities In FY2015 -2016, the City undertook public Right of Way (ROW) improvement projects that improved the look and feel of the Downtown. The specific projects included replacing the existing and dated trash receptacles with 28 new dual stream (i.e. trash & recycling) receptacles, procuring 85 banners to be featured on lampposts in the Downtown Area, and installing 44 customized bike racks to serve as both a bike rack and public art installation. Need. Homeless services and housing Goal. Provide service - enriched shelter and housing for homeless families and individuals. 5 Economic Development & Housing Division Activities Implemented. Funding for homeless services and housing was implemented under the public service category to Samaritan House and CORA. Combined, 66 Homeless Persons were served in an overnight shelter. See Section CR25 — Homeless and Other Special Needs for more information. Cei CAPER I FY2015 -2016 CR -10 - RACIAL AND ETHNIC COMPOSITION Describe the families assisted (including the racial and ethnic status of families assisted). 91.520(a) Table 4: Table of Assistance to Racial and Ethnic Populations by Source of Funds Ethnicity CDBG White 996 Black or African American 124 Asian 156 American Indian or American Native 18 American Indian/White 28 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 37 Asian & White 1 Black /African American & White 4 American Indian /Black or African American 5 Other 131 Total 1,059 Hispanic 441 Not Hispanic 618 Narrative Table 4 only provides racial /ethnic data for those served under the public services category; data from other categories such as housing rehabilitation is not included. 7 Economic Development & Housing Division CR -15 - RESOURCES AND INVESTMENTS Identify the resources made available Table 5: Resources Made Available Source of Funds Source CDBG Other HOME Administrative Funds Resources Made Amount Expended Available During Program Year $415,864 $389,760.57 $8,762 $8,762 Narrative In FY2015 -2016, the City received a CDBG entitlement grant of $415,864. Combining the entitlement amount with $35,000 in FY2015 -2016 program income and $226,000 in uncommitted funds from prior years, the City spent a total of $389,760 in CDBG funds for FY2015 -2016. The City also supplemented CDBG funds by spending $8,762 in HOME administration funds received from the San Mateo County HOME Consortium for fair housing activities. It is important to note that the City received an unforeseeable amount of program income from loan repayments through FY2015 -2016 in the amount of $179,230. Identify the geographic distribution and location of investments Table 6: Identify the Geographic Distribution and Location of Investments Target Area SSF Downtown Tracts 6021 and 6022 Planned Percentage of Allocation 53% Actual Percentage of Allocation 39% Narrative Description See below Narrative The Downtown census tracts of 6021 and 6022 are predominately low- income areas that the City has identified as a local target area. CAPER I FY2O15 -2016 Table 5: FY15 -16 Financial Summary Revenue Type Program Name Program Mid -Year Budget Budget Expenses Balance Allocation Income Adjustments Administration CDBG Administration $90,172 - - $90,172 $93,393' Minor Home Repair CID $10,000 - - $10,000 $10,000 El Concilio $10,000 - - $10,000 $10,000 - Rebuilding Together - NRD $12,000 - - $12,000 $7,401 $4,600 Rebuilding Together - SAH $25,000 - - $25,000 $23,460 $1,541 Subtotal $57,000 - - $57,000 $50,861 $6,141 Public Services CORA $9,250 - - $9,250 $9,250 - Health Mobile $9,250 - - $9,250 $9,250 - HIP Housing $9,250 - - $9,250 $9,250 - John's Closet $4,750 - - $4,750 $4,750 - Legal Aid Society $5,000 - - $5,000 $5,000 - PARCA $6,500 - - $6,500 $6,496 $4 Rape Trauma Services $9,250 - - $9,250 $9,246 $4 Samaritan House $10,000 - - $10,000 $10,000 - StarVista $6,500 - - $6,500 $6,500 - Subtotal $69,750 - - $69,750 $69,742 $8 City- Sponsored Activities City- Sponsored Housing Rehab $100,000 - - $100,000 $36,745 $63,255 Program Fa4ade Improvement Program $200,000 - - $200,000 $144,0003 $56,000 Right of Way Improvements $159,500 - - $159,500 $118,487 $41,013 Subtotal $459,500 - - $459,500 $299,232 $160,268 Program Income Received Loan Repayments - $179,2302 - - - - Total CDBG $676,422 $179,230 - $676,422 $513,228 $166,417 Fair Housing Activities Project Sentinel $8,762 - - $8,762 $8,762 - Total Funds (All Sources) $685,184 - - $8,762 $8,762 ' -2 It is important to note that the City did not exceed the allowable budget. Additional funds from the payment of past loans allowed the City to increase the Administration budget. These loan payments were unforeseeable when crafting the initial budget during the AAP phase. 3These Fagade Improvement Program expenses are committed dollars. We Economic Development & Housing Division Leveraging. Explain how federal funds leveraged additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements were satisfied, as well as how any publicly owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that were used to address the needs identified in the plan. The non - profit organizations that received CDBG funding leveraged their CDBG grants with their own funding from foundations, state and county grants, private donors, corporations, in -kind donors, and /or fees for service. Overall the non - profits were able to leverage nearly $4.5 million dollars (see Table 7 below). Table 7: FYI 5-16 Leverage Funds Organization CDBG Federal State Local Private Other Total Funds CID $126,756 - - - - - $126,765 CORA $49,670 - $587,859 - $117,500 $39,124 $794,153 El Concilio $100,282 - - - $34,000 $62,000 $196,282 Health Mobile $9,250 - - - - - $9,250 HIP Housing $108,290 - - - $63,178 $375,436 $546,904 John's Closet $9,750 - - - $30,000 $10,000 $49,570 Legal Aid Society $54,325 - $45,930 - $139,745 - $240,000 PARCA $6,500 - - - - $8,800 $15,300 Project Sentinel $8,762 $743 - - - - $9,505 Rape Trauma $39,227 $220,000 $30,000 $49,000 $10,000 - $348,227 Services Rebuilding $86,400 - - - $55,000 $5,000 $146,400 Together - NRD Rebuilding $173,485 - - $35,000 $205,505 - $413,990 Together - SAH Samaritan House $65,477 $87,602 - $996,065 $53,981 $2,865 $1,205,990 StarVista $6,500 - - - $21,000 $302,591 $330,091 Total Funds $844,674 $308,345 $663,789 $1,080,065 $729,909 $805,816 $4,432,427 Need. Affordable Housing Property. Ten City -owned housing units are rented to low income individuals /families at affordable rates; this also includes five units that were rented, until May 2015, to San Mateo County for the Emancipated Foster Youth Program. Need. Public Services Property. The City owns and operates the Community Learning Center, two public libraries, the Magnolia Senior Center, and two preschools, all of which provide an array of public services. Additionally, the City rents commercial space to the Sitike Counselling Center and the South San Francisco Medical Clinic both of which provide services to low- income residents. 10 CAPER I FY2015 -2016 CR -20 - AFFORDABLE HOUSING 91.520(b) Evaluation of the jurisdiction's progress in providing affordable housing, including the number and types of families served, the number of extremely low- income, low- income, moderate - income, and middle- income persons served. Table 8a - Number of Households One -Year Goal Actual Number of homeless households to be provided 0 0 affordable housing units Number of non - homeless households to be 0 0 provided affordable housing units Number of special -needs households to be 0 0 provided affordable housing units Total 0 0 Table 8b - Number of Households Supported One -Year Goal Actual Number of households supported through rental 0 0 assistance Number of households supported through the 0 0 production of new units Number of households supported through the 40 41 rehab of existing units Number of households supported through the 0 0 acquisition of existing units Total 40 41 Discuss the difference between goals and outcomes and problems encountered in meeting these goals. This year, the City served 41 households through the following housing rehabilitation programs /projects: Center for Independence of Individuals with Disabilities (CID) Housing Accessibility Modification (HAM) Program, El Concilio's Peninsula Minor Home Repair Program, the City- Sponsored Housing Rehabilitation Program, and both the Rebuilding Together Peninsula's (RTP) Safe at Home and National Rebuilding Day programs. 11 Economic Development & Housing Division CID - HAM Program CID was able to provide accessibility modifications to five low- income households. However, the organization only met 63 percent of its proposed goals (an improvement from last year's 44 percent). This year, CID faced a number of challenges in meeting its goals. CID explained that the biggest cause for the unmet goals was running out of funds in the second quarter due to the high cost of stair lifts and ramps. Ell Concilio's Peninsula Minor Home Repair Program Under Peninsula Minor Home Repair, El Concilio interviewed, enrolled and assessed nine residents in the City of South San Francisco. El Concilio missed their goal of ten clients for FY2015 by one. In addition to this, 78 families received energy /water education and installation of retrofit measures to conserve energy and water through other programs. This assisted these families in conserving energy and water, lowering utility /water bills and yielding savings for other critical needs. Lastly, El Concilio provided outreach at over 21 community events to promote program. City- Sponsored Housing Rehabilitation Program The City issued one loan, and two Debris Box Vouchers. A total of 3 clients were served, meeting the FY2015 goal. RTP — Safe at Home Program RTP fell short of its FY2015 goal. RTP served 7 clients of the sixteen proposed. This is attributed to their Outreach Coordinator resigning during the year. Six of the homeowners fall into the extremely low or very low- income category. RTP - National Rebuilding Day National Rebuilding Day is completed annually in April where approximately 3,000 volunteers give their time and skills to help neighbors live more independently in safer, cleaner, and healthier environments. RTP met its goals and served three South San Francisco households as part of National Rebuilding Day. Discuss how these outcomes will impact future annual action plans. Of the City's Housing Rehab activities, the City's Housing Rehabilitation Program and RTP's National Rebuilding Day Program met their proposed goals for FY2015 -2016. Due to varying reasons, CID, El Concilio, and RTP's Safe at Home Programs fell short of their goals. In recent years, CID has been unable to meet performance goals. The cost of stair lifts and ramps are far more expensive than grab -bars. Because stair lifts and ramps are more valuable to a potential client, CID has found themselves serving less households. Lastly, a constant challenge is finding a reliable and licensed contractor who is willing to work for minimal profit. CID provides a much needed service to City's community that is difficult to replicate. CID is able to provide an occupational therapist that assesses the accessibility of each client's home and provide accessibility modifications tailored to each client's needs. Due to the unique service CID provides, the City, in collaboration with the other jurisdictions, will continue to provide guidance to CID staff to help identify outreach opportunities and areas of improvement, and to monitor CID on a regular basis until the organization is performing at an adequate level. 12 CAPER I FY2015 -2016 El Concilio missed their goal by only one household. While the goal was missed by only one, it is important to note that although the income threshold for Energy Savings Assistance is low, the required documentation of bank statements going back six months has been difficult for customers to accept and follow through with. Even so, El Concilio was able to provide outreach, interviews, and enroll /assess over 150 households in South San Francisco. On top of that, 78 families received energy /water education and installation of retrofit measures to conserve energy and water through other programs. Because of this, families were able to conserve energy and water, lowering utility and water bills that yield critical savings. Falling short of their goal, the greatest challenge that RTP faced in their Safe at Home program was responding to ongoing roof repairs. Throughout the Fiscal Year, RTP has been fielding calls from past and new clients in need of roof repairs. Along with maintaining and assessing a large volume of roof repairs, RTP continues to work through staff transitions. They have hired a third field technician as of March 27, 2016 to assist with current and future projects. After hiring a field technician, the Safe at Home program's lead carpenter resigned to join the private sector. With constant staff changes becoming a norm, RTP is working diligently to maintain high productivity with the resources at hand. RTP's Safe at Home program staff has agreed to meet monthly to evaluate its successes and challenges to better meet its annual goals for all granting communities. This includes scope management, managing sub - contractors and volunteers, as well as greater efficiencies with time management for field technicians. This will also ensure that outreach is occurring in the communities where application submissions have been low. Include the number of extremely low- income, low- income, and moderate - income persons served by each activity where information on income by family size is required to determine the eligibility of the activity. Table 9: Number of Persons Served 0 Number of Persons Served CDBG Actual HOME Actual Extremely Low - income 14 0 Low - income 11 0 Moderate - income Total 31 Narrative Information All households served met the CDBG income requirements of either being extremely low income (30% or less of AMI *), low income (31 -50% of AMI *), or moderate income (51 -80% of AMI *). Note the City does not have any accomplishments to report under the HOME column as the City does not receive HOME funds directly from HUD. The City of South San Francisco is part of the San Mateo County HOME Consortium and therefore all HOME related accomplishments are reported by the County. *AMI = Area Median Income 13 Economic Development & Housing Division CR -25 - HOMELESS AND OTHER SPECIAL NEEDS 91.220 (d, e); 91.320(d, e); 91.520(c) Evaluate the jurisdiction's progress in meeting its specific objectives for reducing and ending homelessness through: Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their individual needs The Homeless Outreach Team (HOT) a multi - disciplinary, bilingual program that was created in South San Francisco last year, continued their work this year. The HOT Program has a full -time case manager that works, in collaboration with the City's police, to identify and serve the most difficult, long term homeless individuals by placing them in emergency shelters and connecting them with County medical and rehabilitation services. So far, the HOT Program has been very successful and has already provided many HOT clients with needed medical care and identification cards, signed HOT clients up for assistance programs such as Supplement Security Income (SSI), and placed HOT clients into emergency shelter or other housing programs such as the Veterans Affairs (VA) Housing Vouchers. Additionally, on a monthly basis the HOT Program holds a Case Managers Meeting that brings together homeless providers, other social service providers, County staff, City staff, City Police and the HOT case manager to discuss current issues with HOT clients and to identify potential solutions. Additionally, there is a HOT Steering Committee comprised of elected officials, program managers, and City staff who work to make larger program -wide and policy level changes to improve the homeless outreach, services and prevention efforts in South San Francisco and County -wide. Major renovations at Safe Harbor that were funded by the County of San Mateo's Affordable Housing Fund created a new second floor Learning Center. They now have a classroom devoted entirely to programming, equipped with tables, chairs, a whiteboard, computer access, and complete privacy. As a result, they are able to implement a more diverse set of classes and workshops for clients such as a new life skills coaching group, a Wellness Recovery Action Plan (WRAP) group, and a chromotherapy (color therapy) group to name a few. In partnership with Renaissance Entrepreneurship Center, Safe Harbor launched Secure Futures, a seven -part series of financial education workshops for 15 shelter residents. Clients learn about financial products and money management; long and short term savings planning; budget and cash flow; building a plan for credit; and values and behaviors analysis. Participants receive one -on -one bi- weekly financial coaching and the opportunity to participate in asset - building programs such as Secured Credit Builder and Start2Save. Expected outcomes for clients include improved credit score, increased income over 12 months, and increased savings of five to ten percent. 14 CAPER I FY2015 -2016 The Safe Harbor case management team is partnering with a new team from the San Mateo County Behavioral Health and Recovery Services (BHRS) to help clients who are suffering from alcohol use disorders maintain sobriety and assist in their recovery through the Integrated Medication Assisted Treatment (IMAT) program. Participants receive Vivitrol, an injectable form of naltrexone, off -site at Primary Care Clinics, and receive intensive on -site case management support. Results of a pilot study have shown a significant reduction in alcohol use amongst participants. Four clients are currently participating in the program with positive results. CORA provides emergency shelter services. Once clients are in the shelter they have access to a range of services. Together with their CORA client advocate, clients can choose from a menu of CORA's services /activities, including: emergency shelter, case management, crisis intervention for victims of domestic violence, helping clients access services (i.e. housing, health, legal, education, benefits, & employment), parenting support, individual counseling or group counseling, legal advocacy and representation, child watch, and food programs. Addressing the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless persons In efforts to address the Public Services goal as identified in the FY2015 -2016 AAP, the City of South San Francisco allocated $19,250 in CDBG funding to Samaritan House and CORA. These organizations provide services that address improving the quality of life for low- income individuals and families, including the homeless, those at risk of becoming homeless and special needs populations. Samaritan House — Safe Harbor This year, the City has provided Samaritan House CDBG funding to operate the Safe Harbor Shelter. Safe Harbor provides emergency (less than 30 days) and transitional (30 days to six months) shelter, for single homeless adults over age 18 in South San Francisco. Safe Harbor provided shelter 325 South San Francisco residents and exceeded their goal by 516 %. Safe Harbor has also noted that the region's ongoing and unprecedented housing affordability crisis has had debilitating effects on the ability of many client's ability to locate permanent housing. Even with housing vouchers, many Safe Harbor clients still experience significant challenges to locating permanent housing. Three clients found successful placements through the County Housing Authority's Housing Readiness Program, where tenant -ready clients receive time - limited housing choice vouchers and case management services over a three year time frame. Safe Harbor's case managers are continuously development better relationships with landlords throughout the country in order to educate them about the different types of housing vouchers available and to counteract stigma associated with Section 8. Clients who successfully locate permanent housing work closely with their case managers who will often set up face -to -face meetings with landlords to answer any questions and remediate any concerns they may have about renting to clients with vouchers. Safe Harbor continues to maintain a positive relationship with a landlord of a 20 -unit apartment complex in Brisbane who was willing to take three additional tenants. The Housing Authority provided incentives for landlords, such as a first -time incentive of one month's rent and a bonus of $1,000 for additional voucher participants. This year, Safe Harbor completed two major renovations that greatly improved the shelter's exterior and interior infrastructure. Their renovation included freshly painted walls and other interior repairs such as new furniture, built -in cabinetry, more permanent stations for client amenities, sleeping area updates and minor shower repair, a new kitchen counter, a laundry folding station, bathroom flooring, men and 15 Economic Development & Housing Division women ADA compliant restrooms, and a fully equipped learning center. With the addition of this learning center, Samaritan House is able to implement a more diverse set of classes and workshops for clients to assist in transitioning out of the shelter. As mentioned, the Housing Placement Specialist hired by Samaritan House provides housing placement services for homeless clients addressing their transitional housing needs. CORA CORA assisted 3 South San Francisco clients in 2015, missing their goal by 50 percent. Last year, CORA served eight residents with a proposed six. Over the course of two years they averaged the proposed 6. Last year, CORA was able to re- organize their programmatic departments. This process resulted in the creation of the Crisis Intervention Department which is comprised of CORA's 24 -hour hotline, Emergency Response Program collaboration with law enforcement, and the two emergency shelters. CORA also combined its Mental Health program, Children's Program, and Supportive Housing Programs under the newly formed Family Support Services Department. The other departments (Legal, Community Education, Administration, and Development) remain unchanged. As these changes have evolved and settled in, staff has reported being better supported and services more enriched. This new structure also is poising the agency for growth. CORA's restructuring of its staffing last year continued to pay dividends for clients. CORA's parents enjoy opportunities to socialize with other families and connect with other community agencies; decreasing isolation and increasing connectedness with a support system; engaging parents in their children's school; and helping clients to learn how to maintain safety and set boundaries in their everyday life. In addition to the funding provided to these two non - profits, the City was able to make non - monetary efforts to address the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless persons by continuing to actively participate in the Continuum of Care (CoC) Steering Committee and Project Performance Subcommittee. This year, the CoC focused on creating ways to better evaluate and improve the effectiveness of the County's homeless programs. The CoC continue to work towards set standards. These are: 1. Percentage of exits to permanent housing; 2. Housing retention rate; 3. Participants obtaining employment income during program participation; 4. Participants increasing total income during program participation; 5. Program occupancy levels; 6. CoC /Emergency Solution Grant (ESG) spending rates; and 7. Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) data quality. These performance measures will allow the CoC to identify areas of improvement and better address the needs of homeless persons. IN CAPER I FY2015 -2016 Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were recently homeless from becoming homeless again As mentioned previously, the Homeless Outreach Team (HOT) has been very successful in placing HOT clients in housing and connecting them with needed services. HOT has been successful this year in; providing ten Shelter Care Plus vouchers with four pending approval for South San Francisco clients, five HOT clients have been housed in permanent housing, 15 individuals placed on the County's Multi- disciplinary team (MDT) for further assessment and assistance, assisting 13 clients with obtaining Social Security Income and Social Security Disability Insurance. Additionally, HOT assisted 75 clients and non - clients with services. HOT now provides clients with access to the Street Medicine project which provides services by a nurse practitioner to meet the medical needs of clients. It should be noted that the number of clients and non - clients assisted by HOT continues to grow quarter over quarter. Samaritan House was successful whereby nine Safe Harbor clients transitioned into permanent housing (permanent rental units, reunification with family, and one client moved into a houseboat with six months of rental support from the Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF) Program); six Safe Harbor clients were placed at Palm Avenue Detox, a residential drug and alcohol treatment program; five Safe Harbor clients were approved for Housing Readiness Program (HRP) vouchers; and four Safe Harbor clients received Shelter Plus Care vouchers. StarVista works with emancipated foster youth to stabilize their housing situation. StarVista reached their annual goal of serving 15 clients this year. Of the 15 participants last year, ten youth have exited the program and five are stable and currently residing with StarVista and are still working towards their goals. The youths that have exited the program have decided to live with family, rent rooms, moved out of the county for jobs, and one youth is in Saint Mathew's. StarVista staff was involved in supporting their transitions. The Life Moves (formerly InnVision Shelter Network), and family homeless shelter in Daly City, Family Crossroads, underwent major rehabilitation and seismic retrofitting, is now open and serving clients. Helping low- income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely low- income individuals and families and those who are: likely to become homeless after being discharged from publicly funded institutions and systems of care (such as health care facilities, mental health facilities, foster care and other youth facilities, and corrections programs and institutions); and, receiving assistance from public or private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment, education, or youth needs In order to help individuals and families at risk of homelessness, the City's goal is to fund and support non - profits that provide basic supportive services such as housing assistance, health services, clothing, and legal services. The City also has city- sponsored programs that are not funded with CDBG that help 17 Economic Development & Housing Division low- income families and individuals. For example, the City has an adult literacy program (Project Read), the Community Learning Center, subsidized child care and after school programs and adult day care programs for seniors. Project Read and the Community Learning Center programs provide residents with basic skills, such as learning English and how to read and write. The child care and adult day care programs help low- income families care for their children and elderly family members. Through CDBG, the City of South San Francisco funded the Legal Aid Society, John's Closet, Project Sentinel, PARCA and HIP Housing. These services address basic needs and help people stabilize. Legal Aid conducted 146 legal services clinics between July 1, 2015 and June 30, 2016, where tenants received assistance with evictions, rent increases, repairs, housing discrimination, security deposits, and other legal questions pertaining to housing stability. A total of 307 South San Francisco clients were served, 103 percent of their goal. John's Closet provides new clothes to needy school aged children. John's Closet's conducted significant outreach by reaching out to the schools and social service agencies, and by distributing fliers. As a result, they bettered their annual goal by 15 percent. In addition, they have noted a significant number of no- shows and will implement a reminder calls system. John's Closet served 89 clients this year, 75 percent of their annual goal. Project Sentinel provides comprehensive fair housing services including complaint investigation, community outreach, and education to San Mateo County residents. Project Sentinel assisted a total of 30 South San Francisco residents this year through their various services (case investigations, consultations, and referrals). Project Sentinel continues to investigate claims for the remaining three individuals. The PARCA program provides support groups, information and referral, community outreach, advocacy, a professional speaker series, and inclusive recreation to low- income families dealing with developmental disabilities, addressing education, health, housing, transportation, the service delivery system, and other issues affecting the target population. PARCA exceeded their yearly goal and served 134 clients this year. Family Support's Director participated in many significant, high -level collaborations in order to advocate for and serve numerous individuals and families in South San Francisco who are affected by developmental disabilities. These actions involved housing, employment, education and many other subjects of importance for independence and quality of life. HIP Housing's Home Sharing program interviews and screens clients for housing, provides housemate, alternative housing, and community resources to clients with the potential of matching persons in affordable home sharing arrangements. Eighty residents contacted HIP Housing for housing information. Thirty -nine people were screened for the home sharing program and provided housing and community resource information and on -going housing support. HIP Housing placed seven residents in shared housing during the fiscal year, exceeding their yearly goal by 155 percent. Before home sharing, home providers were spending about 51 percent of their incomes on housing costs. After finding a housemate to move in, they spent 28 percent. The home seekers were spending 34 percent of their incomes on average on housing costs before home sharing and 26 percent after. 18 CAPER I FY2015 -2016 CR -30 - PUBLIC HOUSING 91.220(h); 91.3200) Actions taken to address the needs of public housing The South San Francisco Public Housing Authority (SSFPHA) operates as a separate entity and submits its own action plans and performance reports to HUD separately from the City of South San Francisco. The SSFPHA manages 80 units of affordable public housing. Information about the needs and strategy of the SSFPHA can be found in the SSFPHA's AAP. Actions taken to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in management and participate in homeownership Not applicable Actions taken to provide assistance to troubled PHAs Not applicable 19 Economic Development & Housing Division CR -35 - OTHER ACTIONS 91.220(J) -(K); 91.32(1) -(J) Actions taken to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing such as land use controls, tax policies affecting land, zoning ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth limitations, and policies affecting the return on residential investment. 91.220 Q); 91.320 (i) The City took the following actions to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing: • The City's municipal code provides SSFMC section 20.390 provides incentives to developers for the production of housing that is affordable to lower and moderate - income residents. • Continued to implement the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance; this requires that a percentage of new "for sale" residential units are made available as Below Market Rate (BMR) units for low income residents. The City will also continue to support its existing BMR units. • The City's General Plan, and specifically the Housing Element, includes policies that support the development of affordable housing. Last year, the 2015 -2023 Housing Element was adopted by State Housing and Community Development. • The City participated in a grand nexus study with other cities in San Mateo County to explore the option of adopting a commercial linkage fee that would go towards the establishment of an affordable housing fund. • The City continued to support the rehabilitation of existing housing stock by using CDBG funding to support home repair programs, including El Concilio, the Center of Independence of Individuals with Disabilities' (CID) Housing Accessibility Modification Program, Rebuilding Together Peninsula, and the City- Sponsored Housing Rehabilitation Program. • The City continued to cooperate with other governmental agencies and take an active interest in seeking solutions to area -wide housing problems. • Continued to investigate new sources of funding for the City's affordable housing programs and working with non - profit developers to promote the development of housing affordable to lower income households. Last year, the City accepted the Rotary Housing Development application which will provide 81 affordable senior housing units downtown. This project is now entitled and has a pending Cap and Trade Grant program application in progress. • Continued to consider a process to allow fee waivers or deferrals of planning, building, and impact fees for affordable housing developments. • Reduced government and public infrastructure constraints to affordable housing development through administrative support, inter - governmental cooperation, public - private partnerships, and permit streamlining. 20 CAPER I FY2015 -2016 • Implementing zoning to ensure there is an adequate supply of land to meet its Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) regional housing needs allocation by adopting the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan which includes community benefits. • The City included in the Housing Element to consider a reduction in the minimum lot size for downtown development properties to encourage affordable, small housing development and • Also included in the Housing Element is the option to reduce minimum development standards for condominium construction from five to two units to encourage affordable housing production. Actions taken to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs. 91.220(k); 91.3206) Given the limited funds available, the City prioritized activities which provide maximum benefits to the community. The majority of the City's CDBG funds were allocated to supporting housing rehabilitation and public right of way improvement projects because they are not restricted by spending limitations and are highly impactful. A major funding obstacle continued to be sufficiently supporting the wide variety of crucial public services needed in the City due to federal spending limits specific to public services. While this need far exceeded the funds available to provide those services, this year, the City selected those activities which would be most effective. Actions taken to reduce lead -based paint hazards. 91.220(k); 91.3200) The City continued to incorporate lead testing information and clearances for all rehabilitation projects it sponsors in order to ensure that all federal lead safe practices are met. The City also made lead -based paint information available to local non - profit agencies and to homeowners and renters in the City. Additionally, the City continued to have lead -based paint information at the Economic and Housing Development counter and on its website. Actions taken to reduce the number of poverty -level families. 91.220(k); 91.3206) The City of South San Francisco used a multi- faceted approach to reducing poverty in the community: Housing Safe and affordable housing is an essential component in the efforts to reduce poverty. With the loss of Redevelopment Agency (RDA) funding, the City was unable to contribute to the development of new affordable housing. However, the City did make efforts to maintain the existing supply of affordable housing by funding multiple home rehabilitation activities (See Section CR -20 - Affordable Housing). The City also continued to operate its 16 affordable housing units and oversee the Below Market Rate (BMR) Program. Finally, this year City staff mailed and /or emailed 110 affordable housing resources packets in addition to fielding numerous phone calls and in person inquiries regarding information on affordable housing. These resource packets, along with the City's website, are updated on a regular basis with affordable housing information. Public Services As mentioned, the City funds and /or supports a variety of non - profit organizations that provide housing assistance, food, child care, clothing, health services, legal services, and other emergency services to low - income residents. The City also promotes communication and collaboration among the nonprofits to avoid duplication of efforts and to be able to provide more comprehensive / "wrap around" services for low- income residents. Additionally, the City has in -house programs that also helped residents improve 21 Economic Development & Housing Division their economic opportunities. For example, the City's Community Learning Center offered classes in English, computers, native language literacy, job training, and citizenship along with providing activities for children. Economic Development The City also takes on various economic development efforts to attract and retain businesses and jobs in South San Francisco. The City continues to operate the Business Cooperation Program (BCP) which seeks to lower the cost of doing business in the City. This program consists of three elements: 1. Contacting the major businesses and developers to assess how the City's economic development efforts can be altered to meet their needs, and let them know the City is supportive of their business efforts; 2. Providing information on the City's commercial (Property Assessed Clean Energy) PACE program to assist in financing improvements that will save energy for the businesses and achieve the City's Climate Action Goals, and providing information on other business support programs such as Employment Training Panel (ETP) assistance, and the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development (Go -Biz) financial programs; and 3. Ask for participation in the City's proposed Sales and Use Tax Program that will retain these taxes locally instead of them being allocated to the County sales Tax pool. The City has also partnered with several regional agencies and organizations that focus on job growth. For example, City staff works closely with Skyline College's Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) program that assists high school students, the Bay Area Entrepreneur Center (BAEC), a business incubator /accelerator and resource center for start -up companies, and early stage companies, Joint Venture Silicon Valley, and ChinaSF. Finally, the City's Facade Improvement Program provided grants /loans to Downtown businesses to improve the appearance in the historic downtown area. These improvements are aimed to help the downtown increase sales, stabilize businesses, retain jobs, and reduce vacancies. Awning and window installation at Ben Tre (398 Grand) 22 CAPER I FY2015 -2016 Through this multitude of efforts, in collaboration with non - profit agencies, the City has continued working to help reduce the number of families living in poverty. With that said, there are significant challenges to accomplishing this long -term goal. The biggest barrier to the provision of services to lower income families and those at risk of becoming homeless is the lack of adequate state, county, and federal funds for social service activities. For example, since CDBG funding for public services is limited to 15% of the City's entitlement amount, the City only has $69,750 available for public services. The City continues to strive for efforts that creatively and efficiently work with these constraints. Actions taken to develop institutional structure. 91.220(k); 91.3200) The City made the following efforts to improve and /or develop institutional structure: • Continued to work with the other local jurisdiction as part of the CDBG "Work Group" to increase collaboration and make administrative and monitoring processes standardized and electronic /automated. For example, the CDBG Work Group moved the environmental review and project approval process for minor home repair programs into an online format. • Continued to serve on the Continuum of Care (CoC) Steering Committee and is involved in all CoC decision - making. The CoC Steering Committee is the organized group that guides the implementation of San Mateo County's homeless services system. The CoC undertakes a wide range of efforts to meet the needs of homeless persons and those at risk of homelessness. • Continued to build and improve relationships with local service providers. • Continued to participate in the San Mateo County HOME Consortium and to serve on the San Mateo County's Housing & Community Development Committee (HCDC). • Continued to work with the Homeless Outreach Team. This includes the City's participation on the HOT's Case Manager meetings and Steering Committee. • Continued using City Data Services, an online grant management system, in conjunction with the County of San Mateo and the other entitlement cities to increase efficiency, consistency, and timeliness of reporting and invoicing for CDBG sub - recipients. Actions taken to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service agencies. 91.220(k); 91.3206) The City took following actions to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service agencies: • Continued to collaborate with the County of San Mateo, private housing developers, lenders, and non - profit housing developers in order to create more affordable housing. • Continued to participate in the CDBG "Work Group" and to improve CDBG administrative processes for both sub - recipients and City staff. • Encouraged collaboration and cooperation among local service providers. • Continued to participate in the CoC Steering Committee. • Continued to work with HOT which brings together the HOT case manager, City police and staff, homeless providers, and other social service providers. • Continued to participate in the San Mateo County HOME Consortium and to serve on the San Mateo County's Housing & Community Development Committee (HCDC) • Continued to fund non - profit agencies serving low- income residents. • Continued to build and improve relationships with local service providers. 23 Economic Development & Housing Division • Continued working with regional economic development groups and promote economic development collaborations. • Continued to finance and support the City sponsored housing rehab program. • Supported workforce development partnerships that serve residents and employees in South San Francisco. • Worked with El Concilio, RTP and CID to coordinate housing repair and rehabilitation needs throughout the community. Identify actions taken to overcome the effects of any impediments identified in the jurisdictions analysis of impediments to fair housing choice. 91.52O(a) This year, the City supported Project Sentinel, a fair housing provider that successfully assisted eight individuals in obtaining reasonable accommodations. Project Sentinel conducted tests on properties that were suspected of discrimination based on familial status. These cases led to the housing providers being educated on the Fair Housing laws and its application to families with young children. In addition, Project Sentinel investigated reasonable accommodation related to the tenant's disability. Of these cases, they were successfully closed because their request for reasonable accommodation was granted. Additionally, in FY2012 -2013, the City adopted an updated Analysis of Impediments (AI) to Fair Housing Choice which identifies private and public sector impediments to fair housing. Below the impediments identified in the Al and the actions the City took to address the impediments are discussed. Private Sector Impediments & Actions Impediment 1: Discriminatory terms, conditions, privileges, or services and facilities in the rental markets The City continued to support testing and enforcement activities, efforts to educate landlords and property management companies about fair housing law, and efforts to educate housing consumers in fair housing rights. Impediment 2: Discriminatory refusal to rent or negotiate for rental The City continued to support testing and enforcement activities, efforts to educate landlords and property management companies about fair housing law, and efforts to educate housing consumers in fair housing rights. Impediment 3: Failure to make reasonable accommodation or modification The City continued to support testing and enforcement activities, investigations into actual cases, and efforts to educate housing providers about requirements for reasonable accommodation or modification. Impediment 4: Discriminatory patterns in predatory lending The City continued to support efforts by outside groups to educate buyers through credit counseling and home purchase training. Impediment 5: Unequal distribution of small business loans The City of South San Francisco does not have the capacity or resources to monitor or enforce equal distribution of small business loans however should an opportunity become available to do so, the City would consider it. 24 CAPER I FY2015 -2016 Public Sector Impediments & Actions Impediment 1: Lack of 2012 HUD funding for Project Sentinel, local Fair Housing Initiative Program agency Project Sentinel was able to identify and evaluate the causes of denial of HUD funding in 2012. Project Sentinel received $8,762 in CDBG funding in FY2015 -2016. Impediment 2: Ineffective fair housing outreach and education efforts by Project Sentinel Project Sentinel was audited by City staff on April 1, 2016. As a result, staff recommended to improve records of income verification by including what is required in outreach materials, and to log interaction with clients around income verification requests. Impediment 3: Failure to adequately document fair housing activities done by Project Sentinel Project Sentinel conducted two audits on familial status and investigated five cases on securing the tenants' request for reasonable accommodation (RA) based on their disability. The outcome of the audits led the housing providers to be educated on the Fair Housing (FH) laws and its application to families with young children. As for the complainant -based cases, they were successfully closed because all of their requests for an RA were granted. Also, through extensive tabling and FH presentations, Project Sentinel exceeded its outreach goal of 55 persons by reaching 81 residents from South San Francisco. 25 Economic Development & Housing Division CR -40 - MONITORING 91.220 AND 91.230 Describe the standards and procedures used to monitor activities carried out in furtherance of the plan and used to ensure long -term compliance with requirements of the programs involved, including minority business outreach and the comprehensive planning requirements The City uses the Consolidated Subrecipient Monitoring Plan (Monitoring Plan) that was developed by the entitlement jurisdictions in San Mateo County to review performance over a period of time and to evaluate compliance of non - profit subrecipients funded with CDBG funding. The Monitoring Plan specifies the criteria the City uses to determine potential areas and levels of risk, which include quarterly desk reviews, new subrecipients or organizational change, cumulative grant award amount, administrative history, program performance, and financial capacity. On a quarterly basis, the City conducts a limited review of all subrecipients, which includes reviewing quarterly performance reports and expense summaries that are submitted by the subrecipients. These quarterly performance reports update staff as to whether the non - profit is meeting its annual objectives and the status of the program. Additionally, the City will conduct on -site monitoring reviews of those subrecipients the City determines to have potential risks and /or have not been monitored in recent years. The on -site monitoring consists of a programmatic and fiscal review of files, a tour of the program facilities as appropriate, an explanation of the services provided, discussions with program and administrative staff, and introduction to one or more actual beneficiaries, if possible. Also, the City can conduct in -depth reviews, if needed, which typically consist of a concentrated review of a known high -risk area or critical function. This year the City conducted on -site monitoring reviews of El Concilio, Legal Aid Society of Homesavers, Project Sentinel, and RTP. Prior to the on -site visits, staff reviewed the sub - recipients' quarterly /annual reports, current budget, requests for payment, fiscal policies & procedures, audit /financial statements, personnel policies, and profit & loss statements. This review covers the non - profits' ability to manage the organization in relation to finances, grant compliance and program performance. Once on -site, staff conducted interviews of key program staff, reviewed program /client files, and asked any follow up questions that may have arisen from the pre -visit document review. The City Council also reviewed the City's AAP and the previous year's CAPER to ensure that the City applied its resources to meet community goals. Mel CAPER I FY2015 -2016 Citizen Participation Plan 91.105(d); 91.115(d) Describe the efforts to provide citizens with reasonable notice and an opportunity to comment on performance reports. Public Notification Efforts A notice announcing the 15 -day public comment period and a public hearing for the CAPER was published in the San Mateo County Times on September 7, 2015 and a public hearing will be held on September 28, 2016. All notices informed citizens about the purpose of the CAPER and invited them to review the document and to either submit comments or provide them at the public hearing. All notices included the phone number and address of the Economic & Community Development (ECD) office in order to address any community inquiries. This notification was written in English and Spanish in an effort to reach the City's Spanish language community. Draft copies of this report were made available at all public libraries, at the City's ECD office, and on the City's main website. Additionally, an email notification was sent out to local non - profits and CDBG sub - recipients. (See Attachment B — Public Notification Efforts). Summary of Citizen Comments This section will summarize comments received by the public during the 15 -day public comment period. 27 Economic Development & Housing Division CR -45 - CDBG 91.520(c) Specify the nature of, and reasons for, any changes in the jurisdiction's program objectives and indications of how the jurisdiction would change its programs as a result of its experiences. The City did not experience any changes in its program objectives this year. All of this year's CDBG activities addressed one of the objectives that were identified in the FY2015 -2016 AAP. Each year, the City conducts a needs assessment and reviews the prior year performance of each CDBG activity before it allocates funding. This is to ensure that CDBG funding is being used to meet the City's objectives for the year. Additionally, each AAP is tailored to address both the long -term and more immediate needs of the City. For example, in FY2015 -2016 the City focused on providing decent and affordable housing, providing a suitable living environment and expanding economic development opportunities. Does this Jurisdiction have any open Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) grants? Not applicable : ATTACHMENT A: PR -26 REPORT CAPER I FY2015 -2016 29 Economic Development & Housing Division � af OM—rkV PI®Rel V and Ek.t!#gxl tlt DAIM OE oW LS U5, gene of Flousim and Urban Deoelai:nnelrt TIME! 773!94 IL Ln ram] D muffermll wla:nkwma" Sysbt l PAGE I PR26 - CDBG FukYrlal Suftudrf ReWt "tarn Year 2015 SOM SAN FRANCIS {O , CA PART T: SUMFIAI,RY 9F EDISG RE90URCE5 81 UNEXPENDED EOBG FUNDS AT END OF PRE?0IOL5 PROGRAM YEAR 401,61 L.07 62 EHTFfLE ENT GRAKT 111,964.60 43 SUKKUS URPAN RF.WWA,1 0.00 IN SNClrlUNJft0UP$ANrEtDLC]MFU14DS 006 65 C UMRENT TEAR PROGRAM IFRCOME 268,115,70 05a CURRENT YE&R SECTION L08 PROGRAM INCOME (FOR 9 TYPE) 4.60 66 FILWDS RETURNED TG T11E LINE- OF- CRIEDIT 0.90 fka FUN19S h1;"NEO TO 11AF 10(Ak ^Lj W ACCOUNT 040 67 ADJUSTMENT TO OEMPL1TE'TOTAL AVAILABLE 0.90 66 TOTAL AVAILABLE {%M, LINES 01 -07) 1,74,59777 FART D: SUMMARY OFCDOGEXPENDITURES 119 D1.=AUrKENENTS OTHER THAN SECI31A 196 REPAYMEMAkD PLANNINQADMINISTR.4TION 296,367.71 Ili APJLISTMFN1 !C}C7>II{UIF WTAL AW)UUNT LJ T TO Lf74i'A*0 6kWir 040 11 a,MOUNTSMIEC7TO LCXWWI1M0D 5E14EFTT(LINE L+9+ L1NE 10) 256,367.71 12 DISBURSED IN IRIS FDR PLANAIWADMINls`IRfTEOH 93,352.65 13 DISBURSED IN ID1S FOR SECTION ALES REPAYRENF5 0:60 11 ADIL1 TMENT TO CONftTE TOTAL. Ei1PEUDETURJES 0.9D 15 WTAL ESFFN(3t"ES (9M, LtNFS li -i4) 3 ,764.5? 15 UNEXPENDED BAUkWE (LWE Ud - LINE 15) 702,034,24 FART LIID LPPWHOD 6ENEFITT11RS REPORTQSG PER= 17 EXPENDED FOR LC W#4011 k4GU9NG IN SPECIAL AREAS 0 -90 1$ rXPt -.Nb I FOR L 17WMO[3 EILX n -kA41T NO(ISIN( GdI6 14 C+%WIt W FOR MMPR LCYWWlMC16 3AC.1Ttir[1 E5 746,361.71 20 ADJUSTMENT TO CCiKPUTETOTAL LOWeMOD CREDIT 040 21 TOTALLCAVdlHOD CREDIT (SERI, LINES 1740) 295,367 -71 22 PERCENT LOWIROD CREDIT {LINE 211LINE 11) 30a.00% LOW1140 s WNIR T FOR MIJLn -V9 k C - 11FICATIOILS 23 FRCCRAM YEA RS(PY }%tErVERED IN£ER7..FKATION PY: 2015 PY' I'Y- 24 CIJNRJLAYNE NET EXFENDMIRE5 9JUIECT TO LOWMOD BENEFIT GM.CULATTDN 17.90 25 CUMULATIVE EfPENDMPES BEWEFMKG LOWMOD PE -AMNS 0.60 26 PERCENT BENEFIT To LOWi MDD PfpmNS (um 2-yuhf 24) 0.00% PPJrrkV! PUSLI ltStRVttt (1PS)CA1P CALCULATIONS 27 D35bUF5M IN ID15 FOR PUBLIC SERVICES 69,711.11 2B PS UNLi{IL DATED OBLIGATION5 AT END W OL RENT PROGRAM YEAR 014 25 PS UNLIQUIDATED OBLIGATIONS AT END Df PREV..IDUS PRC GT M YEAR CL60 30 AGIUSTMENT TCJ CL1R IFUTE'TOTAL P5 DBLIGATIC06 0.60 3T YOrAl Pq OKIG3+DrxgS {LINE 72 + LIN€ 28 - LINF (4 r LINE 34) tq.W.11 32 EWRTLEMENTURANT 4115166420 33 PRIOR YEAR PROGRAM WOKE E 106156.47 31 ADIUSfMENTTO C:CPIIVTE TOTAL gj&JKTTQPS CAP CUM 35 TOTAL gJBAT.0 T taPSCAP {WM. LINE'S 311-.W W.#aL47 36 1'FA(FNI R940S 01SIGAII D Rik fSA0IwlIW, (LINF 31 LONE 35) 33.3F` PARTV: KANNINGANUADWRT57 ATION(PA )1=AP 37 DISBURSED IN IDIS FOR PLAr4Nf iAD+E[NI5TRATfflN 93,352.86 36 PA Lft3QUEDATED OBLIGATIONSAT END OF CURRENT PROGRAM Yfik 0.90 39 � IH7LIC�JII3ATI ;D,`1�LIGATICINSAT F#I[ii]F P61fY`1[xr' PRA3+i YF+Ur 4.$6 5D Am5TMENTYU LrrETaTALRAC1EiUGAnorNS 444 41 TOTAL RA OEUGATIOWLIME 37 + LINE 39 - LINE 39 -' LINE 4DI 93,392,95 42 9frn1 MENT GRANT 415,864.60 1I OLM ENT YEAR F%LTGPAPI INS 2ES.115.70 44 AWJSTMFKT TO C04KTF TOTAL ACT TO#f,W 0.00 45 TOTAL SIMWET TO PA TAP 15UM, LINES 42.44) 663,979.70 46 PERCENT FUNDS OBUOTT_D FOR PA AUrPrME5 {LINE 4I2TNE 453 13,65% [till CAPER I FY2015 -2016 1I ❑r a! d Crxrrnrumly PLamr� art? 0.�doMnug DATE: C9 -16.16 ����I�I U S. UeParir,*nt of Hw and Utbm Gevek�pnrestC TIME: ,0:0� t [Ae graltr :lGi3rsrrietWMIerrflinkfrrrr "SySt.m PAGE R' pY rl PR25 - CMG Fuwrlal Rmulrary Rep)d FIII I "tam Year 2015 SOUTH SAN FRANC M , CA LINE 37 DETAIL: ACTrVMESTO CONSIDER IN DETERNMING THE AM3211I1TTO ENTER ON LINE 17 Report returned no data. LINE E8 DETAIL: ACtlrlr17IE1. TO CONSIDER IN .OETERMININd THE AMDURI 16 ENTER ON 1LI1tE 18 Rtym;rt rrrurml nr drtt. LINE 19 OETAIL7 ,LClTYMES INCLUDED IN THE €OMPLIFTATION OF LINE 19 Wan Year 1:615 prQpxt IOLSACMIty VC4'( 't Aa.1ty Name 'Mab111 National !lumber Gods D DrmmnAfnft rl 20"5 5 476 1911.1,192 rrarrx:a,}TerrelrePUri MF LMA $t9,816:46 20kr 5 47fi 5941772 Frexr Tara=Pm# OF L11A _ !JJ5,2f]F.16 RaP Mrtlaia cede "5rw4 -" 2615 5 474 58722% Pub k Right cf Way 1Rpr01e%ent Iholedrs ELYL Lh4A $63,710,116 26n5 5 474 5912724 Pub6C 1110th or 196ay ilroav& era. PWO)B es 031 LMA 54,464.54 201$ 5 474 5919392 Pubtic R1ght tf Wby IltivmsTWW F *ds 031 LMA $1,655.90 704 5 474 5955700 Prrbhc Rot W4y ]n l%gk4ts WL LKA 51,213;63 03L Matrix cote 4173,46340 26I5 7 467 5412652 SaffVflmn KX5e - 53ft Fr Wbor St3eIle1 D T LM $3,441,75 211'15 7 46? 591f1342 Sam�nktan House - Salre Wrbaf St!,Wr D T LhFC X5,558.25 INT Mattlx CM $10,OM,A4 201$ 1 4fr1 5972295 lip ?Fuusrng - 1 rarry Program 0$ l-K P,9%.54 2015 1 46J 5912724 3119 IF+ifaSpr2 - Hprrle"rr el "rarn w LMC $1534,52 29.15 1 460 5918392 Hip l-"u9W - Hwestrart%i RW. rarn d5 LMC $1,TMA5 21115 1 4EA 5955700 Hp Hrw§M - Hweslhari-Q Program 05 LHE $46.99 05 Matrbr Colo $9,23400 ROTS 1 463 5972196 Pargo- Forrafy SWpcn cArvKxs 0514 LM. SlAM.50 2015 1 463 5412724 farta FanWy 5Wp rt Savkes 458 LWL 421254,90 2615 1 463 5955584 Parca - Family SWport SEnices 055 LMC #1,160.17 2015 1 463 59557010 Para! - Fanly 54portSer4fre5 M LMC $1,160,17 45B Matrix Carla 0,495.74 2015 1 461 5955700 7nhrrs C 061) LK $4.M.W 2,115 1 465 5412724 5RwVrs TranskktrWKxsrrgP ment3'krs 050 LN[ 43,967,79 2815 1 465 9428512 5tarVt= TraRstkaralMusrQPJxeffwtPk15 459 LMC $2,512.26 Oil Katr9x Coda ;11r250jDD 2015 7 465 5312729 Ccrnrn.rnhy Overowrmrg ReStxwL%lV ,117145& (CnOiq.RrsAapy 65G LK 55,965.14 21115 7 Aiw $9557M �"larrmmrtq (h'Qr4 "tM lklatkarhr Abkm (C `A) Qwi I Mi 5',A4.RL, G3G KMT1A Code $9.24040 2615 1 462 5872295 Legal ft 5xlety - Home5mem Pwarrh OSR LMC 5'3,124.32 2815 1 462 5412724 legal W SoOety - Hr3rt'resa es Fragrant 059 LHC 81,675.59 195K Matrix Gods $5,000.00 21311$ 1 459 53557770 14eahh Moble 0PA LMC S4,250.fi6 05M MabiN cede 119,35aA0 2815 1 464 5872245 RaM Ttalma 5erw_es UntEr 05N Lh7C y432,8Q 2015 1 464 5912724 Rope Tra4lma %N<A?s DY&N 05N LMC 54,307,55 00:15 1 484 5455689 R2W Tra! MAh S& es Center D5N LMC 84,505.62 05H Malxllt Colo 5$, 31' 2615 2 469 5912'#52 CC~ rerInften0pimof(rHWldtkvsw4n Mb'14e5 14A LMH #7, .05 {€ D¢ 2015 2 466 5955700 Fir lrrdwerdarr€eof bAvIduaks with Disabilities MA LMH #t,3i2.9s (c3D) 7035 2 nh9 5832678 €I COrT40 ft4W*U4r Murr HWM RQP* 14A IMH 51,94.5,{1,7 2615 2 469 5412724 l=1 C4rrollo Perrr�uta Mirror FlOrne PAW 14A LMH $3,234.19 2x15 2 469 5418392 ✓=1 Ceat[HU - Peiw6ula Minor Hwie RegMi 141A LMH 51,199.&9 26&5 2 469 59557110 El Canctic - Perweule Miry Hare Repair 14A LMH $63.111 R171$ 2 47f1 595574¢ Rdmikirg TpgdticrPgnins<rlq - MsPv,t 9etaundiig Duy 44A I,fall 57,.07.94 2415 2 471 5910342 3tebvjlklug TW~ Ferinsw4. 5a0 atHyw 14A LMH $5,014;99 31 Economic Development & Housing Division 4IWE 27 DI FAIL- AC7TVME91MCLUDED IN THE C0P4P6FrATJDH OF LIME ZT Ram Year IRIS Pr6im IOLSActimitp boar FIWIR r Aceivlty Nerve Wa! d Cr 1miumty Ramrra3 ad D&n4o nun 114067MA Db1 llm DATE: C9 -16.11 7 467 5912852 U S. DeNdrrrenl of HwsM and Utbm Devekpthcnl LMC nME: 14:04 7 457 5318392 Sarllarltao House - SSge hartsra VvAer Dar UiLegralerl UMwrifflW le ertd Iftkirrrl "SyStfn 96.5 .25 PAGE 3 r earn Matrix bode GR15 - CMG Rwrlal RmtVrary Rep)d Jk;t S 1 480 E. H1r MSDuwv - KwmtsrarrQ Pmgrprn 05 1 W. 93,948,54 "tam Year 2015 1 46+0 5912.24 Hlp Hw- fap • kk4n sharhp 1lro7arn 05 Lh9C SOUTH SAN FRANCrKG , CA 2D.15 1 460 Plan Yoar pDES vra]ack 1btSAdJwity l 1923344 �rM 11at1hl �c 1 460 5955701 1-111 HbuWN - Wrfm!sNrrV "ram NLMA*f LMC 54609? drmmAnimint 2015 2 471 5935740 RzrbulldiMTogetherPanmmla - We atflorr>e 1'459 LMH 318,444.76 2013 3 473 39-59364 C1ty 5-1 mq-Teri HmIng RcMl:wL Dm Www n 1459 I,MtiH 9 7,5w9.0i1 2DI5 3 472 5912724 My Sp rmyed Hra.e-1no 11207ahrlRathon Program 14A LMH 5-5,377;94 21)15 3 472 5415%4 f3ty Wsaed Horning Wwbilkatien RD;pan 141A LMH $L3.D00:131- 2DIS 3 472 592997Y1 City Sporrsered Homing Rehabilknkm Nagram 14A LMH 52,1349.94 2015 3 472 59 46y0 Jk}r 5pmsarm Haaing frdteWlraGrn Ilan 14A LMH s3ALO.37 3013 3 472 3941713 Oty Sp7rxm 11-1ming RdmtolUtaGm ftgrarn 14A LMH 43,2431,014 2DI5 3 472 9955703 CTtrr 5pyismV Haul -1n¢ Reftabiltatim RWarn 141A LMH L41 -5:09 455 592651.2 StarVtM- TransUmat9luSNPUcen*ltPkis D5D LMC I" Matte Coda $97495J55 326 4 4713 593IBM &MYynk0e17 FacadeIryl"eirtiau PrNraur t4P LMn 5:5,584.41) 2015 4 473 5941772 Wmwm Facadelmpm*e.. —. Program 14E LMA, ¢6 ,167.56 22015 4 475 5941773 rXw= ,w m 4 FKW1mPrgvtrrs" Prograrre 1*E LM A f&"iF3,U'3 2015 4 473 54557017 Do wlb2m Facade Imprmverrwd PTouram 14E LMA #-521.313 452 5872295 Legal Aid 5oelety - HwrresaMers Program 6574 Lh4C 14m, Matrix Cgt4 $201532.29 TOW 59i2724 Legal Ad Strrety - Hom m&�em P"raifth 05K LAC $1.875.06 $ 296,377 -7'i 4IWE 27 DI FAIL- AC7TVME91MCLUDED IN THE C0P4P6FrATJDH OF LIME ZT Ram Year IRIS Pr6im IOLSActimitp boar FIWIR r Aceivlty Nerve dutph GO" 114067MA Db1 llm ilydlm Amaum 20t5 7 467 5912852 Sarn&kao House - SSaEe Kvboe S heRei 0T LMC M,441 75 20-15 7 457 5318392 Sarllarltao House - SSge hartsra VvAer Dar LMC 96.5 .25 earn Matrix bode $10,018.46 Jk;t S 1 480 $872256 H1r MSDuwv - KwmtsrarrQ Pmgrprn 05 1 W. 93,948,54 21)15 1 46+0 5912.24 Hlp Hw- fap • kk4n sharhp 1lro7arn 05 Lh9C P. =,92 2D.15 1 460 5918392 4110 FhoiAN - F9o!rrK9riari79 Program 05 LMC 911.325.40 2DI5 1 460 5955701 1-111 HbuWN - Wrfm!sNrrV "ram 05 LMC 54609? 65 KM ft Ced4 9 meMA4 2015 1 463 5872256 f1r-M - Farrdy ".xpprat Se vkw 059 LMC L1,875.5D 2015 1 463 591272+3 Varca Fansty Upart Sffyke' 0" LMC 2DI5 1 463 5955689 Parca - Famky &&port 5eryhles 956 LMC 61,i e1�.t 7 21315 1 463 5955740 A-mm - Faftly &vpart Service3 D50 LMC $1.1 Ro 17 195B MatrtOt Cade 56,495:74 2013 3 251 59953011 7orwss 050 LI40 47,764.013 2015 1 465 5912724 St*V a° TlanstlnrrAHmrrgPbxnerrtPlus 9511 LW ,1167.>4 2615 1 455 592651.2 StarVtM- TransUmat9luSNPUcen*ltPkis D5D LMC $2,num 0510 1lalttbs C4d4 $11,2'58AU 2015 7' 166 $912724 Cvrrmm.m" CNerc areig Amlatkm" Aibw- .. (CORA) 1150-5 Lh1C 5.5.965.14 2D13 x 466 $955700 9rnm4mrly 451rs mmffig ftMtum" Ram (CORA) 1 59G l-W 8:3 ,264.89 Inc Matrix Dade 49,mu.00 2015 1 452 5872295 Legal Aid 5oelety - HwrresaMers Program 6574 Lh4C TZA x4.32 21)15 1 462 59i2724 Legal Ad Strrety - Hom m&�em P"raifth 05K LAC $1.875.06 91591 iMabft Coda 53,668.106 21).95 1 459 5955220E-5 44wlth h Dble 0511 LMC 49250.41) 86M Matrtrr C6de $9,25®A6 2015 1 465 5872295 pap2 Trar341a'5erocesCentel 65N LMC 54a2'CID 2D15 1 464 5412724 RapeT- "fidSermesCsfiEr 05N LMC 54.3675'5 21)75 1 5964 $955699 RWr TraMd Servues fmter D3 LK 54.5176,443 B5w Hatrlx Cade $9,2414J14 Totat "9,74;4.11 UNE 37 DETAIL. A.CTIWITIES INCLUDED IN THE EOHPLITATILIH Of LIME 37' 32 CAPER I FY2015 -2016 33 ❑d a! or C wrwwimmty f4awwmra3 and D&nk117orem BATE: D406 -16 U 3. Ds- rAdr,*nt of F$wsmV and Ulkars Devekrpbre -A TIME: 20:04 DiLegralerl Gi' lnlr Fk) tL 211113 1oftm -BdLUt `1reiLem PAGE: 4 t s Gg15 - CMG Futur ual 5uo7nerf Rix [ E, ti. "tart' Yeaw 2115 ', "� �s 1 IWO SOUTH SAN FRANC50D G1 ilmywwr wnfad 5p1SActhtgri n name MaWK matlanall HIM*" Code Objective DMWFIIL47M rit 2015 6 475 58+!2678 CDIRG:AdmnhtreAw¢ww 11.4 =,2331% 201*a 0 475 1x 34 C0bGA0Fnlnlstraekwr 2111 522,395.96 2D]5 5 475 541.83.92 G)OG OMML51aARM 21A $B Y73A7 M15 6 475 5919512 m®GAdminkiUmiov. 21A 5B.1335,PD 21ns 6 475 9934659 CDEGAdminksbrmlon. 214 W.273.96 20'59 6 475 $941771 CDBGArtnnl%l3rdon 21A 56.350.59 ROIb 4 475 M5700 CMA*mo;ils7a4lvo IIA %.72021 21A Matrix Codo $93.39246 Took 193,392.M 33 City of South San Francisco Economic & Community Development Department Economic Development & Housing Division 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 ATTACHMENT 2: FYI 5-16 FINANCIAL SUMMARY Revenue Type Program Name Program Mid -Year Budget Budget Expenses Balance Allocation Income Adjustments Administration CDBG Administration $90,172 $90,172 $93,393' Minor Home Repair CID $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 El Concilio $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 - Rebuilding Together - NRD $12,000 $12,000 $7,401 $4,600 Rebuilding Together - SAH $25,000 $25,000 $23,460 $1,541 Subtotal $57,000 $57,000 $50,861 $6,141 Public Services CORA $9,250 $9,250 $9,250 - Health Mobile $9,250 $9,250 $9,250 HIP Housing $9,250 $9,250 $9,250 John's Closet $4,750 $4,750 $4,750 Legal Aid Society $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 - PARCA $6,500 $6,500 $6,496 $4 Rape Trauma Services $9,250 $9,250 $9,246 $4 Samaritan House $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 - StarVista $6,500 $6,500 $6,500 - Subtotal $69,750 $69,750 $69,742 $8 City- Sponsored Activities City- Sponsored Housing Rehab $100,000 $100,000 $36,745 $63,255 Program Fagade Improvement Program $200,000 $200,000 $144,0003 $56,000 Right of Way Improvements $159,500 $118,487 $41,013 $159,500 Subtotal $459,500 $459,500 $299,232 $160,268 Program Income Received Loan Repayments - $179,2302 - - - Total CDBG $676,422 $179,230 $676,422 $513,228 $166,417 Fair Housing Activities Project Sentinel $8,762 - $8,762 $8,762 Total Funds (All Sources) $685,184 $8,762 $8,762 1-2 It is important to note that the City did not exceed the allowable budget. Additional funds from the payment of past loans allowed the City to increase the Administration budget. These loan payments were unforeseeable when crafting the initial budget during the AAP phase. 3These Fagade Improvement Program expenses are committed dollars. ATTACHMENT 3: COMMUNITY SERVED HOUSEHOLDS SERVED THROUGH CDBG FUNDING Sub Recipient Households Served City- Sponsored Housing Rehab Program 3 Minor Home Repair Programs Center for Independence of Individuals with Disabilities 5 Rebuilding Together Peninsula 19 El Concilio 9 Total 36 INDIVDUALS SERVED THROUGH CDBG FUNDING Sub Recipient Services Individuals Served Public Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse (CORA) 3 Legal Aid Society of Homesavers 307 Health Mobile 115 John's Closet 89 Rape Trauma Services 44 StarVista - Transitional Housing Placement Plus 20 Samaritan House - Safe Harbor 325 PARCA - Family Support Services 134 Human Investment Pro (HIP) - Home Sharing Program 17 Total 1,054 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS Project Procured and /or Constructed Trash Receptacles 28 Welcome Banners 85 Customized Bike Racks 44 Playground Resurfacing Francisco Terrace Playlot 1 Total 158 Attachment 4 FY 2015 -2016 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) Overview • Housing • Public Improvement Projects • Public Services 65% CDBG Funding 15% Public Services Administration City- Sponsored Programs (Facade and Public Right - of -Way Improvements) Housing 36 Households Served through Housing Rehabilitation and Minor Home Repair Programs Public Improvement Projects Right of wuy 28 Trash Bicycle o Receptacies 44 Racks Public Improvement Projects r1U11Li.5LU tier tace Plavlot Public Improvement Projects 4 Downtown Facarlp Proiprts Public Services 1,062 Individuals served through Public Service Organizations Public Services CDBG Funds Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse (CORA) 3 Legal Aid Society of Homesavers 307 Health Mobile 115 John's Closet 89 Rape Trauma Services 44 Star Vista - Transitional Housing Placement Plus 20 Samaritan House - Safe Harbor 325 Parca - Family Support Services 134 Human Investment Pro (HIP) -Home Sharing Program 17 Subtotal 11054 HOME Admin Funds Project Sentinel 8 Total 1 ,062 Questions? P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 • City of South San Francisco Grand Avenue) - South San Francisco, CA Legislation Text File #: 16 -703, Version: 1 Resolution approving the 2015 -2016 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report for the Community Development Block Grant Program and authorizing its submittal to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. WHEREAS, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires communities receiving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to submit a year -end Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER); and WHEREAS, the CAPER has been available for public review in the Economic and Community Development Department, the City's public libraries, and on the City's website since September 7, 2016, and a notice of public hearing was published in the San Mateo County Times on September 7, 2016; and WHEREAS, in fiscal year 2015 -2016, the City expended a total of $389,760 in CDBG funding and $8,762 in HOME administrative funding received from the San Mateo County HOME Consortium to carry out a broad range of community development activities; and WHEREAS, on September 28, 2016, the City held a duly noticed public hearing on the 2015 -2016 CAPER for the CDBG Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby approves the 2015 -2016 CAPER. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to submit the CAPER to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and to take any other actions as necessary to carry out the intent of this Resolution. City of South San Francisco Page 1 of 1 Printed on 10/14/2016 powered by LegistarTM P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 • City of South San Francisco Grand Avenue) - South San Francisco, CA Legislation Text File #: 16 -711, Version: 1 Report regarding consideration of the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve an Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration, Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map Amendment to rezone three vacant parcels (APN 015- 114 -420, APN 015- 114 -480, and APN 015 -114 -490) from Freeway Commercial (FC) Zoning District to Mixed Industrial (MI) Zoning District, and modify an existing Minor Use Permit (MUP 15- 0001) to allow the operation of a vehicle rental facility at 1440 San Mateo Avenue in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. (Tony Rozzi, Senior Planner) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council follow the Planning Commission's recommendation and take the following actions: 1. Adopt a resolution approving the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Zoning Ordinance and Map Amendment; 2. Waive reading and adopt an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance and Map to rezone three vacant parcels (APN 015- 114 -420, APN 015- 114 -480, and APN 015- 114 -490) from the Freeway Commercial (FC) Zoning District to the Mixed Industrial (MI) Zoning District; and 3. Adopt a resolution modifying the existing Minor Use Permit (MUP15 -0001) to allow an expanded vehicle rental operation based on the included draft Findings and subject to the draft Conditions of Approval. BACKGROUND On June 19, 2015, the applicant was granted a Minor Use Permit (MUP) to operate a vehicle rental facility on an approximately 2.5 -acre site along San Mateo Avenue (Zoning Administrator staff report included as Attachment 1). The approval included a 1,850 square feet (sq. ft.) modular building with an adjacent canopy for hand washing vehicles using a self - contained water reclamation system. In addition, a 5,000 sq. ft. fuel dispensing tank was approved on -site for use by employees only. Site -wide landscaping, lighting, security fencing and gates, and utility improvements were also included as part of the project. The MUP permitted the use of 150 stalls on the front two parcels accessed by San Mateo Avenue, which are zoned Mixed Industrial (MI). The rear three parcels, zoned Freeway Commercial (FC), were not permitted for car rental use. The applicant is now requesting to rezone the three rear parcels so they can also be used for vehicle rental use. The present application includes a request to amend the Zoning Ordinance and Map ( "Zoning Ordinance and Map Amendment" or "Amendment ") in order to rezone the three rear parcels of the site, which is under common ownership, from FC to MI zoning district (shown in the draft Ordinance Exhibit A), and a revision to the previously approved MUP15 -0001 to allow a vehicle rental use on the entire site subject to the existing Conditions of Approval. This application also requires environmental review to ensure the rezoning request would not result in any significant environmental impacts. To that end, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared. With approval of the Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment for the proposed project site, the entire property would be used for vehicle rental uses. City of South San Francisco Page 1 of 3 Printed on 10/14/2016 powered by Legistarl" File #: 16 -711, Version: 1 DISCUSSION The Planning Commission considered this application at the July 21, 2016 meeting. After considering the rezone request, modification to the Minor Use Permit (Planning Commission staff report included as Attachment 2), and the draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), the Planning Commission recommended approval by a vote of 7 -0 (Planning Commission resolutions included as Attachment 3). A summary of the applicable zoning analysis is described below and staff's presentation to the City Council is included as Attachment 4. Rezone Request The applicant has requested a Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment to rezone the three rear parcels (APNs 015- 114 -420, 015- 114 -480, and 015 -114 -490) from FC to MI zoning district (City Council Ordinance Exhibit A). The rezone under the Amendment would activate three otherwise vacant parcels and allow the MI zoning district designation across all five properties under common ownership and operated by Payless Vehicle Rental. To date, the FC zoning along the western corridor of the US -101 has not resulted in redevelopment of sites to include regional retail serving uses; industrial uses still dominate the area. The surrounding area is comprised almost entirely of vehicle related uses (long term parking, vehicle repair, and distribution logistics) and approval of the Amendment would stimulate economic development for the site. Modification to Minor Use Permit MUP15 -0001 All features of the vehicle rental operation have already been approved and is in operation on the front parcels. The function of the rear parcels under the Amendment would only be to provide additional parking. As such, the minor improvements to lighting, utilities and landscaping have been examined for conformance with the previously approved project. An existing Condition of Approval (COA #6) must be removed to permit the Payless rental expansion as part of the rezone effort. This condition would be removed and the remaining MUP15 -0001 Conditions of Approval would be applied to all five parcels. General Plan Consistency The proposed Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment to rezone the three vacant rear parcels from Freeway Commercial (FC) Zoning District to Mixed Industrial (MI) Zoning District is consistent with the General Plan because the Amendment will reinforce many of the General Plan's Community Commercial policies, which recommend regional serving commercial uses including service stations, automobile sales and repair services. This area of the City, identified as the Lindenville Planning Sub -area in the General Plan, is the only industrial area west of U.S. 101 and, thus, provides important light industrial uses, such as vehicle rental, within proximity to the residents of the City. The proposed Amendment will not conflict with or impede achievement of any of the goals, policies, or land use designations established in the General Plan. Environmental Review An IS/MND was prepared for this project and was completed with assistance by Raney Planning & Management, Inc. to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the rezoning request. The Initial Study determined that with incorporation of appropriate mitigation measures, there would be no significant environmental impacts to either Biological Resources or Cultural Resources. All other environmental factors would not be significantly impacted by the proposed project and the Conditions of Approval governing MUP 15 -0001 would be applied to the entire site. Further analysis of the proposed mitigation measures is addressed in the Planning Commission staff report from July 21, 2016. See Attachment 2. If adopted, the IS /MND mitigation measures will bind the applicant during the project plan approval, issuance, City of South San Francisco Page 2 of 3 Printed on 10/14/2016 powered by LegistarTM File #: 16 -711, Version: 1 and construction process through the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (see Exhibit B of the CEQA Resolution). CONCLUSION The Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment to allow the expansion of Payless's vehicle rental facility is consistent with the City's General Plan and, subject to the revised Conditions of Approval for Minor Use Permit MUP15 -0001, would allow for redevelopment of vacant parcels. It is recommended that the City Council approve the Planning Commission's recommendation and take the following actions: 1. Adopt a resolution approving the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment; 2. Introduce an ordinance amending the Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance to rezone three vacant parcels (APN 015 -114 -420, APN 015- 114 -480, and APN 015- 114 -490) from the Freeway Commercial (FC) Zoning District to the Mixed Industrial (MI) Zoning District, and waive further reading; and 3. Adopt a resolution modifying the existing Minor Use Permit (MUP15 -0001) to allow an expanded vehicle rental operation based on the included draft Findings and subject to the draft Conditions of Approval. Attachments: 1. Zoning Administrator Staff report dated June 19, 2015 2. Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 21, 2016 3. Planning Commission CEQA, Ordinance, and Entitlement Resolutions 4. Presentation for City Council City of South San Francisco Page 3 of 3 Printed on 10/14/2016 powered by Legistarl" 4 SA Zoning Administrator GO QFCO) O Staff Report DATE: June 19, 2015 TO: Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: Payless Vehicle Rental - Minor Use Permit and Design Review for a new vehicle rental facility with a new commercial building on two vacant parcels (APN 015- 114 -470 and APN 015- 114 -460) at the intersection of San Mateo Avenue and Lowrie Avenue in the Mixed Industrial (MI) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.110, 20.460, 20.480 & 20.490 and determination that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA. Address: No Site Address - APNs 015 -114 -470 and 015 -114 -460 Owner: Arata Linda TR ET AL Applicant: Andrew Jaksich, Payless Case Nos.: P15 -0025: MUP15 -0001, DR15 -0024 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Zoning Administrator approve the Minor Use Permit (MUP15 -0001) and Design Review (DR15 -0024) based on the attached draft Findings and subject to the attached draft Conditions of Approval. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The applicant proposes to establish a vehicle rental facility on an approximately 2.5 acre site (116,408 SF) that is accessed by San Mateo Avenue and bordered by the Colma Creek Canal to the north and privately owned properties to the east and south. A 1,850 SF modular building would be installed on the front half of the site, outside of required setbacks, with an adjacent canopy for hand washing vehicles using a self - contained water reclamation system. Additionally, a 5,000 SF fuel dispensing tank would be located on- site for use by employees only. Site -wide landscaping, lighting, security fencing and gates, and utility improvements would also be provided. The site would operate as a point -of -sale transaction for vehicle rentals under the Payless Car Rental brand, which is a member of the Avis Budget Group. Operation would utilize 150 stalls on the front two (2) parcels accessed by San Mateo Avenue and zoned Mixed Industrial (MI). The rear two (2) parcels, which are zoned Freeway Commercial (FC) and do not permit Automobile/Vehicle Rental uses, would be cordoned off with temporary fencing or gates. The applicant intends to submit a rezoning application for these two (2) rear parcels in the coming months for the City's consideration. Operation of the site would be 24 hours per day. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The Design Review Board, at its meeting on May 19, 2015, reviewed the application and current landscaping and offered the following comments: STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: Payless Vehicle Rental Facility DATE: June 19, 2015 Page 2 1. The buildings are lacking articulation. Consider adding different color schemes to the building or projecting detail with a corrugated band on the fascia to add horizontal definition. 2. Consider adding some vertical bands to help break up the blank walls. 3. Redesign the wood decking with metal railing and /or composite planking to better match the building. 4. Plant larger canopy street trees along San Mateo Ave that are evenly spaced and no further than 30' -0" from each other on center. 5. Check with the Building Department on the ADA requirements at this location. The site may be required to have an accessible ramp into the building and restrooms. These items have been addressed as part of the applicant's revised submittal. ZONING CONSISTENCY General Standards The four (4) parcels comprising the site have split zoning; the front two parcels shown on Sheet 2 of the plans (APN 015- 114 -470 and APN 015- 114 -460) are zoned Mixed Industrial (MI) and the rear two parcels (APN 015 -114 -480 and APN 015 -114 -490) are zoned Freeway Commercial (FC). Since a vehicle rental use is only conditionally permitted in Mixed Industrial zoning districts, the applicant has proposed the new facility and associated parking for the front parcels. Landscaping at the required 10% for the entire four parcels is proposed, however. The Zoning Ordinance differentiates between Automobile /Vehicle Rental uses and Rental Car Storage uses. Rental Car Storage is distinct from automobile rental in that it involves a site where more than 30% of the rental transactions related to the vehicles stored on site occurs off -site. Pursuant to SSFMC Section 20.110.002, automobile /vehicle rental uses are allowed in the zone subject to approval of a Minor Use Permit, whereas Rental Car Storage use is not allowed. A condition of approval is included to clarify the use may not be operated as a Rental Car Storage use. Parking and Circulation Pursuant to SSFMC Section 20.330.004, Automobile/Vehicle Rental uses are required to provide one space for each 250 s.f. of office area and one space for all vehicles for rent. Seven (7) parking spaces will be required for the office building and the remaining balance of the 150 striped parking stalls will be utilized for rental vehicle and customer parking. Subject to conformance with the Conditions of Approval, the parking needs for the proposed use will meet the SSFMC parking requirements. A traffic analysis was completed by Fehr + Peers to study the ingress and egress of the site, as well as circulation impacts to surrounding intersections. The analysis determined that although peak use would not result in a delay of level of service (LOS) for surrounding intersections, the following recommendations were made to ensure adequate traffic flow: 1. Provide way - finding signs in the lot, directing drivers to vehicle return stalls, exit driveway, and major destinations (e.g. US -101); STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: Payless Vehicle Rental Facility DATE: June 19, 2015 Page 3 2. Maintain landscaping along San Mateo Avenue, adjacent to the Project driveways, to avoid sight distance conflicts (shrubs should not be higher than approximately 30 inches and tree canopies should be approximately six feet from the ground); 3. On- street parking should be restricted on San Mateo Avenue on either side of the egress Project driveway to limit sight distance issues; approximately 60 feet to the north and 20 feet to the south; and 4. City engineering staff should review site plan designs to assure that safe and comfortable pedestrian conditions are constructed as part of the Project, including assuring that all sidewalks and curb ramps meet the ADA guidelines. Project driveways should be designed to minimize cross - slopes within the sidewalks and with good visibility between entering /exiting vehicles and pedestrians on the sidewalks. Recommendation No. 1 -3 have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for the Zoning Administrator's consideration. Recommendation No. 4 has been addressed as part of the Engineering Division's review of the project and conditions of approval. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan, which designates the two subject parcels as Mixed Industrial. This land use designation promotes warehousing and storage, particularly in conjunction with service commercial uses, consistent with this proposal. CEQA The proposed project has been determined to be categorically exempt under the provisions of CEQA, Class 3, Section 15303(c), New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. CONCLUSION The proposed vehicle rental facility is consistent with the City's General Plan and, subject to the Conditions of Approval as proposed, satisfies the requirements outlined in the Municipal Code. Therefore it is recommended that the Zoning Administrator approve Minor Use Permit (MUP15 -0001) and Design Review (DR15 -0024) based on the attached Findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. By: Tony Rozzi AI P, Senior la er SM /tr Attachments: 1. Draft Findings of Approval 2. Draft Conditions of Approval 3. Submitted Plans dated June 3, 2015 DRAFT FINDINGS OF APPROVAL P15 -0025: MUP15 -0001, DR15 -0024 APN 015 - 114 -470 and APN 015 - 114 -460 (As recommended by City Staff on June 19, 2015) As required by the Use Permit Procedures ( SSFMC Section 20.490), the following findings are made in support of a Minor Use Permit to allow an Vehicle Rental use at APNs 015- 114 -470 and 015- 114 -460 in the Mixed Industrial (MI) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC 20.110, 20.330 & 20.490, based on public testimony and materials submitted to the South San Francisco Zoning Administrator which include, but are not limited to: Application materials prepared by applicant, dated submitted April 7, 2015; Staff Report dated June 19, 2015; and testimony received at the Zoning Administrator hearing on June 19, 2015. 1. The proposed Automobile/Vehicle Rental use is allowed within the Mixed Industrial (MI) Zoning District with approval of a Minor Use Permit, and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Ordinance and all other titles of the South San Francisco Municipal Code; 2. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan in that the project site is designated Mixed Industrial, which allows for a wide range of uses, including service commercial uses. Further, the proposed use is well suited to the vacant parcels with adequate storage area for rental vehicles. The proposed use overall site improvements and a modular office building, which would not preclude it from other conforming uses in the future. 3. The proposed use will not be adverse to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the community, nor detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements, because the proposal involves reuse of vacant parcels for a vehicle rental use. The site is surrounded by other similar vehicle rental or storage facilities and based on staff analysis and a submitted transportation assessment by Fehr + Peers, dated February 3, 2015, there is no likelihood that the use would produce any adverse effects on the surrounding area. 4. The proposed use complies with design or development standards applicable to the zoning district and the existing parking configuration meets applicable standards. 5. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed activity would be compatible with the existing and reasonably foreseeable future land uses in the vicinity because the proposed use will site a small office building; the proposed vehicle rental use and office space would have adequate parking area; and the parcels will not be altered in a way as to preclude future compatible uses; 6. The site is physically suitable for the type, density, and intensity of use being proposed, including access, utilities, and the absence of physical constraints; and 7. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, staff has determined that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the provisions of Section 15303(c) — Class 3: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL P15 -0025: MUP15 -0001, DR15 -0024 APN 015 - 114 -470 and APN 015 - 114 -460 (As recommended by City Staff on June 19, 2015) A) Planning Division requirements shall be as follows: The applicant shall comply with the Planning Divisions standard Conditions and Limitations for Commercial Industrial Projects. 2. The business shall be operated substantially as outlined in the submitted plans, as part of the Planning Application dated April 7, 2015. Consistent with the City's Use Classification definitions (SSFMC Chapter 20.620), the business shall be operated as an AutomobileNehicle Rental use and not as a Rental Car Storage use. A failure to operate as an AutomobileNehicle Rental use will be grounds for revocation of the Minor Use Permit. 3. Based on the reporting schedules of the City's third party vendor for sales tax collection, the Zoning Administrator will confirm that point -of -sale transactions and related sales tax contribution occurs at APNs 015- 114 -470 and 015 -114 -460 consistent with the operation of an AutomobileNehicle Rental use. 4. No rental vehicles associated with the operation of the proposed facility or related businesses under the same company Avis Budget Group shall be stored on surrounding streets or public right -of -way. No major maintenance or repair of rental vehicles on site is allowed; these actions will require a modification to this Minor Use Permit and compliance with other applicable regulations. 6. No portion of parcels APN 015 -114 -480 and APN 015 -114 -490 shall be used in coordination with the proposed vehicle rental facility without an approved rezoning application. At the determination of the Zoning Administrator, and pending adequate analysis to confirm no unmitigated traffic, air quality or other related impacts to the surrounding area, Minor Use Permit MUP15 -0001 could be modified to allow incorporation of APN 015- 114 -480 and APN 015 -114 -490 for vehicle rental facility use. 7. Provide way - finding signs in the lot, directing drivers to vehicle return stalls, exit driveway, and major destinations (e.g. US -101) per Fehr + Peers transportation assessment, dated February 3, 2015. Maintain landscaping along San Mateo Avenue, adjacent to the Project driveways, to avoid sight distance conflicts (shrubs should not be higher than approximately 30 inches and tree canopies should be approximately six feet from the ground), per Fehr + Peers transportation assessment, dated February 3, 2015. 9. On- street parking should be restricted on San Mateo Avenue on either side of the egress Project driveway to limit sight distance issues; approximately 60 feet to the north and 20 feet to the south, per Fehr + Peers transportation assessment, dated February 3, 2015. (Planning Division contact: Tony Rozzi, 650- 877 -8535) Conditions of Approval — Payless Vehicle Rental Facility Page 2 of 3 B) Building Division requirements shall be as follows: 1. The property is in a flood zone. The finish floor of the structure must be certified by a registered civil engineer to be above the known flood elevation. (Building Division at 650- 829 -6670) C) Water Quality requirements shall be as follows: 1. If new fire sprinklers are installed, fire sprinkler test drain must be connected to the sanitary sewer. 2. No vehicle washing/rinsing is permitted to discharge water to the storm drain system. If vehicles are to be washed on -site, an appropriate wash pad /area must be installed and plumbed through a sand/oil interceptor and into the sanitary sewer system. (Water Quality contact: Andrew Wemmer at 650- 829 -3883) D) Fire Department requirements shall be as follows: 1. Show all existing and proposed hydrants. 2. All buildings shall provide premise identification in accordance with SSF Municipal Code Section 15.24.100. 3. The South San Francisco Fire Department reserves the right to make additional comments in the future. (Fire Department contact: Luis Da Silva at 650- 829 -6645) E) Engineering Division requirements shall be as follows: 1. The building permit application plans shall conform to the standards of the Engineering Division's "Building Permit Typical Plan Check Submittals" requirements, copies of which are available from the Engineering Division. 2. The owner shall, at his/her expense, replace any broken sidewalk, curb, and gutter fronting the property. The City of SSF shall be the sole judge of whether any such replacement is necessary. 3. For any work performed in the City's right -of -way, the Owner shall apply for and obtain an encroachment permit, and shall be responsible for all fees and deposits for the permit. 4. Pay sewer lateral connection fee and show sewer lateral from building to existing City main line. 5. Prepare Traffic study including sight distance for exit driveway from the facility. May require some parallel parking be removed along San Mateo Ave to enhance safety of vehicles leaving Conditions of Approval — Payless Vehicle Rental Facility Page 3 of 3 the facility. 6. Fee Calculations a. Oyster Point Interchange Impact Fee: Not applicable. b. East of 101 Sewer Impact Fee: Not applicable. East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee (TIF): Not applicable F) Police Department requirements shall be as follows: Municipal Code Compliance The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.48 of the Municipal Code, "Minimum Building Security Standards" Ordinance revised May 1995. The Police Department reserves the right to make additional security and safety conditions, if necessary, upon receipt of detailed/revised building plans. (Police Department contact: Sgt. Adam Plank, 650- 877 -8927) P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 • City of South San Francisco Grand Avenue) - South San Francisco, CA Legislation Text File #: 16 -581, Version: 1 Payless Vehicle Rental - Consideration of an Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration and Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment to rezone three vacant parcels (APN 015 -114 -420, APN 015- 114 -480, and APN 015- 114 -490) from Freeway Commercial (FC) Zoning District to Mixed Industrial (MI) Zoning District, and modification of an existing Minor Use Permit (MUP15 -0001) to allow the operation of a vehicle rental facility at 1440 San Mateo Avenue in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.110, 20.450, 20.460, & 20.550. (Tony Rozzi, AICP, Senior Planner) Address: 1440 San Mateo Avenue Owner: Arata Linda TR ET AL Applicant: Andrew Jaksich, Payless Case Nos.: P15 -0025: ND16 -0001; RZ15 -0001; ZA15 -0011; MUP15 -0001 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt a Resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council approve the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment; and 2. Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council (1) adopt an ordinance amending the Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance to rezone three vacant parcels (APN 015- 114 -420, APN 015- 114 -480, and APN 015 - 114 -490) from the Freeway Commercial (FC) Zoning District to the Mixed Industrial (MI) Zoning District, and (2) adopt a resolution modifying the existing Minor Use Permit (MUP15 -0001) to allow an expanded vehicle rental operation based on the included draft Findings and subject to the draft Conditions of Approval. BACKGROUND The applicant was approved for a Minor Use Permit (MUP) on June 19, 2015 to operate a vehicle rental facility on an approximately 2.5 acre site along San Mateo Avenue. The approval included a 1,850 SF modular building with an adjacent canopy for hand washing vehicles using a self - contained water reclamation system. Additionally, a 5,000 SF fuel dispensing tank was also approved on -site for use by employees only. Site -wide landscaping, lighting, security fencing and gates, and utility improvements were also included as part of the proposal. During the approval process last year, the proposed operation intended to utilize 150 stalls on the front two (2) parcels accessed by San Mateo Avenue and zoned Mixed Industrial (MI). The rear three (3) parcels, which are zoned Freeway Commercial (FC) and do not permit Automobile/Vehicle Rental uses, would not be used. Since that time, the applicant has submitted a rezoning application for the three (3) rear parcels to operate the vehicle rental use on all five (5) parcels. DISCUSSION City of South San Francisco Page 1 of 5 Printed on 7/15/2016 powered by LegistarTM File #: 16 -581, Version: 1 The application before the Planning Commission includes a request to amend the Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance ( "Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment" or "Amendment ") to rezone the three (3) rear parcels of the site, which is under common ownership, from FC to MI zoning district (shown in the draft City Council Ordinance Exhibit A), and a revision to the previously approved MUP 15 -0001 to allow a vehicle rental use on the entire site under the existing Conditions of Approval. This application also requires environmental review to ensure the rezoning request would not result in environmental consequences. To that end, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS /MND) was prepared. With approval of the Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment for the proposed project site, the entire property would be used for vehicle rental uses. The scope of improvements associated with the Amendment and the MUP modification are described in the following sections and were evaluated as part of the IS /MND: Parking Lot Striping and Sealing The project site is currently paved with asphaltic concrete. The proposed project would include restriping the project site to demarcate a maximum of 200 parking stalls for the temporary staging of vehicles. The surface lot would then be seal coated to protect the striping. Trenching and Lighting Installation The project would include the installation of 11 additional parking lot lights within the proposed project site (this total would not include new lights installed on the adjacent western property already approved under the MUP). The lights would have a maximum height of 20 feet, in accordance with the City's Municipal Code requirements. In order to install the lighting conduit, trenching to an approximate depth of 18 to 24 inches would be necessary on the site. Landscaping With implementation of the project, the asphaltic concrete along the southern border of the project site would be removed and water - efficient landscaping would be installed, consisting of Purple Hopseed Bushes and drought - tolerant groundcover (i.e., trailing lantana). The project would not include removal of any existing shrubs or the single tree that exist immediately outside of the northern property line. Infrastructure The project would not require connection to water or sewer infrastructure, as the project consists only of rental vehicle storage. Storm drain infrastructure already exists on -site, consisting of one catch basin. This catch basin would continue to collect surface runoff from the property. ZONING CONSISTENCY Rezone Request The applicant would like to develop the entire site (all five parcels as shown in Figure 3 of the IS /MND on page 12) at one time for the Payless Vehicle Rental operation. After consultation with staff, the applicant requested the Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment to rezone the three (3) rear parcels (APNs 015- 114 -420, 015 -114- 480, and 015- 114 -490) from FC to MI zoning district (shown in the draft City Council Ordinance Exhibit A). The proposed Amendment is a logical change, as the existing railway spur acts as a natural division between the two zoning districts. During the 2010 Zoning Ordinance update, the delineation of FC and MI zoning along these parcels may have been an oversight. The three (3) rear parcels zoned FC have historically been associated with the two (2) MI parcels along San Mateo Avenue and have been under the same ownership for many years. City of South San Francisco Page 2 of 5 Printed on 7/15/2016 powered by LegistarTM File #: 16 -581, Version: 1 The parcels requested to be rezoned would be suitable for the uses permitted in the MI zoning district in terms of access, size of parcel, and relationship to similar /related uses because the rezone under the Amendment would activate three (3) otherwise vacant parcels and allow the MI zoning district designation across all five (5) properties under common ownership and operated by Payless Vehicle Rental. The rezone would be beneficial since the property owners would have a wider range of uses to improve or develop upon their property and the uses permitted under the MI zoning district would not preclude surrounding development on the adjacent FC zoning district. To date, the FC zoning along the western corridor of the US -101 has not resulted in redevelopment of sites to include regional retail serving uses; industrial uses still dominate the area. The surrounding area is comprised almost entirely of vehicle related uses (long term parking, vehicle repair, and distribution logistics). Other surrounding industrial uses would not be impacted by the proposed Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment. Modification to Minor Use Permit MUP15 -0001 The five (5) parcels comprising the site have split zoning, as discussed above. Since a vehicle rental use is only conditionally permitted in Mixed Industrial zoning districts, the applicant originally proposed the new facility and associated parking on the MI zoned parcels only. All features of the vehicle rental operation have been approved in their business license application; the function of the rear parcels under the Amendment would only be to provide additional parking. As such, the minor improvements to lighting, utilities and landscaping have been examined for conformance with the previously approved project. An existing Condition of Approval must be clarified to permit the Payless rental expansion as part of the rezone effort: COA #6. No portion of parcels APN 015- 114 -480 and APN 015- 114 -490 shall be used in coordination with the proposed vehicle rental facility without an approved rezoning application. At the determination of the Zoning Administrator, and pending adequate analysis to confirm no unmitigated traffic, air quality or other related impacts to the surrounding area, Minor Use Permit MUP15 -0001 could be modified to allow incorporation of APN 015- 114 -480 and APN 015- 114 -490 for vehicle rental facility use. Staff recommends that with approval of the Amendment to rezone the three (3) rear parcels and adoption of the IS /MND, this condition would be removed and the remaining MUP15 -0001 Conditions of Approval would be applied to all five (5) parcels - APNs 015 -114 -470, 015- 114 -460, 015- 114 -420, 015- 114 -480, and 015- 114 -490. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The proposed Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment to rezone the three (3) vacant rear parcels (APN 015- 114 -420, APN 015- 114 -480, and APN 015- 114 -490) from Freeway Commercial (FC) Zoning District to Mixed Industrial (MI) Zoning District is consistent with the General Plan because the Amendment will reinforce many of the General Plan's Community Commercial policies, which recommend regional serving commercial uses including service stations, automobile sales and repair services. This area of the City, identified as the Lindenville Planning Sub -area in the General Plan, is the only industrial area west of U.S. 101 and thus, provides important light industrial uses, such as vehicle rental, within proximity to the residents of the City. Further the change in zoning designation does not conflict with any specific plans, and will remain consistent with the surrounding land uses, which include industrial and commercial development, such as automobile services and long -term parking lot uses. The proposed Amendment will not conflict with or impede City of South San Francisco Page 3 of 5 Printed on 7/15/2016 powered by LegistarTM File #: 16 -581, Version: 1 achievement of any of the goals, policies, or land use designations established in the General Plan. CEQA As stated above, an IS /MND was prepared for this project and was completed with assistance by Raney Planning & Management, Inc. to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the rezoning request. The Initial Study determined that there could be possible environmental impacts to the following: Biological Resources and Cultural Resources. All other environmental factors would not be significantly impacted by the proposed project and the Conditions of Approval governing MUP15 -0001 would be applied to the entire site. Analysis for the Biological Resources Section Raney Planning & Management's analysis concluded that "although the proposed project site is highly disturbed and lacks essential habitat for special - status plants and wildlife species, a remote possibility remains that protected migratory birds in the vicinity could establish nests in trees near the boundary of the site prior to initiation of construction. If new nests are established, construction could result in inadvertent loss of nesting birds unless adequate protective measures are taken." Mitigation to a less- than - significant level would be achieved by: 1. Requiring a nesting bird study with appropriate no- disturbance buffers or limited construction until young bird species have left the nest. This analysis by a qualified biologist will be submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division prior to issuance of a permit. Analysis for the Cultural Resources Section Raney Planning & Management's analysis concluded that impacts from construction could disturb archaeological, paleontological, or human remain resources due to the minor trenching required to expand lighting to the three (3) rear parcels at 1440 San Mateo Avenue. While it is unlikely that such resources would be encountered since the area has been previously disturbed and developed, implementation of two mitigation measures would reduce any potential impacts to less than significant levels: 1. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, project plans shall indicate that if historic and/or cultural resources, or human remains are encountered during site grading or other site work, all such work shall be halted immediately within 100 feet of the area of discovered and the City notified immediately of the discovery. In the case of such a discovery, the applicant shall retain services of a qualified archaeologist to evaluate, review and approve a plan to protect any found resources. 2. If human bone or bone of unknown origin is found during construction, all work shall stop in the vicinity of the find and the San Mateo County Coroner shall be contacted immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission who shall notify the person believed to be the most likely descendant. The most likely descendant shall work with the contractor to develop a program for re- internment of the human remains and any associated artifacts. If adopted, the IS/MND mitigation measures will bind the applicant during the project plan approval, issuance, and construction process through the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (attached with the CEQA Resolution). CONCLUSION City of South San Francisco Page 4 of 5 Printed on 7/15/2016 powered by LegistarTM File #: 16 -581, Version: 1 The Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment to allow the expansion of Payless's vehicle rental facility is consistent with the City's General Plan and, subject to the revised Conditions of Approval for Minor Use Permit MUP15 -0001, would operate consistent with performance standards and Municipal Code regulations. It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt a Resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council approve the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment; and 2. Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council (1) adopt an ordinance amending the Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance to rezone three vacant parcels (APN 015 - 114 -420, APN 015- 114 -480, and APN 015- 114 -490) from the Freeway Commercial (FC) Zoning District to the Mixed Industrial (MI) Zoning District, and (2) adopt a resolution modifying the existing Minor Use Permit (MUP15 -0001) to allow an expanded vehicle rental operation based on the included draft Findings and subject to the draft Conditions of Approval. Attachments: 1. CEQA Resolution a. Exhibit A - IS MND b. Exhibit B - MMRP 2. Zoning Map & Ordinance Amendment and Entitlement Resolution a. Exhibit A - Draft City Council Ordinance Amendment with Rezone Exhibit b. Exhibit B - Revised Conditions of Approval for Minor Use Permit WP15 -0001 C. Exhibit C - Applicant Statement and Submitted Plans dated November 18, 2015 d. Exhibit D - Zoning Administrator Staff Report dated June 19, 2015 3. Draft City Council Ordinance Amendment a. Rezone Exhibit City of South San Francisco Page 5 of 5 Printed on 7/15/2016 powered by Legistarl" RESOLUTION NO. 2790-2016 PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ND16 -0001) PREPARED FOR THE ZONING MAP AND ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (RZ15 -0001, ZA15 -0011) AT 1440 SAN MATEO AVENUE WHEREAS, on June 19, 2015, the property identified as 1440 San Mateo Avenue received approval from the Zoning Administrator for a Minor Use Permit (MUP15 -0001) to operate a vehicle rental facility on two vacant parcels (APNs 015- 114 -470 and 015- 114 -460) in the Mixed Industrial zoning district; and WHEREAS, since that time the applicant has requested that the City consider rezoning three adjoining parcels (APNs 015 -114 -420, 015 -114 -480, and 015- 114 -490) from the Freeway Commercial zoning district to the Mixed Industrial zoning district to permit the vehicle rental facility to expand ( "Project "); and WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ( "IS/MND ") for the Project; and WHEREAS, the IS /MND was circulated for the required 30 -day public comment period on June 10, 2016 and ended on July 11, 2016 at 5:00pm; and WHEREAS, no comments were received on the document; and WHEREAS, on July 21, 2015 the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the IS MND (ND16- 0001), Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment ((RZ15 -0001, ZA15- 0011), and modifications to Minor Use Permit (MUP15- 0001), take public testimony, and make a recommendation to the City Council on the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq. ( "CEQA ") and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations §15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR, including all amendments and updates thereto; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the draft Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment, and the IS /MND prepared by Raney Planning & Management, Inc., and all appendices thereto; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's duly noticed July 21, 2016 meeting and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: SECTION 1 FINDINGS 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2. The exhibits and attachments, including the IS /MND for the Project (attached as Exhibit A) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (attached as Exhibit B) are each incorporated by reference as part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein. 3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of the Planning Manager, Sailesh Mehra. SECTION 2 RECOMMENDATION NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, recommends that the South San Francisco City Council adopt the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND 16 -0001) attached as Exhibit A, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibit B. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 21St day of July, 2016 by the following vote: AYES:_ Chairperson Khalfin, Vice Chairperson Faria, Commissioner Martin, Commissioner Nagales, Commissioner Wong, Commissioner Yip, Commissioner Ruiz` NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: EXHIBIT A Attest: /s /Sailesh Mehra Sailesh Mehra Secretary to the Planning Commission PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT ZA13 -0011 RESOLUTION NO. 2791-2016 PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AND ZONING ORDINANCE TO REZONE THREE VACANT PARCELS (RZ15 -0001, ZA15 -0011) AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE EXISTING MINOR USE PERMIT (MUP15 -0001) TO ALLOW AN EXPANDED VEHICLE RENTAL OPERATION AT 1440 SAN MATEO AVENUE SUBJECT TO THE DRAFT REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. WHEREAS, on June 19, 2015, the property identified as 1440 San Mateo Avenue received approval from the Zoning Administrator for a Minor Use Permit (MUP15 -0001) to operate a vehicle rental facility on two vacant parcels (APNs 015 -114 -470 and 015- 114 -460) in the Mixed Industrial zoning district; and WHEREAS, since that time the applicant has requested that the City consider rezoning three adjoining parcels (APNs 015 -114 -420, 015 -114 -480, and 015- 114 -490) from the Freeway Commercial to the Mixed Industrial zoning district to permit the vehicle rental facility to expand ( "Project "); and WHEREAS, all of the parcels associated with the approved vehicle rental facility and the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance ( "Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment" or "Amendment ") are under common ownership; and WHEREAS, City staff has evaluated the request and determined that the proposed Project and associated Amendment would be consistent with the surrounding land uses and operation; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared the Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance Amendment to rezone the three adjoining parcels (APNs 015 -114 -420, 015 -114 -480, and 015 -114 -490) from the Freeway Commercial to the Mixed Industrial; and WHEREAS, the proposed Amendment is consistent with the General Plan, as certain industrial uses are permitted under the Community Commercial /Regional Commercial General Plan designation; and WHEREAS, cumulatively, the Amendment provides flexibility for the applicant and property owner to fully utilize the parcels, which are otherwise inaccessible to a separate user and are unlikely to redevelop with a use permitted under the Freeway Commercial zoning district, which prioritizes large format retail development; and WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ( "IS /MND ") for the Project; and WHEREAS, on July 21, 2016 the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the IS /MND (ND16- 0001), Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment (RZ15 -0001, ZA15- 0011), and modifications to Minor Use Permit (MUP 15 -000 1); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco, by separate resolution, recommended that the City Council for the City of South San Francisco approve the IS MND. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq. (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations §15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR, including all amendments and updates thereto; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the draft Zoning Map Amendment, the IS MND and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared by Raney Planning & Management, Inc., and all appendices thereto; revised Conditions of Approval for Minor Use Permit MUP15 -0001; Applicant statement letter and submitted plans, dated November 18, 2015; Zoning Administrator Staff Report dated June 19, 2015; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's duly noticed July 21, 2016 meeting and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: SECTION 1 FINDINGS I. General Findings 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2. The Exhibits attached to this Resolution, including the proposed draft Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment (Exhibit A), draft revised Conditions of Approval for Minor Use Permit (MUP15 -0001) (Exhibit B), applicant letter and submitted plans (Exhibit C), and Zoning Administrator Staff Report dated November 18, 2015 (Exhibit D) are each incorporated by reference and made a part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein. 3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Planning Manager, Sailesh Mehra. 4. By separate Resolution, the Planning Commission, exercising its independent judgment and analysis, has found that an IS /MND was prepared for the Project in accordance with CEQA, which adequately discloses, analyzes and mitigates the proposed Project's potentially significant environmental impacts; accordingly, the Planning Commission has recommended that the City Council adopt the IS /MND for the Project in accordance with CEQA. II. Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment Findings 1. As described in more detail in Exhibit A, approval of the proposed Project will include adoption of an amendment to the South San Francisco Zoning Map and Ordinance, maintained by the Planning Division. The Zoning Map and Ordinance will be amended to revise the zoning district designation from the Freeway Commercial (FC) to the Mixed Industrial (MI) for Assessor's Parcel Numbers 015 -114 -420, 015 -114 -480, and 015 -114 -490. 2. The proposed Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment meets the purposes of Chapter 20.550 of the Municipal Code and is consistent with the General Plan because the Amendment will reinforce many of the General Plan's Community Commercial policies, which recommend regional serving commercial uses including service stations, automobile sales and repair services. This area of the City, identified as the Lindenville Planning Sub -area in the General Plan, is the only industrial area west of U.S. 101 and thus, provides important light industrial uses, such as vehicle rental, within proximity to the residents of the City. Further the change in zoning designation does not conflict with any specific plans, and will remain consistent with the surrounding land uses, which include industrial and commercial development, such as automobile services and long -term parking lot uses. The proposed Amendment will not conflict with or impede achievement of any of the goals, policies, or land use designations established in the General Plan. 3. The subject property (designated parcels) is suitable for the uses permitted in the Mixed Industrial zoning district in terms of access, size of parcel, relationship to similar or related uses, and other considerations deemed relevant by the Planning Commission and City Council because the introduction of the Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment will activate three (3) otherwise vacant parcels and allow the Mixed Industrial zoning district designation across all five (5) properties under common ownership and operated by Payless Vehicle Rental. Although specific parcels would be affected as part of the Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment, the impact would be beneficial since property owners would have a wider range of uses to improve or develop upon their property and the uses permitted under the Mixed Industrial zoning district would not preclude surrounding development on the adjacent Freeway Commercial (FC) zoning district. The Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment are consistent with General Plan policies, specifically those policies related to regional serving uses. 4. The proposed Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment is not detrimental to the use of land in any adjacent zone because the Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment would support the existing development, land use, and performance standards defined by the Mixed Industrial zoning district, which already govern the adjacent properties. Finally, the proposed Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, convenience, or welfare of the City or land within the City; instead, the Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment will bolster the public interest by utilizing vacant parcels for a permitted and regulated land use (vehicle rental), which is a regional serving use, consistent with surrounding uses, and recommended by the General Plan's land use element and Lindenville planning sub -area. III. Minor Use Permit Modification Findings 1. The proposed Project to expand automobile /vehicle rental use is allowed within the Mixed Industrial (MI) zoning district, as proposed for rezoning from the current Freeway Commercial (FC) zoning district, with approval of a Minor Use Permit, and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and all other titles of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. 2. The proposed use, with approval of the Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment to rezone to MI from the current FC Zoning District, is consistent with the General Plan in that the Project site would be designated Community Commercial, which allows for a wide range of uses, including service commercial uses. Further, the proposed use is well suited to the vacant parcels, which have adequate storage area for rental vehicles. The proposed use would complement the previously approved vehicle rental operation, and would not preclude the site from other conforming uses in the future. Further, the proposed use does not conflict with any specific plans. 3. The proposed use will not be adverse to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the community, nor detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements, because the proposal involves reuse of vacant parcels for a vehicle rental use. The site is surrounded by other similar vehicle rental uses and based on staff analysis and the IS /MND, the use would not produce any adverse effects on the surrounding area. 5. The proposed use complies with design or development standards applicable to the zoning district, as proposed for rezoning to MI from the current FC zoning district, and the existing parking configuration meets applicable standards. 6. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed activity would be compatible with the existing and reasonably foreseeable future land uses in the vicinity because the proposed use will support a previously approved vehicle rental use; and the parcels will not be altered in a way as to preclude future compatible uses. 7. The site is physically suitable for the type, density, and intensity of use being proposed, including access, utilities, and the absence of physical constraints. 8. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission, exercising its independent judgment and analysis, has found that an IS MND was prepared for the Project, which adequately discloses, analyzes and mitigates the proposed Project's potentially significant environmental impacts; accordingly, the Planning Commission has recommended that the City Council approve the IS MND for the project in accordance with CEQA. SECTION 2 RECOMMENDATION NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and recommends that the South San Francisco City Council take the following actions: 1. Adopt an Ordinance amending the Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance to rezone three vacant parcels (APN 015- 114 -420, APN 015 -114 -480, and APN 015 -114- 490) from the Freeway Commercial (FC) zoning district to the Mixed Industrial (MI) zoning district, attached as Exhibit A; and 2. Adopt a resolution modifying the existing Minor Use Permit (MUP15 -0001) to allow an expanded vehicle rental operation subject to the draft Revised Conditions of Approval for the Minor Use Permit attached as Exhibit B. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco at the regular meeting held on the 21St day of August, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Chairperson Khalfin, Vice Chairperson Faria, Commissioner Martin, Commissioner Naaales. Commissioner Ruiz. and Commissioner Wona. Commissioner Yin. NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: Attest_ /s /Sailesh Mehra Secretary to the Planning Commission Exhibit A Exhibit B CEQA Findings Including Statement of Overriding Considerations Exhibit C Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 1440 San Mateo Avenue Rezoning Request City Council Hearing September 28, 2016 Overview 6 PR ^ti ti /� 11 ♦� 11 ♦ � Approved with MUP in 2015 MI 1. Irl I. •�, F 1. u ■r, o 1. 4, �. 1. 41 IN 41 I. 41 �. Rezoning Request for three parcels F ^:': Approved Site Plan West Elevation (Facing San Mateo Ave.) 1 I NOR Rezone Request Activate the rear three parcels for the vehicle rental use by changing zoning Existing railway spur acts as a logical division between the zoning districts Current zoning designations could have been an oversight in 2010 - MI zoning is consistent with surrounding area CEQA Analysis Conducted Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration with 30 day comment period Rezoning impacts to Biological Resources & Cultural Resources would be less than significant with following mitigations: 1. Nesting Bird Study prior to any grading work 2. Halt all work if historic /cultural resources disturbed and retain qualified archaeologist 3 Halt all work if human remains disturbed and notify Native American Heritage Commission /SM Co Coroner MUP Modification Request Staff recommends removal of COA #A6 prohibits use of the rear parcels without a rezoning approval Staff recommends revision to COA #A3 to include the three rear parcels for sales tax reporting New COA #A10 requires conformance with CEQA MMRP Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions: Adopt a Resolution approving the IS /MND; Waive reading and adopt the Ordinance amending the Zoning Map; and Adopt a Resolution modifying the existing Minor Use Permit. P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 • City of South San Francisco Grand Avenue) - South San Francisco, CA Legislation Text File #: 16 -716, Version: 1 Resolution approving the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND 16 -0001) prepared for the Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment (RZ15 -0001, ZA15 -0011) at 1440 San Mateo Avenue. WHEREAS, on June 19, 2015, the property identified as 1440 San Mateo Avenue received approval from the Zoning Administrator for a Minor Use Permit (MUP15 -0001) to operate a vehicle rental facility on two vacant parcels (APNs 015- 114 -470 and 015- 114 -460) in the Mixed Industrial zoning district; and WHEREAS, since that time the applicant has requested that the City consider rezoning three adjoining parcels (APNs 015- 114 -420, 015- 114 -480, and 015- 114 -490) from the Freeway Commercial zoning district to the Mixed Industrial zoning district to permit the vehicle rental facility to expand ( "Project "); and WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS /MND) for the Project; and WHEREAS, the IS/MND was circulated for the required 30 -day public comment period on June 10, 2016, and ended on July 11, 2016, at 5:00 p.m.; and WHEREAS, no comments were received on the document; and WHEREAS, on July 21, 2016, the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the IS/MND (ND 16- 0001), Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment ((RZ15 -0001, ZA15- 0011), and modifications to Minor Use Permit (MUP15- 0001), take public testimony, and make a recommendation to the City Council on the Project; and WHEREAS, on September 28, 2016, the City Council for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the IS/MND (ND16- 0001), Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment (RZ15 -0001, ZA15- 0011), and modifications to Minor Use Permit (MUP15- 0001), and take public testimony on the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq. ( "CEQA ") and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations § 15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR, including all amendments and updates thereto; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the draft Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment, and the IS /MND prepared by Raney Planning & Management, Inc., and all appendices thereto; all reports, minutes, and public testimony City of South San Francisco Page 1 of 2 Printed on 10/14/2016 powered by LegistarTM File #: 16 -716, Version: 1 submitted as part of the Planning Commission's duly noticed July 21, 2016 meeting; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council's duly noticed September 28, 2016 meeting and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: SECTION 1 FINDINGS 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2. The exhibits and attachments, including the IS/MND for the Project (attached as Exhibit A) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (attached as Exhibit B) are each incorporated by reference as part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein. 3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of the Planning Manager, Sailesh Mehra. SECTION 2 APPROVAL NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and hereby approves the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND 16 -0001) attached as Exhibit A, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibit B. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. City of South San Francisco Page 2 of 2 Printed on 10/14/2016 powered by Legistarl" CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT � ,� • ra .fin . '� F r r lr�-- i r I, Calirornza 1440 SAN MATEO AVENUE PROJECT Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2016 Prepared by: RANEY PLANNING & MANAGEMENT, INC. 1501 Sports Drive, Suite A, Sacramento, CA 95834 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration TABLE OF CONTENTS A. PROJECT INFORMATION ......................................................................... ............................... 3 B. SOURCES ......................................................................................................... ..............................5 D. DETERMINATION ....................................................................................... ............................... 7 E. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION ................................................... ............................... 8 F. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................... ............................... 9 G. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ............................................................. .............................15 I. AESTHETICS ............................................................................. .............................16 10 If AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES ......................... .............................20 11 III. AIR QUALITY ............................................................................. .............................21 12 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ..................................................... .............................31 14 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES ......................................................... .............................35 18 VI. GEOLOGYAND SOILS ............................................................. .............................38 19 VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ............................................. .............................41 VIII. HAZARDSAND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ........................... .............................46 IX. HYDROLOGYAND WATER QUALITY .................................... .............................49 X. LAND USE AND PLANNING .................................................. ............................... 53 XI. MINERAL RESOURCES ............................................................ .............................55 AW. NOISE ......................................................................................... .............................56 XIII. POP ULA TION AND HOUSING ................................................ .............................59 XIV. PUBLIC SER VICES ................................................................. ............................... 60 XU RECREATION ............................................................................ .............................62 XVI. TRANSPORTATION/ TRAFFIC .................................................. .............................63 XVII. UTILITIES AND SER VICE SYSTEMS ..................................... ............................... 69 XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ...................... .............................72 FIGURES Figure 1: Regional Location Map ................................................................. ............................... 10 Figure2: Project Vicinity Map ..................................................................... ............................... 11 Figure3: Site Plan ......................................................................................... ............................... 12 Figure4: Landscape Plan .............................................................................. ............................... 14 Figure5: Site Lighting .................................................................................. ............................... 18 Figure6: Site Photometrics ........................................................................... ............................... 19 i June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration TABLES Table 1: BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance .......................................... ............................... 22 Table 2: Maximum Unmitigated Construction Emissions (lbs /day) ............ ............................... 24 Table 3: Maximum Unmitigated Operational Emissions ............................. ............................... 26 Table 4: City CAP Project Consistency Checklist ........................................ ............................... 42 Table 5: Vibration Levels for Varying Construction Equipment ................. ............................... 57 Table6: Trip Generation ............................................................................... ............................... 64 Table 7: Existing, Existing Plus Western Parcels, and Existing Plus Western Parcels Plus Project Conditions Intersection Operations Summary .................... ............................... 65 APPENDICES Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Modeling Results Appendix B: Transportation Assessment ii June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION June 2016 A. PROJECT INFORMATION 1. Project Title: 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Tony Rozzi, AICP Senior Planner (650) 877 -8535 4. Project Location: 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address 6. Project Applicant 7. Existing General Plan Designation: 8. Existing Zoning Designation: 9. Proposed Zoning Designation: 10. Project Description Summary: San Mateo Avenue and Lowrie Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Gary M. Semling, Architect, NCARB, AIA Managing Associate, Stantec Architecture 1383 North McDowell Blvd., Ste. 250 Petaluma, CA 94954 Andrew Jaksich Avis Rent -a -Car System, LLC 513 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Community Commercial (Regional Commercial) Freeway Commercial Mixed Industrial The approximately one -acre proposed project site is located in the City of South San Francisco, east of the intersection of San Mateo Avenue and Lowrie Avenue, west of Produce Avenue, and south of Colma Creek. The project site consists of three vacant parcels identified as Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs) 015 -114 -420 (0.14- acre), 015- 114 -480 (0.47- acre), and 015- 114 -490 (0.38- acre). The proposed project site is currently zoned Freeway Commercial (FC) and automobile /vehicle rental uses are not permitted 3 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration under the FC zoning designation; therefore, the project applicant is seeking approval of a rezone of the three project parcels to the Mixed Industrial (MI) zoning designation. With approval of said rezone of the project site, the property would be used for automobile /vehicle rental uses in conjunction with the parcels immediately west of the subject site. Physical improvements on the project site are limited to restriping and sealing the existing surface parking lot to demarcate a maximum of 200 vehicle stalls for temporary staging of vehicles; installing landscaping on a portion of the southern boundary of the site; trenching for lighting conduit; and installing additional parking lot lights. The project would not include repaving of the project site. 4 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration B. SOURCES The following documents are referenced information sources utilized by this analysis: 1. Association of Bay Area Governments. Interactive Liquefaction Hazard Map. Available at: http: / /quake.abag.ca.gov /earthquakes / #liquefaction. Accessed April 2016. 2. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Plans & Climate. Available at: http: / /www.baagmd.gov/ Divisions /Planning- and- Research/Plans.aspx. Accessed April 2016. 3. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status. Available at: http: / /www.baagmd.gov/ research - and - data/air- quality - standards- and- attainment - status. Accessed April 2016. 4. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2011. 5. California Air Resources Board. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook A Community Health Perspective. April 2005. 6. California Department of Conservation Division of Land Resource Protection Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. San Mateo County Important Farmland Map. 2014. 7. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. RareFind 5. Available at: http: / /www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata /cnddb /mapsanddata.asp. Accessed April 2016. 8. City of South San Francisco. Housing Element 2015 -2023. April 2015. 9. City of South San Francisco. South San Francisco Municipal Code. Revised April 2016. 10. City of South San Francisco. South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance. Adopted July 28, 2010. 11. Department of Toxic Substances Control. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Available at: http : / /www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov /public. Accessed April 2016. 12. Dyett & Bhatia. City of South San Francisco General Plan. October 1999. 13. Dyett & Bhatia. City of South San Francisco General Plan Draft EIR. June 1999. 14. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map (Map Number ID: 06081 C0043E). Available at: https:Hmsc.fema.gov /portal. Accessed April 2016. 15. Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines. May 2006. 16. Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants. Arata Property Transportation Assessment. February 3, 2015. 17. PMC. City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan. February 13, 2014. 18. County of San Mateo. San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan. November 1982. 19. United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Science. Web Soil Survey. Available at: http: / /websoilsurvey.sc.egov. usda .gov /AppiWebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed April 2016. 5 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration C. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics X Biological Resources ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Land Use and Planning ❑ Population & Housing ❑ Transportation /Traffic ❑ Agriculture & Forestry Resources X Cultural Resources ❑ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities & Service Systems ❑ Air Quality ❑ Geology & Soils ❑ Hydrology & Water Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance 6 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration D. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial study: ❑ I find that the Proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 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 applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. s Signature Tony Rozzi, AICP, Senior Planner_ Printed Name June 7, 2016 Date City of South San Francisco For 7 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration E. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION This Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) identifies and analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project (proposed project). The information and analysis presented in this document is organized in accordance with the order of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) checklist in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. If the analysis provided in this document identifies potentially significant environmental effects of the project, mitigation measures that should be applied to the project are prescribed. The mitigation measures prescribed for environmental effects described in this IS/MND will be implemented in conjunction with the project, as required by CEQA. The mitigation measures will be incorporated into the project through project conditions of approval. The City will adopt findings and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project in conjunction with approval of the project. The City of South San Francisco adopted their General Plan and associated Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in October 1999. The General Plan EIR is a program EIR, prepared pursuant to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.), and includes an examination of the potential wide - ranging effects resulting from implementation of the General Plan land use diagram. Measures to mitigate the significant adverse project and cumulative impacts associated with the General Plan were identified in the General Plan EIR. The environmental setting of each section of this IS/MND has been largely based on information in the City's General Plan and associated EIR as well as a site visit conducted by Raney and City staff. In addition, technical traffic and air quality /greenhouse gas emissions reports have been prepared for the proposed project by Fehr & Peers and Raney Planning & Management, Inc., respectively. The technical reports used in the preparation of this IS/MND are available upon request at the City of South San Francisco located at 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California. City of South San Francisco Project Review Process After a project application is complete, the application is subject to environmental, public, and discretionary review through and by the City's Planning Commission and/or City Council, depending upon the type of project, as defined by the City's Municipal Code and state law. The Conditions of Approval (COAs) identified through staff review of the project, and any additional ones identified through the public review process, become required of the project as a matter of law pursuant to the South San Francisco Municipal Code. Prior to the City issuing a building, grading, and /or demolition permit, all City departments and divisions review the project plans for compliance with the identified COAs and any additional conditions added pursuant to the public review process. Permits are not issued by the City's Building Division in the absence of authorization from City staff or in the absence of the identified requirements being incorporated into the project plans. 8 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration F. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A description of the project location and setting, project background, the components of the project, and required discretionary actions, is provided below. Project Location and Existing Site Conditions The approximately one -acre proposed project site is located east of the intersection of San Mateo Avenue and Lowrie Avenue, west of Produce Avenue, and south of Colma Creek (see Figure 1, Regional Location Map and Figure 2, Project Vicinity Map). The project site consists of three vacant parcels identified as APNs 015 -114 -420 (0.14- acre), 015 -114 -480 (0.47- acre), and 015- 114 -490 (0.38- acre). Surrounding land uses include the aforementioned adjacent lot to the west, auto body shops to the south and west, the Park `N Fly facility to the southeast, various commercial uses to the south, and Colma Creek to the north. The project site is currently a vacant, paved lot surrounded by a chain link fence. The site contains two existing light poles and an unused structure at the southern boundary, consisting of a ladder leading to a small enclosure with a door and windows. A small homeless encampment was located beneath the structure at the time of the site visit. One tree and some shrubs are located just outside of the northern boundary of the project site. Project Background On June 19, 2015, the project applicant received City approval of a Minor Use Permit (MUP 15- 0001) and Design Review (DR15 -0024) for the two parcels (APN 015 -114 -470 and 015 -114- 460) located immediately west of the subject site. These two parcels and the current project site are on the same overall property that would be rented by Payless Car Rental (see Figure 3, Site Plan). The proposed improvements for the two western parcels include lot striping to accommodate 150 rental cars, a 1,850- square foot (sf) modular office space, a 1,300 -sf canopy cover for vehicle hand washing, with water collection and reclamation system, a 5,000- gallon fuel dispensing tank, landscaping, security fences, gates and associated site works. The MUP was required because the two westerly parcels are zoned Mixed Industrial (MI), and pursuant to South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.110.002, automobile /vehicle rental uses are allowed in the MI zone subject to approval of a Minor Use Permit. The project applicant would like to use the approximately one -acre subject site to park rental cars associated with their business. In order to utilize the subject site for such purposes, the three subject parcels need to be rezoned from Freeway Commercial to MI. 9 June 2016 K Ai1i '1 LD 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Figure 1 nal Location Map L r n (�1C1..3bar� y -- alp,*[ ZT Aw rtncnaI r y4 ,:. r i o rk Gon r. Ce mote K �"Colma' 4! �• 'E�sra 0 Shopping 4 Crc Ha Center Camale•+ rmnnCo Bli Sk a a a 5gn •a i91y aetlert n tii Hill Pak Park w Rq a ♦ Oy3 r u82 �' �• Pont Parli, - -- � J 4 South San 3 Francisco a" c; irilgg Dr i ^ Project Site ;�� Il a qry L� �r � A + San Bruno Salt Blur+o� a r SPringa o 1 rl Green Hill": rat w. COIL Ub �� � iC lub N �I 10 Rine 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Figure 2 11 June 2016 i I I 11 1 i I I I it r i J i IA i r I 'I 1 t h I' I I' I p+r ilj t II 1 f I } r Figure 3 Site Plan Wpm ERALLSUE PL,�l+T--- `-,z— — 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration KEY IIGTES: E � �� 4'°} � �a hxo- swrlrnr msceras - acMSnh� FcR sry e f E�� f�?Ki'.o-ea N'. +r,1�.Cxr!r. wrl�¢. /�/�rF ■�,I }& ! i'. � � + xr -� �r +; s��la, Ant N.Ye re.e N.S• +aA /A%i wA� PD3AFf. yr 1 �� � � � —+ :T/npVr�L r e:M! a.l1T4r" 614FM+ - Ii�:!1.�?!I F4R I.afY � g!i i � C f4lbjws'AIs I.}I..I IjK FFia NR{Yi.1e ■ � *IR+��.37 Yi�$�1� 7 r m- srrr: rl¢m •oar s- F ra- rpm -Y,r i ¢,5 A&:3 RC P.Rif•I.L. n—d .." X, R%+E(6 cm a.FnA. u91Y1.£Nf s Isrr mTl._'vw -I} 3 2 � w.:e�i -• de} RUIFrr ISU �'�le h�Z ! , crID OrEL*- 7yr U I rum.•. �' x] Fib xrznw5- m arH, 15191 i%ilal� �' U5 EEiI PEree-w.H ws I' I�, �k; py�„� gy�pl :Ne sa (IT6 ^- T;G..rIeY60R3e.xYal:ko9[ :'.rna Y r ' ns} o-' 9GRL SJ1C +lo RtG,"x e tl]:L..➢6 FM! FM PWUCrr0.1L 05 f Ile. -Aye C S 01.1.1w A;h r,soEsrsv My KAA-Z a,:s�ub+x, .An "I 17{ E .z4LV%r1 radn 7 lr b.=' h f � 2 � O I ISI-k z L F {Tiff' PCI iLL'. I pa5►iwu�SP1.1 Ih f I "skd:.TIG d 5.r f•'JR0CS; 4 pdsw Hw _ ,da 12 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Project Components The proposed project consists of a rezone of APNs 015- 114 -420, 015 -114 -480, and 015 -114 -490 from Freeway Commercial (FC) to Mixed Industrial (MI) in order to allow automobile /vehicle rental uses on the project site. For the proposed project, the project applicant is seeking a modification to the previously- approved MUP for the parcels immediately west of the project site. Therefore, the necessary entitlements being reviewed by the City of South San Francisco include a rezone of the project site and an MUP modification. With approval of a rezone of the proposed project site, the entire property would be used for automobile /vehicle rental uses. The scope of improvements associated with the proposed rezone and MUP modification are described in the following sections. Parking Lot Striping and Sealing The project site is currently paved with asphaltic concrete. The proposed project would include restriping the project site to demarcate a maximum of 200 parking stalls for the temporary staging of vehicles. The surface lot would then be seal coated to protect the striping. While this Initial Study evaluates a maximum of 200 vehicle stalls, installation of a fire lane through the approximate center of the parking area would likely reduce the total number of parking spaces on the subject site to 170, as shown in Figure 4. Trenching and nd Lighting Installation The project would include the installation of 11 additional parking lot lights within the proposed project site (this total would not include new lights installed on the adjacent western property). The lights would have a maximum height of 20 feet, in accordance with the City's Municipal Code requirements. In order to install the lighting conduit, trenching to an approximate depth of 18 to 24 inches would be necessary on the site. The proposed lighting for the site is further discussed in the Aesthetics section of this IS/MND. Landscaping With implementation of the project, the asphaltic concrete along the southern border of the project site would be removed and water - efficient landscaping would be installed, consisting of Purple Hopseed Bushes and groundcover (i.e., trailing lantana) (see Figure 4, Landscape Plan). The project would not include removal of any existing shrubs or the single tree that exist immediately outside of the northern property line. Infrastructure The project would not require connection to water or sewer infrastructure, as the project consists only of rental vehicle storage. Storm drain infrastructure already exists on -site, consisting of one catch basin. This catch basin would continue to collect surface runoff from the project site, and route said runoff to the City's storm drain system in San Mateo Avenue. 13 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Figure 4 Landscape Plan 14 June 2016 PLANTING I FerEND \ L7s" SyWWt sEm 4TY. WATURE EOTAJ4ICCAL. YAl C7CYYfN HEIGHT NAME RE9N- u,AWL U ?; ¢� Y 0 TREES jj1 Hit }r}°y� , 75 AL + F.Q° "LM1IfJJ'LS Af,LHf L-% ht LCH'CF �. sr,- -P =i C£Si13"I F£61EWJ SEE �- a _ f 1 � � 2" L4GLH_I4UNIh WICA _NP I 33' t : #' 9OY. F L C%AI 'Ar =� b#Af P',ANC•A4 f 2 lF 'nFYNN ���Ay1t, yy yer EIMd a71 "A �'`!�i. I F?JS -1YO TF TO CTS,U3 SFRLeS ANO PERIEHkA15 JR1t'_FS PF ' ._,.IATU� �-,? 3' 'kLIM rr'.J L fJ b 13r?7,-rJE �. f� }CAL .ES 1 L Mal 'L N..ClSF :' =E +t =p '9 Cu. y+ 12 - A{: }l TrIT9ll �d2�RTrI _ 9 ° LL ,Fat 9 ,e UAti 1 :- I �.- I al o yi ilil♦ .' J 4CCFAWTHLS - .+ a. 7 {',AL f@ jr!, 5r.i;JS(rX f�iCU I•.G§ OF Y [U --Fr. • ...'... ��` .•.._ , -- N"C'C9�:1.,:: 7EEOIA ,Ix W. irti.fi k i'HrJHr>a "X'' -T41 .IN 31 551AL - 1 •' 7eN ILG Iv4a)u COPE R:: {r .' }. AM laxoocueuaLUrEfatb,x`!I sn�wTg egryAEC,1aRENLLa„nll 9flIxJNpaC'+FR: Mki:,z PIANTIPJC;.r, ! C:LSTfiS'Err1JUW 1w1. >s CNYUW fi_ , 53 TRAP 1tG: l L 2 1r I w R,*yr t '. 1.rs. C. F -r kP:rH L'l1 -15Y 1:0 1.,. a I 2 e1 IF C.E;`- - �d- LakTnka ur5 �,'I.wl'lir.tiw 7; �JLJrI_ �IJTAFdB r qq $ L FL•Y1&!: .. p - -� #^"e PI ATANIJS a i ',§ ? F.. • _ �I 1 '. e . -rxvre r CA:.. J 77, IL+ r e- Y.rf'LF�IY L ... JR -.xi.. S.F. ' .. 1 4r L JR/� `4 } Prgiect Site �®orlr R , a. r. .s SIT 'F_A%RES - T,P GOL u, pie c:ca.. ..� —_ - h , � - _ I _ 4 +'a � �+rs•a� x 1 r .�. �rwirwrl.c.qu.rrera t irr!c6 r l...l.w .14CI H.'oUI i. I± " W r1?L' L GI f_.LFP, 944 L. CFJ ' y y r _•_ _Ai _ ___ �,E . Pl br anttawsnw I iar�a�.w+na: - -.. E11LrAN lc FA IEWF >JT. I15E fiY' F� sll .II 11} 11 4 ¢ d41 }ILRL'4 r. rIeIR II Hn *f'} N7 �L l"141H IRA'.erir YrMr Ft} ,5 '5I4"eei3 LLAAi ii/ I016L 4W SIIL LMDN7 ,IP 4 A :U, '1.?'f _..I. _ r 1 - j =_ _ I _ -- ♦ p, �a I I Y.a .gr.ugroualrsrt & �xsw:a.•xmrlwrv+w e.r.e,ee 'r rwpiMii ^.17.9;45 In I %II N} m:1 ! 4 nau I iR %i: IIA 1. r. M3pi IS NET 51- 3011,4 0I TH FLA% }LL LO LEC4HLrT� MiTFACTCR T4 N_O,LAE ..- . -- _- I i,"'. s Y1-, �eryt . +r�+.+?r�"- ^•�' ®�.gra,.ywus�rw J k aV�GE T L+ 5 0 uA35�L iH TIE SFfi , .ta F I ?I .JB i _ LA rr [e{ _- ~•. I �p qW,� 1b�11M4i1T. If11F: ISy+n ulk .5 .:1 rAr 11 I- 7.ih`•.Ili`4IAVJk T I .�"_ I __ _- . .I C'.ar'aorr __"'7771 1'-j- _ II ik#AF& tlmrEr. on .err t � r 1 f- I eeee...wrre¢ g �2 7. __ IQYF lif r- r;� - F. _ I_ I. -- u'e: �_ I I 'r : i1 wsw.I�Ara•cwa +,wwwu WD(EC A) SS A_ MU 7REr REC41T ,,,Ir.31C .{F I U ? ?STHFF rrfrAAHFl1: 7 TTS+FS I'sf.+rf:L'i IACtY TI9HAL RiE + +Ys�i AT TrE - REa'iJEST OF JI , � _ _ :,7 F I aunt iwrto-l. ',CSI -N H_51tO, r ` im an Z= FtaN -E? A-U+C EUC A. aI G t.TR -2T. S N14 CE° I. J L _ •� 1 JJJ J Ire � - + p� 1 +r i1 1 j >ra�'�a�. i�ow.o� 2C. LF 3100 FACE k .2 - 3.2 IF 7--g-I E' -Y J {�a'i ''YR9h1rr`1 __ .. -. - _ _I I i _ II• f IL � + T-1 I ,f i I r I I I I r� 4 -� - a` v mire fl •9rAr Lm.AkTaka , I.hY. {li 11{Ft' 1{I 11 �-47 14[l Y. .: — 4 I?! r.`.. % '.1 = .K teq.IIA 1% - 1111 f I.:,'. :I I I ^ Je i i 1 r 1� � } 'F � � - _ - -- +J' _ rr 1 K, w:rxwornr.1�1f4A0rre M ,f 5 415H SUE34 OF FAFMG LOT 13RU -I)OD � I66 ?rv1VbUO I _ _ F , f T, r 1 j II ii J1 I I , 1 11f I 1 I j I . d _ �ca�iwnsuLael9i • �.sruonwx�rrl I TWEE FEF S F+HI(.K?C �+1Ce5 2 CLrS�pIJE; 'AFNIWC S. ACES •- I THE FECU.fU -RI: -,f '1 +ce p I e rr 1 1 . tr i I I i I +E T - ,L. FW7� I I:IP.7�r CEL N ,e,15117A4ER PWe "y warn +' kaii s=X TURF !Ir_I.OIME]. CX TUIr= FiOslilc�i . z I r J - j' I ' I I - °� 1 v z cg $ b y: _ _ _ .I I I I 'J Lr _ -_ _ 4 u7i `"� ~ _ I�: Rb •,i TIOi aN �71.'YfCe W7+y1 aan rrre�eHlr r-r e r tivreyl aow .ra+ v r M49R 1'LNr i r i4 iri s-.a P-s r4R G[Si RPJn -Y 11"7.7 K_£4�vnf J — ErrFELTJ3 l =5p_ 12 A: WET kl'1 3 3k�'A �. V'{ P.: €] Yd .rN ffA i _ a j 1 rWlike M r{UAr 4p r„ �. dRti4+: LL'J}E� r?R rRX E.-r✓m l�Ll' r, iii•. ,8 3r�13 41fiTf 'dla _>S. f rr. i1n� I F nn 1s+wr 1n± L�I i 4+11 L 4. 11 MAN" AM UNDO AM f16 L'r � C 78 � Yf: f 16� FL /.41IC t y{, J - ✓J9fr -A1 __ {' 'r - _ _. y _ n� �[IIIe a� rti ; ar +a �Er 7 MN� iirlrLQk N IIIL! RSri..k e1�d aAlaec •.� "-'=.� -- -' f.� :k 1e.trs§al.o r,r^LaC' rtes aloe- ••�^- ®aRmuralatn�erlox ,.sawu.Lw.l.xa _P rl 9` �1I r aw.r S�I�Eq urmu�xa?'F 4 ri 4-.u.0 rt maao-l.w.lr» . .n aawae:,r crwlu 1..rrsr� w+nxs rt ,.�.,�.1., F � o.sF''i(11�L1 F r.: T1+*M' 3hP Wld I�u �r is ..4..r:.aa ] yF A srr .=eu r NSRT}1 , a,lrem�l.rel„a ,ravn� �1ev.1�, �.r�r>a� AL11O1C S- UkuA.11JH L _;I _ w1LSrYE.L — 11.te s FAELIM1t+llrRYLANDSi LPEPLaF# .. 1IM 1 1y]RF a. r Ls 14 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration The project is not subject to C.3. stormwater infiltration requirements for the following reasons. Overall, the project would disturb 1,294 sf of the site surface for landscaping installation purposes, and an additional 511 sf for the purposes of trenching for lighting installation. In total, the project would result in disturbance of 1,805 sf of land. The San Mateo C.3. Stormwater Technical Guidance identifies the following applicable threshold for C.3. regulated projects: uncovered parking lots (stand -alone or part of another use) that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. The proposed project does not trigger this threshold. Further discussion regarding drainage can be found in the Hydrology and Water Quality section of this IS/MND. Discretionary Actions Implementation of the proposed project would require the following discretionary actions by the City of South San Francisco: • Adoption of the IS/MND and MMRP; • Approval of a Rezone of the site from FC to MI; and • Approval of a modification of MUP 15 -0001. G. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The following Checklist contains the environmental checklist form presented in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The checklist form is used to describe the impacts of the proposed project. A discussion follows each environmental issue identified in the checklist. Included in each discussion are project - specific mitigation measures recommended, as appropriate, as part of the proposed project. For this checklist, the following designations are used: Potentially Significant Impact: An impact that could be significant, and for which no mitigation has been identified. If any potentially significant impacts are identified, an EIR must be prepared. Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: An impact that requires mitigation to reduce the impact to a less- than - significant level. Less - Than - Significant Impact: Any impact that would not be considered significant under CEQA relative to existing standards. No Impact: The project would not have any impact. 15 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion a,c. The proposed project site is located within the Lindenville sub -area, as indicated in the City's General Plan. Historically, government -built housing for military personnel and shipyard workers was developed during the war on the former marshland between Railroad Avenue, South Spruce Avenue, and San Mateo Avenue — the area is still known as Lindenville. Currently, warehousing /distribution and light industrial uses are dominant; in addition, commercial storage, manufacturing, automobile repair, and commercial automobile uses are present. The proposed project site is already a surface parking lot, though it is not currently in use and has the appearance of a dilapidated parcel with overgrown weeds throughout. The proposed project consists of striping and sealing the existing paved lot to demarcate a maximum of 200 parking spaces, as well as installation of lighting and landscaping. The proposed landscaping, consisting of Purple Hopseed bushes and groundcover (i.e., trailing lantana) would be installed along the southern boundary of the site and would serve to enhance the aesthetic appearance of the project site. The site would operate as the rental car parking /staging area for the Payless Car Rental facility, the primary operations for which will be conducted on the two parcels to the west. The above - described minor improvements to the existing surface parking lot would not be considered a substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. In addition, the General Plan does not designate any areas as scenic vistas. As such, the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings, and the project's impact would be less than significant. 16 June 2016 Less Than I. AESTHETICS. Potentially Significant Less -Than- No Would the project: Significant hnpact with Mitigation Significant hnpact Impact Incorporated a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ❑ ❑ x ❑ vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock ❑ ❑ x ❑ outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its ❑ ❑ X ❑ surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or ❑ ❑ X ❑ nighttime views in the area? Discussion a,c. The proposed project site is located within the Lindenville sub -area, as indicated in the City's General Plan. Historically, government -built housing for military personnel and shipyard workers was developed during the war on the former marshland between Railroad Avenue, South Spruce Avenue, and San Mateo Avenue — the area is still known as Lindenville. Currently, warehousing /distribution and light industrial uses are dominant; in addition, commercial storage, manufacturing, automobile repair, and commercial automobile uses are present. The proposed project site is already a surface parking lot, though it is not currently in use and has the appearance of a dilapidated parcel with overgrown weeds throughout. The proposed project consists of striping and sealing the existing paved lot to demarcate a maximum of 200 parking spaces, as well as installation of lighting and landscaping. The proposed landscaping, consisting of Purple Hopseed bushes and groundcover (i.e., trailing lantana) would be installed along the southern boundary of the site and would serve to enhance the aesthetic appearance of the project site. The site would operate as the rental car parking /staging area for the Payless Car Rental facility, the primary operations for which will be conducted on the two parcels to the west. The above - described minor improvements to the existing surface parking lot would not be considered a substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. In addition, the General Plan does not designate any areas as scenic vistas. As such, the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings, and the project's impact would be less than significant. 16 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration b. Neither State nor local scenic highways are located within the vicinity of the proposed project site. U.S. Highway 101 is located approximately 0.2 -mile from the project site. U.S. 101 is not designated a State scenic highway in this location. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not damage any scenic resources within a State scenic highway, and a less - than - significant impact would result. d. The project site currently contains two parking lot lights along its eastern boundary. The project would include the installation of 11 additional parking lot lights within two of the three project parcels (i.e., APNs 015 -114 -480, and -490) (see Figure 5, Site Lighting). The lights would have a maximum height of 20 feet, in accordance with the City's Municipal Code requirements. Section 20.300.010, Performance Standards, of the Municipal Code requires that lights be placed to deflect light away from adjacent properties and public streets, and to prevent adverse interference with the normal operation or enjoyment of surrounding properties. Properties must not cast light on a public street exceeding one foot - candle (fc) as measured from the centerline of the street, and light exceeding one -half fc must not be cast onto any residentially -zoned property or any property containing residential uses. Residential uses, residentially -zoned properties, or public streets are not located adjacent to the project site. Therefore, the applicable requirement is for the project lighting to be placed to deflect light away from adjacent properties, and to prevent adverse interference with the normal operation or enjoyment of surrounding properties. Figure 6, Site Photometrics, demonstrates the general photometric schedule for the proposed project site. Due to the placement of the proposed lights, and the requirement for shielding, the lighting intensities at the northern, eastern, and southern property lines are relatively minimal, ranging from a minimum of 0.4 footcandles (fc) to a maximum of 6.9 fc.l These intensities would not be considered a substantial new source of light to surrounding properties, none of which are residential. Per the City's Municipal Code, Section 20.300.008, the additional parking lot fixtures shall be shielded so as not to produce obtrusive glare onto the public right -of -way or adjoining properties. All luminaries shall meet the most recently adopted criteria of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) for "Cut Off' or "Full Cut Off ' luminaries. Sensitive residential receptors are not located within the vicinity of the project site, as the site is surrounded by commercial and industrial development, primarily parking lots. Additionally, the site is not located adjacent to any public streets. Therefore, for the above - stated reasons, the proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, and impacts would be considered less than significant. ' The intensities at the western property line are of no significance because this area is part of the same proposed car rental operation. 17 June 2016 Figure 5 Site LUMINA£RE SCHEDULE I CALULM IMWL mw7rAe arsr.A ffww mom 7ftrmz rrri LIAWAG FAMAGF E [MG GkwrED - IILr P%rm rlmrm Lrnmw n3m #L IN O.rr7104C IS} 32V 61 m Luz r� "} P1t91 PPAMPT 1®!C i Lim IN' 11b11A19i MW YIS N .I,Nlifb 11Dt>nT rm VIE LOUL r PP1 w rl aSi[ Q'1LL6m'r`ffiI[ U]Il L9 b rpm; in I]..rrlF]IC (1),v7s '91 � ao®L+- rr- Im- T>o-ian -mr-Ic J3 1 -2 b RIM rLL{k LV2q Arno" 1Y. 1171 GpjtDM Dn hn IMM S7' in R[rT71C [I) MN IS 9 TWC FM LWM 9116 SM A' 6CG ICIUMMH s77711 [MI W IN IJAMI : 415 317A M. b Al IN wtiu�u [w9 I II' Affil[ FIKO LKWI P%r Ailb IrY Almm m I Iffi R in YPAlI_ I ?} 1wY' IX it w AT le — —J 18 51° GENERAL NOTES- 1. Q IF%[W T4 EE'9NU D Z AL DiEW 9111x117 3ULL E FlP0.1ED D PAM ff. FLAG NOTES; I. G7 TIffi L IR P71C: 1) Mini M5 L t mhu Fro I U %APL 21 w4m Pkv [KHP FunmE A4 9 wAn AT tir opm puc PW" YBAIT91d mWdYm ;01 E{+.1l1$ re9hIP7: Yr DI Tw MAW POLL FKLD WGWA PCE � 15 Ewa cgsrw Lf71r nxim uW UM SWL 21 PR1516.1E ILV LI21P R.MW At NO ED AT tW MW. MOM PWAK Ii'iLHr* MVYrr/iE V 9EWMI. - sTL*1 X DVw 5QA%W POLL. FF11 XMPU# PC E. ?+"4}v5. 11 RIMM 4Pr W arAM C- ?lark: QP'ME 0 I 1.:1I2 a 1 1J R IS y 13 IS FX 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2016 I �_7 F r � I 'u I v I "} P1t91 PPAMPT 1®!C i Lim IN' 11b11A19i MW YIS N .I,Nlifb 11Dt>nT rm VIE LOUL r PP1 w J3 1 1 JR.M , f' I 7 t GIL9L99Y P7�R /Jfl I.rJtr FY M X T rr W.. T WV 1I' Ilw4rus Few FX S°k ux 1wMW mm m m"Vr.1� 1 Fm w "m 1•A 329 YIA"nOE wtiu�u [w9 I i — —J I v.�l kh.Traa AT' Rfi ' WF -D FI? �7H idI 10 ITN: MG a'11iR F41.9 I I I 14 Ir IF l 18 51° GENERAL NOTES- 1. Q IF%[W T4 EE'9NU D Z AL DiEW 9111x117 3ULL E FlP0.1ED D PAM ff. FLAG NOTES; I. G7 TIffi L IR P71C: 1) Mini M5 L t mhu Fro I U %APL 21 w4m Pkv [KHP FunmE A4 9 wAn AT tir opm puc PW" YBAIT91d mWdYm ;01 E{+.1l1$ re9hIP7: Yr DI Tw MAW POLL FKLD WGWA PCE � 15 Ewa cgsrw Lf71r nxim uW UM SWL 21 PR1516.1E ILV LI21P R.MW At NO ED AT tW MW. MOM PWAK Ii'iLHr* MVYrr/iE V 9EWMI. - sTL*1 X DVw 5QA%W POLL. FF11 XMPU# PC E. ?+"4}v5. 11 RIMM 4Pr W arAM C- ?lark: QP'ME 0 I 1.:1I2 a 1 1J R IS y 13 IS FX 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2016 Cenerxd P7a&i1anm97 tc J c iad&p PULU E IDOTIMM 4 41 9Y65 m F001L6111,¢ ILI ILNIV 7®ICMU& Q3 YddRY 10 WILYHI I[ S0 � 111M. VAMA11 TU 11FNM re Y1112 ^r n1nG AwDkw ID hbtK" 1C Is* R n6 Figure 6 Site Photometrics •.A7 11. 0 2 141 44 4.i}}" 13E d.3 A4 9.1 1. 1,7 4.3 +u3 31+ },L },L 7.7 9:1 5h 33 10 }.9 7.9 35 S} 511 14 141 Na 16 13 3.3 3.F 47 d:9 145 d.4 16 16 3:0 9.2 36 4.2 19 4\ 7.3 4.$ 17.G 7.} MA 1 2.9 R} 42 3,L 11 A 4p 9:1 7.1 S4 46 7,'1 9.4 43 44 9 "1 S.7 9.1 SL 4.1 40 4A 16 49 #G 7.L 4.1 '.4 '14 11.4,4.3 7.8 16 $.3 L4 C10 32- im 32 4.1) 9.1 i&3 4.4 7.9 47 4.7 ?L 13 140 5.1 1# T,R 7.O 1.4 4) $F 17 7.3 7,p 4.1 L.3 AL 41 13A 7,3 Ss1 Sf 416 10 Ss'+ 47 17 12 7.7 }.$ 1. N M. 7.7 .13 4.4 47 /.3 4;9 &L S2 4,3 4,2 4+4 44 10 40 AT 142 11.4 100 4 IA &L 4.0 4.} 4L i,2 7.3 Si) 15 ,4 4,1 'L4 0.4 4.2 },4 13 44 &P i.+ i.4 4 1.3 11.6 F.2 43 4.7 4.9 I.I 17 1L 4.2 1} d.l a,¢ • L5 11,4 1U 4.7 4.2 S:-0 7.5 3,0 Lf 17 3,6 80 M k5 3A 4.5 4.5 4,7 AS 44 7 NA 3,0 4.2 3,6 3,6 " M 34 L7 17 12 4AI &44 &1 7.8 &0 4.7 &0 6,6 4,2 & 13' &0 4.1 3:f 3.1 13 at M 44 L7 87 4.6 11.6 124 &5 3,7 &0 4.4 k7 f T 7.2 11.7 &2 4,0 L9 nOU1 _ 14 .117 14 41 4.d 7'.53 7.5 iA 3 Ot, S,4 i,9 Lb ]1f 124, r 1.a D.E. 6.1 42 L9 L9 7.3 .r - 4.5 s 11 _. I 1 13� 123 6.1 .316 Lb 2123 - N - -.� L 1 } S5 3 Lb #.9 Ab 3.4 2.5 L9 8.& b.6 4.1 S6 4T 4A 46 4A 42 3.7 at A7 7.3 4.4 3 1.4 3A 3"2 27 22 12 43 3,7 3,b 4.1 &9 4:p d.6 6.1 8.2 &A &1 &1 41,6 4.4 ,7 LG IT 3.1 17 2.3 13 49 4.1- U 3.1 19 9 1 3.9 S.0 7.& A5 b.0 6.1 &1 4 IA 4.3 S.5 .3.4 U It 16.6 &b 42 " &5 at at 5.9 45 5.6. �.+ 5.5 46 &1 5 L3+ 123 61 It L7 It 146 &2 4b 14 4& 4f 5.7 4.5 ,14 It 47 5 12 154 6.4 4.2 3.8 10 &6 6.1 16 14 16 37 &7 4.9 10 14 43 5 L4 8.11 8.1 4.3 3.b 27 4.7 JO 16 3.1 10 12 167 b.6 4A 3,1 2& 38 12 17 + M2.8 &E 41 3.1 313 7.6 5.7 4,0 L6 L6 Y.9 r° 1.2 b.6 4.4 315 U L8 13 4.4 5 Pad 130 7.1 41 15 4t 11.4 &5 4,1) x.7 2.4 2A !A Si 43 ,16 27 27 12 45 5 12 YA &6 CO 18 44 165 &7 43 19 It 15 49 315 3,4 1b LP 5117 3A 45 5 27 125 7.3 54 19 IT 5.4 47 4,0 3.3 312 15 14 3,1 13 3,1 3,1 SA 'a5 44 3 15 11,6 7.4 5.14 4.7 45 4.3 4S 4,4 42 43 19 4.2 19 319 13 315 4.2 4.1 48 2 1.5 S.7 5.1 &6 7.1) 46 4.2 41) 3,0 49 49 4.3 S.1) 4.11 45 12 15 48 47 43 2 4.F 2.1 3.4 &1 111 11.E w3 w3 T.4 11,9 E.7 &5 9.6 1110 &1 43 4E 9.1 9.E 4O 3 4 1 7 4 4.3 4.F I.1 LE } 5 14 AS 13 1.7 L7 L7 iS 9d 1 "7 1& 16 1.1 I:i 1.7 " a 1 60 &7 6b 1.3 IA 1 1.+ 1.9 1.6 1.5 2"4 1A Sall 33 1.2 1.6 1.3 21 ,S3 6.4 21 2 1.8 1.1 1.1 1.6 2S 4A S4 31 1.+ 1.F 1.8 24 L7 5.1 47qp 7 2"7 1.5 1.2 1.7 2S Sb 44 24 1.6 1.2 1.5 23 JA a4- &0 1.6 6 i1 1.8 1.2 1.5 3L6 iA 31 M 2"9 1.+ 1.8 23 31 14 :1.4. 1.F 3 SS 1.8 1.2 1.1 1.5 23 31 4.1 6$ 2J 1.? 23 t2 114 Sa 1.5 4 24 IA 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.9 24 43 6A 23 1.9 21 S7 t4 71 23 2 24 L5 1.2 1.5 IA 1.6 26 41 8b 2A 1.6 IA 24 4S 1A 4'1 U 53 . 2a 1.6 1.8 23 1.? 23 2a 41 1.6 1.5 31m 26 4D 6:7 1.6 9 T3 2S 26 31 4.1 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.9 1.5 1.4 1.6 2.3 24 3,a 1 3.0 2.7 3.1 4.7 79 1.6 1.0 133E IA 1.F 1.1 1.9 23 9.0 21 0 23 2.4 18 4.7 611 1.7 034 0E 03' 1.F 1.7 23 " 3.2 33. 9 13 2.4 33 33 15 1.4 0.2 03 1.0 1.3 1.0 2A- 13 13. 17 E 2,Q 3.0 13 2.4 9.7 1.4 1.2 I.+ 1.+ 1.7 23 33 43 7.5 W E 21 1.7 1.0 31 24 2"i 2.6 3"4 2h 33 23 10 3A 7b 4 2A 1.5 1.6 44 SA 4A 4A E.4 43 SA 9'' 9.9 9.IF 9..7 9 h 1.6 1.7 44 1.7 5.7 5.f 1 R 41 Y7 9,' 1.6 1.3 d9 E 9 "7 1.6 1.7 14 1.7 53 SA 1@.£ 4!i Y7 1.5 1.0 9 9L 1.4 1.3 1.9 9b 33 34 '14 11 14 93 1.4 d.9 J 9-5 1.5 14 114 1.7 1.19 $1 3.a 'd.2 5"3 g4 1.6 0$ 5 24 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.4 1,5 24 27 17 4 -4 a4 1,7 4 3.A 116 1.3 1.3 1.4 119 2.2 14 41 54 74 5- 2.2 L5 1:5 1.6 1.9 2.2 21 1* 42 9,1 'r.6 2 1.7 1.6 21 2A 2.7 27 22 20 a -5 1.5 2 1.4 1.5 25 Al 4,1 19 23 1,5 1.1 2 1.2 1.8 9.2 4A 7.1 5.4 23 1,2 4A 4 4A 914 1.4 - 7&1- R4 -1.8. 04 OA 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Ge?mral photonwtric ScAtedutv 4Y01Y3: rt101c.F1016 2.� WtHLL® F13P'YJUdLK A6 Ism" FOOTdY0.tl 6.4 POW W TD VWP F& U124 41181l" 1G LN114W m 25M PAN MFLW s W" F'G Las PATU 19 Rine 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion a,b,e. The site is not considered Farmland of Prime, Unique, or Statewide Importance and the site is not under a Williamson Act contract. Per the San Mateo County Important Farmland Map, the site is designated Urban and Built -Up Land.2 The project site is currently zoned Freeway Commercial and the proposed project includes a request to rezone the site to Mixed Industrial. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use. In addition, the site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. For the above - stated reasons, the proposed project would have no impact related to the conversion of Farmland to non - agricultural use or conflict with agricultural zoning or a Williamson Act contract. c,d. The project site is not considered forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220[g]) or timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), and the site is not zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104[g]). Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact with regard to conversion of forest land or any potential conflict with forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production zoning. 2 California Department of Conservation Division of Land Resource Protection Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. San Mateo County Important Farmland Map. 2014. 20 June 2016 Less Than IL AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. Potentially Significant Less -Than- No Would the project: Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the ❑ ❑ ❑ X Farmland Mapping Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or ❑ ❑ ❑ x a Williamson Act contract? c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public ❑ ❑ ❑ x Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(8))? d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of ❑ ❑ ❑ x forest land to non - forest use? e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could ❑ ❑ ❑ x individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland to non - agricultural use? Discussion a,b,e. The site is not considered Farmland of Prime, Unique, or Statewide Importance and the site is not under a Williamson Act contract. Per the San Mateo County Important Farmland Map, the site is designated Urban and Built -Up Land.2 The project site is currently zoned Freeway Commercial and the proposed project includes a request to rezone the site to Mixed Industrial. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use. In addition, the site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. For the above - stated reasons, the proposed project would have no impact related to the conversion of Farmland to non - agricultural use or conflict with agricultural zoning or a Williamson Act contract. c,d. The project site is not considered forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220[g]) or timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), and the site is not zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104[g]). Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact with regard to conversion of forest land or any potential conflict with forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production zoning. 2 California Department of Conservation Division of Land Resource Protection Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. San Mateo County Important Farmland Map. 2014. 20 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration III. AIR QUALITY. Potentially Less Than Significant Less - Than- No Would the project: Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ ❑ x ❑ applicable air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality ❑ ❑ X ❑ violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or ❑ ❑ x ❑ state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ x ❑ concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ x ❑ number of people? Discussion a -c. The City of South San Francisco is within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin ( SFBAAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) who regulates air quality in the San Francisco Bay Area. The SFBAAB area is currently designated as a nonattainment area for the State and federal ozone, State and federal particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), and State particulate matter 10 microns in diameter (PMIO) standards. The SFBAAB is designated attainment or unclassified for all other ambient air quality standards (AAQS). It should be noted that on January 9, 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued a final rule to determine that the Bay Area has attained the 24 -hour PM2.5 federal AAQS. Nonetheless, the Bay Area must continue to be designated as nonattainment for the federal PM2.5 AAQS until such time as the BAAQMD submits a redesignation request and a maintenance plan to the USEPA, and the USEPA approves the proposed redesignation. In compliance with regulations, due to the nonattainment designations of the area, the BAAQMD periodically prepares and updates air quality plans that provide emission reduction strategies to achieve attainment of the AAQS, including control strategies to reduce air pollutant emissions via regulations, incentive programs, public education, and partnerships with other agencies. The current air quality plans are prepared in cooperation with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). The most recent federal ozone plan is the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan, which was adopted on October 24, 2001 and approved by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on November 1, 2001. The plan was submitted to the USEPA on November 30, 2001 for review and approval. The most recent State ozone plan is the 2010 Clean Air Plan, adopted on September 15, 2010. The 2010 Clean Air Plan was developed as a multi - pollutant plan that provides an integrated control strategy 21 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration to reduce ozone, PM, toxic air contaminants (TACs), and greenhouse gases (GHGs). Although a plan for achieving the State PMIo standard is not required, the BAAQMD has prioritized measures to reduce PM in developing the control strategy for the 2010 CAP. The control strategy serves as the backbone of the BAAQMD's current PM control program. Adopted BAAQMD rules and regulations, as well as the thresholds of significance, have been developed with the intent to ensure continued attainment of AAQS, or to work towards attainment of AAQS for which the area is currently designated nonattainment, consistent with applicable air quality plans. The BAAQMD's established significance thresholds associated with development projects for emissions of the ozone precursors reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX), as well as for PMlo, and PM2.5, expressed in pounds per day (lbs /day) and tons per year (tons /yr), are listed in Table 1.3 Thus, by exceeding the BAAQMD's mass emission thresholds for operational emissions of ROG, NOx, or PMlo, a project would be considered to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the BAAQMD's air quality planning efforts. Table 1 BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance Construction O erational Pollutant Average Daily Emissions (lbs /da) Average Daily Emissions (lbs /da) Maximum Annual Emissions (tons/ ear) ROG 54 54 10 NOX 54 54 10 PM 10 82 82 15 PM2.5 54 54 10 Source: BAAQMD, CEQA Guidelines, May 2010. 3 It should be noted that the BAAQMD resolutions adopting and revising the 2010 significance thresholds were set aside by the Alameda County Superior Court on March 5, 2012. The Alameda Superior Court did not determine whether the thresholds were valid on the merits, but found that the adoption of the thresholds was a project under CEQA, necessitating environmental review. The BAAQMD appealed the Alameda County Superior Court's decision. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, reversed the trial court's decision. The Court of Appeal's decision was appealed to the California Supreme Court, which granted limited review confined to the questions of under what circumstances, if any, does CEQA require an analysis of how existing environmental conditions will impact future residents or users (receptors) of a proposed project? On review, the Supreme Court rejected BAAQMD's argument that CEQA requires an analysis of the environment's impact on a project in every instance. Rather, the Court held that CEQA review should be "limited to those impacts on a project's users or residents that arise from the project's effects on the environment." Ultimately, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal's decision and remanded the matter back to the appellate court to reconsider the case in light of the Supreme Court's opinion. The California Supreme Court did not review the underlying question whether adoption of the thresholds is a project under CEQA, and no court has indicated that the thresholds lack evidentiary support. BAAQMD continues to provide direction on recommended analysis methodologies, but has withdrawn the recommended quantitative significance thresholds for the time being. The May 2012 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines state that lead agencies may reference the Air District's 1999 Thresholds of Significance available on the Air District's website. Lead agencies may also reference the Air District's CEQA Thresholds Options and Justification Report developed by staff in 2009. The CEQA Thresholds Options and Justification Report, available on the District's website, outlines substantial evidence supporting a variety of thresholds of significance. The air quality and GHG analysis in this IS/MND uses the previously- adopted 2010 thresholds of significance to determine the potential impacts of the proposed project, as the thresholds are supported by substantial evidence. 22 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration The proposed project would not be considered new development, but is merely restriping and seal coating an existing parking lot to allow for additional on -site vehicle storage. The proposed project would involve some other minor improvements, including the removal of 1,294 sf of existing pavement, which would be replaced with landscaping, and trenching and installing 11 additional parking lot lights. The project would not involve any grading, repaving, or building construction. The proposed project improvements would involve a total disturbance area of approximately 1,805 sf (or 0.04 -acre) and would not directly result in the introduction of any new employees at the site. The minimal amount of improvements would not be expected to generate construction or operational emissions that would substantially contribute to the region's air quality issues or obstruct implementation of the BAAQMD's air quality planning efforts. In order to verify the aforementioned expectations, a comparison of the proposed project's estimated emissions to the BAAQMD thresholds of significance has been conducted. The proposed project's construction and operational emissions were quantified using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) software version 2013.2.2 — a statewide model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify air quality emissions, including GHG emissions, from land use projects. The model applies inherent default values for various land uses, including construction data, trip generation rates based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, vehicle mix, trip length, average speed, etc. Where project - specific information is available, such information should be applied in the model. As such, the proposed project's modeling assumed the following: • Construction assumed to commence in January 2017 and occur over an approximately one -month period; • Construction would consist of a demolition and trenching phase and would involve the following pieces of equipment operating for a maximum of eight hours per day: • Concrete industrial saw; • Rubber -tired dozer; • Tractor /loader/backhoe; • Generator set; and • Air compressor; • Demolition of approximately 511 sf of existing pavement would be necessary; and • The proposed project would allow for the generation of approximately 354 trips per day, based on a daily trip generation rate of 1.77 per parking space, according to the Transportation Assessment prepared for the proposed project. The proposed project's estimated emissions associated with construction, operations, and cumulative conditions are presented and discussed in further detail below. 23 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Construction Emissions According to the CalEEMod results, the proposed project would result in maximum construction criteria air pollutant emissions as shown in Table 2. As shown in the table, the proposed project's construction emissions would be below the applicable thresholds of significance. Table 2 Maximum Unmiti ated Construction Emissions (lbs /da ) ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 Project Construction Emissions 6.03 20.65 1.33 1.12 Thresholds of Significance 54 54 82 54 Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO NO Source: CaIEEMod, April 2016 (see Appendix A). All construction projects are required to comply with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's ( BAAQMD) dust control measures. These measures are imposed by the City's Engineering Division on all projects as a condition of building permit issuance and are monitored for compliance by staff and/or City consultants. The measures include all the Basic Fugitive Dust Emissions Reduction Measures, Basic Exhaust Emissions Reduction Measures, and some of the Additional Fugitive Dust Emissions Reduction Measures identified by the BAAQMD as of May 2011. The City requires projects to do the following: 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 (with wet power vacuum sweepers), if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets, at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. f) Hydroseed or apply (non- toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). g) Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non -toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiled materials. h) Install sandbags or other erosion - control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. i) Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. j) Watering should be used to control dust generation during the break -up of pavement. k) Cover all trucks hauling demolition debris from the site. 1) 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. 24 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration n) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be in proper running order prior to operation. o) Diesel powered equipment shall not be left inactive and idling for more than five minutes and shall comply with applicable BAAQMD rules. p) Use alternative fueled construction equipment, if possible. q) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour and slower, should wind and dust conditions necessitate. r) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible and building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading, unless seeding or soil binders are used. s) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five (5) minutes (as required by the California airborne toxic control measure detailed in Title 13, Section 2485 of the California Code of Regulations). Clear signage regarding this requirement shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. t) Post a visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within twenty -four (24) hours. The applicable Air District phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. As such, the proposed project would implement the BAAQMD's Basic Construction Mitigation Measures listed above, to the extent that the measures are feasible for the proposed project's construction activities. Compliance with the aforementioned measures would help to further minimize any construction- related emissions. Because the proposed project would be below the applicable thresholds of significance for construction emissions, the proposed project would not be considered to result in a significant air quality impact during construction. Operational Emissions According to the CalEEMod results, the proposed project would result in maximum operational criteria air pollutant emissions as shown in Table 3. As shown in the table, the proposed project's operational emissions would be below the applicable thresholds of significance. Because the proposed project would be below the applicable thresholds of significance for operational emissions, the proposed project would not be considered to result in a significant air quality impact during operations. 25 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Table 3 Maximum Unmitigated Operational Emissions ROG I NOx PM,O PM2.5 Avera a Daily Emissions (lbs /da ) Project Operational Emissions 1.72 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Thresholds of Significance 54 54 82 54 Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO NO Maximum Annual Emissions (tons/ ear) Project Operational Emissions 0.31 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Thresholds of Significance 10 10 15 10 Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO NO Source: CalEEMod, April 2016 (see Appendix A). Note: These operational emission calculations assume a total of approximately 354 trips per day for the project site, based on a daily trip generation rate of 1.77 per parking space, with 200 total parking spaces. Cumulative Emissions Past, present and future development projects contribute to the region's adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. A single project is not sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of AAQS. Instead, a project's individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project's contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project's impact on air quality would be considered significant. In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project's individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. The thresholds of significance presented in Table 1 represent the levels at which a project's individual emissions of criteria air pollutants or precursors would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the SFBAAB's existing air quality conditions. If a project exceeds the significance thresholds presented in Table 1, the proposed project's emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse cumulative air quality impacts to the region's existing air quality conditions. Because the proposed project would result in emissions below the applicable thresholds of significance, the project would not be expected to result in a cumulatively considerable contribution the region's existing air quality conditions. Conclusion As stated previously, the applicable regional air quality plans include the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan and the 2010 CAP. According to BAAQMD, if a project would not result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts, after the application of all feasible mitigation, the project may be considered consistent with the air quality plans. Because the proposed project would result in emissions below the applicable thresholds of significance, the project would not be considered to conflict with or obstruct implementation of regional air quality plans. Because the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 26 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration applicable air quality plans, violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria air pollutant, impacts would be considered less than significant. d. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others, due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Heightened sensitivity may be caused by health problems, proximity to the emissions source, and /or duration of exposure to air pollutants. Children, pregnant women, the elderly, and those with existing health problems are especially vulnerable to the effects of air pollution. Accordingly, land uses that are typically considered to be sensitive receptors include residences, schools, childcare centers, playgrounds, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals, and medical clinics. The proposed project would involve restriping and seal coating an existing parking lot, as well as some other minor improvements. Because the project would not introduce any sensitive users to the site, the proposed project would not be considered a sensitive receptor. The project site is located in an industrial area and is predominantly surrounded by existing industrial and commercial uses. The nearest existing sensitive receptors would be the residences located nearly 1,500 feet to the northwest of the site, opposite Colma Creek and the Caltrain tracks. The major pollutant concentrations of concern are localized CO emissions and TAC emissions, which are addressed in further detail below. Localized CO Emissions Localized concentrations of CO are related to the levels of traffic and congestion along streets and at intersections. High levels of localized CO concentrations are only expected where background levels are high, and traffic volumes and congestion levels are high. Emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) are of potential concern, as the pollutant is a toxic gas that results from the incomplete combustion of carbon - containing fuels such as gasoline or wood. CO emissions are particularly related to traffic levels. In order to provide a conservative indication of whether a project would result in localized CO emissions that would exceed the applicable threshold of significance, the BAAQMD has established screening criteria for localized CO emissions. According to BAAQMD, a proposed project would result in a less - than - significant impact related to localized CO emission concentrations if the following screening criteria are met: • The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans; • The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour; and • The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and /or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, underpass, etc.). 27 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration The Transportation Assessment prepared for the proposed project analyzed whether the project would cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the traffic load and capacity of the street system or change the conditions of an existing street in a manner that would substantially impact access or traffic load and capacity of the street system using criteria from applicable plans, policies, and standards for the project area. According to the Transportation Assessment, as discussed in further detail in Section XVI, Transportation/Circulation, of this IS /MND, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any impacts related to transportation or circulation. Accordingly, the proposed project would not be expected to interfere with any applicable congestion management program, regional transportation plan, or local congestion management agency plans. In addition, according to the Transportation Assessment, the maximum volume that would occur at any of the study intersections for the project under existing plus project conditions would be 3,689 vehicles per hour, which would occur during the PM peak hour at the San Mateo Avenue /Airport Boulevard intersection. Thus, the proposed project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at any affected intersection to more than 24,000 or 44,000 vehicles per hour, as identified in the screening criteria above. As such, a substantial increase in levels of CO at surrounding intersections would not occur. Therefore, the proposed project would not be expected to result in substantial levels of localized CO at surrounding intersections or generate localized concentrations of CO that would exceed standards. TAC Emissions For assessing community risks and hazards related to TAC emissions, BAAQMD recommends that any proposed project that includes the siting of a new emission source or sensitive receptor assess associated impacts within 1,000 feet of the project property boundary. As stated above, the proposed project is not considered a sensitive receptor. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the exposure of on -site sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations associated with any existing nearby uses. Typical major sources of TAC emissions include, but are not limited to, freeways and high traffic roads, distribution centers, rail yards, gas dispensing facilities, dry cleaners, and distribution centers. The proposed project would not involve any land uses or operations that would be considered major sources of TACs. As such, the proposed project would not generate any substantial pollutant concentrations during operations. The proposed project's short-term, construction- related activities could result in the generation of TACs associated with off -road equipment exhaust emissions. However, construction is temporary, occurs over a relatively short duration in comparison to the operational lifetime of the proposed project, and construction activities for the proposed project are minimal. In addition, as stated above, the nearest sensitive receptor is located nearly 1,500 feet to the northwest of the proposed project site. Therefore, project construction would not be expected to expose any existing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. 28 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Conclusion Based on the above, the proposed project would not cause or be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations, including localized CO or TACs, and impacts related to such would be less than sign ifican t. e. Due to the subjective nature of odor impacts, the number of variables that can influence the potential for an odor impact, and the variety of odor sources, quantitative methodologies to determine the presence of a significant odor impact do not exist. Typical odor - generating land uses include, but are not limited to, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and composting facilities. The proposed project would not introduce any such land uses and is not located in the vicinity of any such existing or planned land uses. Although less common, diesel fumes associated with substantial diesel - fueled equipment and heavy -duty trucks, such as from construction activities, freeway traffic, or distribution centers, could be found to be objectionable. The proposed project would not involve any land uses or operations that would involve the generation of substantial diesel fumes. The proposed project's short-term, construction- related activities could result in the generation of objectionable odors associated with off -road equipment exhaust emissions. Although diesel fumes from construction equipment are sometimes found to be objectionable, as discussed above, construction is temporary and construction activities for the proposed project are minimal. Construction equipment would operate intermittently throughout the course of a day, would be restricted to daytime hours per Title 8, Section 8.32.050 Special Provisions, of the City's Municipal Code, and would likely only occur over portions of the improvement area at a time. In addition, all construction equipment and operation thereof would be regulated per the In -Use Off - Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation. Project construction would also be required to comply with all applicable BAAQMD rules and regulations, particularly associated with permitting of air pollutant sources. The aforementioned regulations would help to minimize air pollutant emissions, as well as any associated odors. Furthermore, the nearest sensitive receptor is located nearly 1,500 feet to the northwest of the proposed project site, separated from the site by existing development, Caltrain tracks, and Colma Creek. Therefore, the proposed project would not be expected to create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. It should be noted that BAAQMD regulates objectionable odors through Regulation 7, Odorous Substances, which does not become applicable until the Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO) receives odor complaints from ten or more complainants within a 90- day period. Once effective, Regulation 7 places general limitation on odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain odorous compounds, which remain effective until such time that citizen complaints have been received by the APCO for one year. The limits of Regulation 7 become applicable again when the APCO receives odor complaints from five or more complainants within a 90 -day period. Thus, although not anticipated, if odor complaints are made after the proposed project is developed, the BAAQMD would ensure that such odors are addressed and any potential odor effects reduced to less than significant. 29 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration For the aforementioned reasons, the proposed project would not create objectionable odors, nor would the project site be affected by any existing sources of substantial objectionable odors, and a less - than - significant impact related to objectionable odors would result. 30 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian Less Than Less - IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Potentially Significant Than- No Would the project: Significant Impact with Significant Impact Mitigation c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally Impact Incorporated a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, through habitat modifications, on any species marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status ❑ x ❑ species in local or regional plans, policies, or d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any regulations, or by the California Department of Fish ❑ ❑ x ❑ established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and ❑ ❑ X ❑ regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, ❑ El K El marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with ❑ ❑ x ❑ established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree ❑ ❑ X ❑ preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation ❑ El ❑ X Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Discussion a. Figure 4.13 -1, Biological Resources, of the General Plan EIR shows sensitive biological habitats in South San Francisco. The proposed project site does not contain any areas identified as a vegetative community or special species habitat. In addition, a search of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's (CDFW) Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) was performed for the proposed project location to determine the records of sensitive plant and wildlife species within the general vicinity of the area. A total of 65 federally - listed, State- listed, or special - status plant and wildlife species were identified for the general project area, including 35 plant species, 14 insect species, six bird species, three fish species, two reptile and two bat species, and one amphibian and one crustacean species. 31 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Many of the plant and wildlife species occur in specialized habitats, such as riparian, wetlands, marshes, ponds, and other aquatic habitats (e.g., California red - legged frog, California clapper rail, California black rail, San Francisco garter snake, western pond turtle, etc.), as well as coastal scrub (e.g., manzanita, San Francisco Bay spineflower, blue gilia, Stage's dufourine bee, etc.), grasslands (e.g., Crystal Springs lessingia, San Francisco owl's- clover, etc.), and forests (e.g., Townsend's big -eared bat, hoary bat). The proposed project site is entirely surrounded by other industrial and commercial developments similar to that of the proposed project. Colma Creek is adjacent to the site to the north; however, the project would not include any disturbance of the creek. The project site itself is surrounded by a chain link fence and the project would not include any development outside the boundary of the fence. The proposed project site is highly disturbed and has been previously developed. The proposed project site does not contain and is not considered, associated with, or located within the vicinity of any riparian habitat, wetlands, or other sensitive natural communities. The absence of suitable habitat and the highly disturbed and urbanized nature of the site and surrounding area would eliminate the potential for any of the special - status species to occur on site. Accordingly, the species identified by the CNDDB search to potentially occur in the area would not be present at the project site and would not be affected by implementation of the proposed project. Although the proposed project site is highly disturbed and lacks essential habitat for special - status plants and wildlife species, a remote possibility remains that protected migratory birds in the vicinity could establish nests in trees near the boundary of the site prior to initiation of construction. If new nests are established, construction could result in inadvertent loss of nesting birds unless adequate protective measures are taken. Migratory bird species are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Should any of the migratory bird species be found nesting in the on -site trees during construction activities, the proposed project could result in a potentially significant impact associated with a substantial adverse effect on a species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special - status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above impact to a less - than - significant level. IV -1 Within 14 days prior to commencing construction work during the avian nesting season (March I to September 1), a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey within the site boundaries and the vegetated area between the site's northerly boundary and Colma Creek (If construction work would not occur during the nesting season, a nesting survey is not required). If special- status birds are not identified nesting within the area of effect, further mitigation is not required. If special- status birds are identified nesting within the area of effect, a 75 foot no- disturbance buffer 32 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration around the nest(s) shall be staked with orange construction fencing. Construction or earth- moving activities shall be restricted within the identified buffer until the determination is made by a qualified biologist that the young have fledged (i.e., left the nest) and have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid project construction zones. This typically occurs by June 15th; however, the date may be later and would have to be determined by a qualified ornithologist. The preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be submitted for review and approval by the City of South San Francisco Planning Division. b,c. Wetlands or seasonal wetlands generally denote areas where the soil is seasonally saturated and/or inundated by fresh water for a significant portion of the wet season, and then seasonally dry during the dry season. To be classified as "wetland," the duration of saturation and/or inundation must be long enough to cause the soils and vegetation to become altered and adapted to the wetland conditions. The proposed project site is currently an unused surface parking lot, surrounded by existing development in an urban area. Water features are not located on the project site and the site is not within a floodplain or normally subjected to flooding. As such, wetlands, seasonal wetlands, or vernal pools do not exist on the project site. Similarly, riparian habitat does not exist on the project site or in the vicinity, and the project would not involve removal of any riparian vegetation or sensitive native vegetation. In addition, local or regional sensitive habitat types or natural communities regulated by the CDFW or USFWS are not present or associated with the project footprint. Colma Creek is located approximately 30 feet north of the project site; however, the project site is entirely enclosed by a chain link fence and the project would not include any disturbance of, or near, Colma Creek. Consequently, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally - protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, riparian habitat, or any other sensitive natural community. Therefore, impacts related to riparian habitat, wetlands, or other sensitive natural communities would be less than significant. d. As discussed above, the project site is a paved surface parking lot and is located in a currently developed area. Resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or wildlife nursery sites, do not exist on the project site or the immediate vicinity. Therefore, the project would not interfere with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, and impacts would be less than significant. e. According to the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance, the preservation of trees is essential to the health, welfare and quality of life of the citizens of the City because these trees preserve the scenic beauty of the City, maintain ecological balance, prevent erosion of top soil, counteract air pollution and oxygenate the air, absorb noise, maintain climatic and microclimatic balance, help block wind, and provide shade and color. The Ordinance provides standards and requirements for the protection of certain large trees and trees with unique characteristics, as well as for planting and maintenance of trees for new 33 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration development. The Ordinance also establishes recommended standards for planting and maintaining trees on property that is already developed. Trees are not located on the project site. A single tree is located just outside of the project's northern boundary — this tree would be avoided during striping and sealing of the existing surface parking lot. With retention of this existing tree along the site's northern border, the project would not conflict with the applicable Tree Preservation Ordinance, and impacts would be considered less than significant. f. The San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) was prepared for the County of San Mateo in 1982 and was authorized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 1983. According to the General Plan EIR, the City of South San Francisco contains two areas specifically set aside as habitat for the conservation of threatened and endangered species — San Bruno Mountain and the portion of Sign Hill currently classified as a City park — which are subject to the San Bruno Mountain HCP. The proposed project site is not within the planning area for the San Bruno Mountain HCP. The City itself does not have an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Therefore, no impact would occur related to a conflict with such a plan. 34 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Potentially Less Than Significant Less - Than- No Would the project: Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ❑ ❑ x ❑ Section 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource ❑ % ❑ ❑ pursuant to Section 15064.5? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource on site or unique geologic ❑ x ❑ ❑ features? d. Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ x ❑ ❑ interred outside of formal cemeteries. e. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined ❑ ❑ x ❑ in Public Resources Code 21074? Discussion a. The term cultural resources encompasses archaeological, traditional, and "built environment" resources, including, but not necessarily limited to, buildings, structures, objects, districts, and sites (generally 45 years old or older). An historic resource is a structure, site, or feature that is representative of a historic period or building type, but is not of landmark quality. Historic and cultural resources in South San Francisco are protected through the process of local designation and subsequent oversight by the Historic Preservation Commission. In addition to Sign Hill, the City's only national historic landmark, South San Francisco's designated resources include several residential and commercial buildings in the Downtown area. According to the General Plan EIR, the proposed project site is not located within the vicinity of any identified historic resources. In addition, the project site is currently vacant and does not contain any historical resources. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in a less - than - significant impact related to historical resources as defined in Section 15064.5. b -d. According to the City's General Plan EIR, consistent with the City of South San Francisco's history as an Ohlone settlement location, the City has Native American village sites and shell mounds scattered around the City. Known resources include the following: • A Native American archaeological village (CA -SMA -299) located within the El Camino Real Corridor Redevelopment Area that contains household items, projectile points, dietary debris, and human burials. • A large shell mound (CA- SMA -40) and one small shell midden (CA- SMA -40) near the south slope of San Bruno Mountain. The shell mound is considered a significant archaeological resource. 35 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration The City's coastal location, and its rich history as a center of industry, makes the existence of additional prehistoric and historic archaeological resources possible. CEQA requires the evaluation of any archaeological resource on the site of a development project and provides for the protection of archaeological resources. City involvement in the identification, mitigation, and monitoring of project impacts on these resources ensures the protection of South San Francisco's cultural heritage. Policy 7.5 -I -4 of the General Plan requires that the City ensure the protection of known archaeological resources in the City by requiring a records review for any development proposed areas of known resources and Policy 7.5 -I -5 requires for development projects the preparation of a resource mitigation plan and monitoring program by a qualified archaeologist in the event that archaeological resources are uncovered. The project site has already been disturbed and is an existing paved surface parking lot. Minimal ground disturbance would occur on -site during construction. Trenching for lighting conduit would only extend to a depth of approximately 24 inches. Therefore, for the above - stated reasons, it is unlikely that previously unknown archaeological resources would be identified on -site during construction. However, the City's General Plan EIR states that a high possibility exists for the City to contain Native American resources due to the City's location near the San Francisco Bay. Consequently, the possibility still exists that during construction activities, unidentified archaeological resources, paleontological resources, or human remains may be uncovered, which could result in a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above impact to a less - than - significant level. V -1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, project plans shall include a requirement (via notation) indicating that if historic and /or cultural resources, or human remains are encountered during site grading or other site work, all such work shall be halted immediately within 100 feet of the area of discovery and the contractor shall immediately notify the City of the discovery. In such case, the applicant shall retain the services of a qualified archaeologist for the purpose of recording, protecting, or curating the discovery as appropriate. The archaeologist shall be required to submit to the City for review and approval a report of the findings and method of curation or protection of the resources. Further grading or site work within the vicinity of the discovery, as identified by the qualified archaeologist, shall not be allowed until the preceding steps have been taken. All fees associated with the services of the qualified archaeologist shall be paid by the project applicant. V -2 Pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5 (c) State Public Resources Code §5097.98, if human bone or bone of unknown origin is found during construction, all work shall stop in the vicinity of the find and the San Mateo County Coroner shall be contacted immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission who shall notify the person believed to be the most likely descendant. 36 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration The most likely descendant shall work with the contractor to develop a program for re- internment of the human remains and any associated artifacts. Additional work is not to take place in the immediate vicinity of the find, which shall be identified by the qualified archaeologist, until the identified appropriate actions have been implemented. All fees associated with the services of the qualified archaeologist shall be paid by the project applicant. e. Tribal cultural resources are generally defined by Public Resources Code 21074 as sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe. A Sacred Lands File search, performed by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the immediate project area on April 22, 2016, failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area. In addition, the City has not received requests from tribes for formal notification of projects in the City of South San Francisco, with which the tribe(s) must be traditionally or culturally affiliated, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1. In the absence of information regarding tribal cultural resources provided by California Native American tribes, the City has relied on the negative results of the NAHC Sacred Lands file search, and the existing disturbed, developed environment of the project site, to conclude that the project is expected to have a less - than - significant impact to tribal cultural resources. 37 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Less Than Less - Potentially Significant Than- No Would the project: Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 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 ❑ ❑ X ❑ State Geologist for the area based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ X ❑ iii. Seismic - related ground failure, including ❑ ❑ x ❑ liquefaction? iv. Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ K b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ ❑ x ❑ topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off- ❑ ❑ X ❑ site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), ❑ ❑ K ❑ creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑ x disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Discussion a.i- a.iii.The San Francisco Bay area is one of the most seismically active areas in the country. While seismologists cannot predict earthquake events, the U.S. Geological Survey's Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities 2007 estimates a 63 percent chance of at least one magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake occurring in the Bay Area region between 2007 and 2036. As seen with the damage in San Francisco and Oakland due to the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake that was centered about 50 miles south of San Francisco, significant damage can occur at considerable distances. Higher levels of shaking and damage would be expected for earthquakes occurring at closer distances. The faults considered capable of generating significant earthquakes are generally associated with the well - defined areas of crustal movement, which trend northwesterly. The nearest State - considered active fault to the site is the San Andreas Fault, which is located approximately three miles from the site. 38 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration While the project site is located within a seismically- sensitive area, the site has been previously developed and the proposed project, which consists of striping and sealing the existing paved lot, as well as installation of lighting and landscaping, would not include any development or construction of structures on the site. In addition, while people may be located on the project, when moving rental vehicles to /from the adjacent rental facility, these employees would only temporarily be located on the project site. Because the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with fault rupture or strong seismic ground shaking, impacts would be considered less than significant. aiv. The proposed project site has been previously developed and is surrounded by existing development. In addition, the project site is relatively flat. Therefore, no impact related to exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with landslides would occur. b. Implementation of the proposed project would result in ground disturbance on very few areas of the site for trenching and landscaping purposes. A total of 1,805 sf would be disturbed as a result of the project. Land on the site is flat and would have a slight potential for soil erosion. During the early stages of construction activities, topsoil would be exposed due to removal of a portion of the existing pavement near the southern boundary of the site, and prior to installing landscaping on this portion of the site, the potential exists for wind and water erosion to occur, which could adversely affect project site soils. However, per Section 14.04.180 Reduction of Pollutants in Stormwater, of the City's Municipal Code, all construction sites in the City must implement year -round effective erosion control, run -on and runoff control, sediment control, active treatment systems (as appropriate), good site management, and non - stormwater management through all phases of construction until the site is stabilized by landscaping or the installation of permanent erosion control measures. In addition, the project would be required to implement the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program's construction Best Management Practices (BMPs), including temporary erosion controls to stabilize all denuded areas until permanent erosion controls are established. After construction is completed, installation of landscaping along the southern boundary of the site would preclude future erosion on the otherwise completely paved site. Therefore, overall, impacts related to soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be considered less than significant. c -d. As discussed above, according to the General Plan EIR, soils in the flat, lowland eastern portions of the City, which are composed largely of Bay mud overlain with fill, have high shrink -swell potential, high water table, and low strength. These soil conditions amplify earthquake waves and groundshaking, and are subject to liquefaction. In addition, as mentioned above, the project site is located within an area of variable liquefaction. The project site is not, however, located in the area comprised by Bay mud overlain with fill; the site is entirely composed of artificial fill soils. In addition, the project site has been previously developed and is currently paved. 39 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration With respect to expansive soils, these soils could damage foundations of aboveground structures, paved roads and streets, and concrete slabs. Expansion and contraction of soils, depending on the season and the amount of surface water infiltration, could exert enough pressure on structures to result in cracking, settlement, and uplift. The project site was mapped using the Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) Web Soil Survey. The Web Soil Survey map for the project site indicates that the entirety of the project site is composed of Urban land - Orthents, reclaimed complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes. Orthents soil is characterized as well- drained, silty clay, which could potentially have expansive properties. While the project site is located within an area subject to liquefaction and expansive soils, the site currently consists of a paved parking lot, and the proposed lot does not appear to have damage resulting from these geotechnical hazards. The proposed project would result in the continued use of the site as a parking lot, and no structures would be introduced onto the project site that could be subject to damage from liquefaction or expansive soils. In addition, while people may temporarily be located on the project, when moving rental vehicles to /from the adjacent rental facility, these employees would only be located on the project site for short periods of time. Therefore, the project would result in a less - than - significant impact associated with liquefaction. e. The project site is a vacant, paved lot and, upon implementation of the project, the site would remain a paved lot used for parking. The site would not require any connection to the City's sewer system. Septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are not proposed for the project and would not be required. Therefore, no impact would occur from soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks. 40 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of ❑ ❑ K ❑ greenhouse gasses? Discussion a,b. Emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the industrial /manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors. Therefore, the cumulative global emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change can be attributed to every nation, region, and city, and virtually every individual on earth. An individual project's GHG emissions are at a micro -scale level relative to global emissions and effects to global climate change; however, an individual project could result in a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to a significant cumulative macro - scale impact. As such, impacts related to emissions of GHG are inherently considered cumulative impacts. The proposed project would involve restriping and seal coating an existing parking lot to allow for additional on -site vehicle storage. Some other minor improvements would also occur with implementation of the project, including the removal of 1,805 sf of existing pavement, which would be replaced with landscaping, and trenching and installing 11 additional parking lot lights. According to the Transportation Assessment prepared for the proposed project, with the addition of on -site vehicle parking stalls, specifically an increase of a maximum of 200 vehicle stalls for temporary staging of vehicles, the project would be expected to increase the vehicle trips associated with the site. Implementation of the proposed project would cumulatively contribute to increases of GHG emissions. Estimated GHG emissions attributable to future development is primarily associated with increases of carbon dioxide (CO2) and, to a lesser extent, other GHG pollutants, such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N20) associated with area sources, mobile sources or vehicles, utilities (electricity and natural gas), water usage, wastewater generation, and the generation of solid waste. The primary source of GHG emissions for the proposed project would be from mobile sources. The City has adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) that identifies strategies and actions to reduce GHG emissions. The City has and continues to implement GHG reduction measures, including, but not limited to, the installation of solar facilities at City buildings; requiring bioswales in private development; adopting and enforcing a construction and demolition waste recycling ordinance; adopting and implementing a TDM program; and providing electrical car charging stations at City facilities. The City actively participates 41 June 2016 Less Than VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Potentially Significant Less -Than- No Would the project: Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on ❑ ❑ K ❑ the environment? b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of ❑ ❑ K ❑ greenhouse gasses? Discussion a,b. Emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the industrial /manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors. Therefore, the cumulative global emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change can be attributed to every nation, region, and city, and virtually every individual on earth. An individual project's GHG emissions are at a micro -scale level relative to global emissions and effects to global climate change; however, an individual project could result in a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to a significant cumulative macro - scale impact. As such, impacts related to emissions of GHG are inherently considered cumulative impacts. The proposed project would involve restriping and seal coating an existing parking lot to allow for additional on -site vehicle storage. Some other minor improvements would also occur with implementation of the project, including the removal of 1,805 sf of existing pavement, which would be replaced with landscaping, and trenching and installing 11 additional parking lot lights. According to the Transportation Assessment prepared for the proposed project, with the addition of on -site vehicle parking stalls, specifically an increase of a maximum of 200 vehicle stalls for temporary staging of vehicles, the project would be expected to increase the vehicle trips associated with the site. Implementation of the proposed project would cumulatively contribute to increases of GHG emissions. Estimated GHG emissions attributable to future development is primarily associated with increases of carbon dioxide (CO2) and, to a lesser extent, other GHG pollutants, such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N20) associated with area sources, mobile sources or vehicles, utilities (electricity and natural gas), water usage, wastewater generation, and the generation of solid waste. The primary source of GHG emissions for the proposed project would be from mobile sources. The City has adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) that identifies strategies and actions to reduce GHG emissions. The City has and continues to implement GHG reduction measures, including, but not limited to, the installation of solar facilities at City buildings; requiring bioswales in private development; adopting and enforcing a construction and demolition waste recycling ordinance; adopting and implementing a TDM program; and providing electrical car charging stations at City facilities. The City actively participates 41 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration in the San Francisco International Airport noise insulation program which also reduces heat loss and associated GHG emissions in older buildings. The City also spearheads educational programs to reduce GHG emissions. Through conditions of approval, development projects are required to implement a variety of GHG reduction measures. To ensure that development within the City is consistent with the CAP, as well as to aid in streamlining the CEQA process, the City has prepared a Development Review Checklist for two separate project types: additions, alterations, and tenant improvements; and new development. Table 4 provides a discussion regarding the proposed project's consistency with the City's Development Review Checklist, which is included as Appendix E to the CAP. The proposed project would not be considered new development; thus, the Development Review Checklist for additions, alterations, and tenant improvements was used. Table 4 City CAP Proj ect C nsistency Checklist Measure Yes No N/A Discussion Does the project provide bicycle The project will not result in the facilities, bicycle lanes, or other X demand for bicycle facilities. facilities? Will the project provide a bike share X The project would not generate program for employees or residents? new employees or residents. Will there be a commute shuttle or Shuttle access to and from the public transit stop within 500 feet? X western parcels adjacent to the project site will be provided at buildout of the western parcels. Is the project subject to a Transportation While the project generates Demand Management (TDM) program? more than 100 daily trips, the X City has determined that a TDM program is not required for the project due to very low employee counts. Will the project provide incentives for X The project would not generate commuters? new commuters to the area. Is the project subject to a traffic impact X fee? How will the net number of parking The project site is already a spaces change on -site? surface parking lot, though it is not currently in use. The project would include restriping of the site to demarcate a maximum of 200 parking spaces on -site. Is the project located within a specific plan area, station area, or Priority X Development Area? Will this project provide any alternative -fuel stations? X 42 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Table 4 City CAP Proj ect C nsistency Checklist Measure Yes No N/A Discussion Will the project have any pre- wiring or conduits to accommodate renewable X energy facilities or electric vehicle charging stations in the future? Will project construction activities As discussed in detail in implement best management practices, Section III, Air Quality, of this such as the BAAQMD's recommended IS /MND, the proposed project construction mitigations identified in X would comply with all the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines? applicable BAAQMD rules, regulations, and Basic Construction Mitigation Measures. Is the building more than 30 years old? X The project would not include any buildings. Will certification of the building be The project would not include sought under LEED or another green X any buildings. building criteria? Will the project be built to CALGreen X The project would not include Tier 1 energy efficiency standards? any buildings. Does the project include any energy- The project would not include efficient improvements (e.g., double- X any buildings. paned windows, increased insulation, weatherization)? Does the project include any upgrades The project would not include of appliances to more energy efficient X any buildings or appliances. models? Will mechanical equipment (e.g., The project would not include HVAC equipment, boilers, water X any buildings or mechanical heaters) be upgraded to more energy equipment. efficient models? Will roofs or surface paving be replaced See above. Project would not with high- reflectivity ( "cool ") surfaces? involve repaving. However, the X project would include replacement of a portion of the existing pavement with landscaping. How will the net number of trees The project would not involve change on -site? removal of any existing trees. The project includes removal of a small portion of existing pavement, which would be rep laced with landscaping . Will any renewable energy system be X The project would not include installed as part of this project? any buildings. Is the project a new conversion of X The project would not include unconditioned space 5,000 square feet any buildings. 43 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Table 4 City CAP Proj ect C nsistency Checklist Measure Yes No N/A Discussion or more? Is there a plan for construction and The project would be required demolition waste recycling? to comply with the current California Green Building X Standards Code, which requires the diversion of 50 percent of construction waste from landfills. Will there be composting on -site? The project would not include any buildings and would not directly result in the X introduction of any new employees at the site. Thus, the project would not generate any solid waste. Will any water fixtures be replaced with X The project would not include more efficient fixtures? any buildin gs. Will there be any effort to educate The project would not involve occupants and tenants about water X any new occupants or tenants. conservation? Does the project incorporate low- impact The project is exempt from C.3 development (LID) practices? X stormwater infiltration requirements. Will any xeriscaping be installed? The project includes planting X water efficient landscaping along the southern boundary. Will captured rainwater or graywater be X used for irrigation? Because the proposed project would not include any buildings and consists of restriping and seal coating an existing parking lot, along with some other minor improvements, the majority of the measures identified in the City's Development Review Checklist are not directly applicable to the proposed project. Based on the discussions presented in Table 4, the proposed project would be expected to be consistent with the applicable measures of the City's CAP. In addition to the City's CAP requirements, the BAAQMD has developed thresholds of significance associated with development projects for GHG emissions of 1,100 metric tons per year carbon dioxide equivalent units (MTCO2e /yr). If a project would generate GHG emissions above the threshold level, the project would be considered to generate significant GHG emissions and conflict with applicable GHG regulations. For informational purposes, the proposed project's GHG emissions were quantified using CalEEMod using the same assumptions as presented in Section III, Air Quality, of this IS /MND and compared to the 1,100 MTCO2e /yr threshold of significance. 44 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration According to the CalEEMod results, the proposed project would result in operational GHG emissions of 20.56 MTCO2e /yr, which is well below the 1,100 MTCO2e /yr threshold of significance. Construction GHG emissions are a one -time release and are, therefore, not typically expected to generate a significant contribution to global climate change. Neither the City nor BAAQMD has an adopted a threshold of significance for construction- related GHG emissions. However, even if the proposed project's total construction GHG emissions of 15.43 MTCO2e /yr are included with the annual operational GHG emissions, the resultant total GHG emissions of 35.99 MTCO2e /yr would still be well below the 1,100 MTCO2e /yr threshold of significance. Therefore, using the BAAQMD threshold of significance, the proposed project would not be expected to result in a significant impact related to GHG emissions. Based on the above, the proposed project would not be considered to generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, or conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, and impacts would be considered less than sign ifiean t. 45 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS Potentially Less Than Significant Less -Than- MATERIALS. Significant with No Significant Impact Would the project: p J Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or ❑ ❑ K ❑ disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset ❑ ❑ X ❑ and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste ❑ ❑ x ❑ within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, ❑ ❑ ❑ K would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, ❑ ❑ K ❑ would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people ❑ ❑ ❑ )t residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or ❑ ❑ K ❑ emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where ❑ ❑ x ❑ wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Discussion a,b. Known hazardous materials are not present on the proposed project site. In addition, the project would not involve any modifications to the existing land uses. During construction, hazards from construction activities (e.g., use of heavy machinery, storage of fuel for machinery, potential dust emissions, etc.) could cause a temporary impact to the public or the environment. However, all construction activities would be required to follow protocol, including compliance with applicable policies, standards, and regulations in order to ensure a less- than - significant impact. 46 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Therefore, because the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine use, disposal, transport, or accidental release of hazardous materials, impacts would be considered less than significant. C. As stated above, the proposed project would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. In addition, the nearest existing or proposed school facility is All Souls Catholic School, which is over 0.75 -mile from the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less - than - significant impact associated with hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous materials within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. d. The proposed project site has been previously developed and is surrounded by existing industrial and commercial land uses. The project site is not included on the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, no impact would result from implementation of the proposed project. e. The nearest airport is the San Francisco International Airport (SFO), which is located approximately 1.5 miles east of the project site, on the opposite side of Highway 101. The City of South San Francisco is within the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (CALUP) boundary. The project site is located outside of the five safety compatibility zones identified in the CALUP. Because of this, and the fact that the proposed project includes striping and sealing for parking and installation of lighting and landscaping, the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area, and the impact would be less than significant. f. The proposed project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Thus, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area, and no impact would occur. g. The project involves the storage /temporary staging of rental vehicles for the Payless Vehicle car rental business. While the proposed project would indirectly support additional traffic trips as vehicles come to /from the rental facility and are temporarily staged on the subject parking lot, these vehicle trips would not be expected to interfere with an adopted emergency response plan. San Mateo Avenue would not be altered or obstructed as part of this project. Because the project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, impacts would be considered less than significant. h. The proposed project is located in a commercial and industrial area that is highly disturbed. The project site and surrounding areas are regularly maintained and are not considered "wildlands" where wildland fires are a risk to structures. According to Figure 4.8 -1, Fire Hazard Management Units, in the City's General Plan EIR, the project site is not located within an area that needs vegetation management or other measures to reduce wildland fire risk and increase the potential for successful fire suppression. The proposed project is required to comply with the City's General Plan policies and procedures pertaining to reduction of fire hazards, as well as California State Public Resource Codes 47 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4290 and 4291 that require management along roadsides. In addition, the project would not include the construction of any structures on -site. Therefore, because the risk of on- site structures being subject to wildland fires is negligible and the project would be required to comply with applicable policies and regulations, impacts related to exposure of people or structures to the risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires would be considered less than significant. 48 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion a,e -f. The Federal Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of pollutants to navigable waters from point and non -point sources unless authorized by a NPDES permit. Point source discharges generally pertain to discharges from wastewater treatment facilities or other identifiable dischargers. Non -point discharges generally pertain to areawide or stormwater discharges. In California, NPDES permits are issued and enforced by the 49 June 2016 Less Than IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Potentially Significant Less -Than- No Would the project: Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ❑ X ❑ discharge requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table ❑ ❑ K ❑ level (i.e., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which ❑ ❑ ❑ X would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially ❑ ❑ ❑ X increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off - site? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned ❑ ❑ X ❑ stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ X ❑ g. Place housing within a 100 -year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or ❑ ❑ ❑ X Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100 -year floodplain structures which ❑ ❑ X ❑ would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including ❑ ❑ X ❑ flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ X ❑ Discussion a,e -f. The Federal Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of pollutants to navigable waters from point and non -point sources unless authorized by a NPDES permit. Point source discharges generally pertain to discharges from wastewater treatment facilities or other identifiable dischargers. Non -point discharges generally pertain to areawide or stormwater discharges. In California, NPDES permits are issued and enforced by the 49 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Regional Water Quality Control Boards. The City of South San Francisco is located within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The City has NPDES permit coverage from the RWQCB. On March 10, 2003, the State Water Resources Control Board began regulating all stormwater discharges associated with construction activities where clearing, grading, or excavation results in a land disturbance of one or more acres. Performance Standard NDCC -13 of the City's NPDES permit requires applicants to show proof of coverage under the State's General Construction Permit prior to receipt of any construction permits. The project would disturb less than one acre of land and an NPDES General Construction Permit would not be required; however, as discussed in the Geology and Soils section of this IS /MND, the project would be required to implement erosion Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction. In addition, San Mateo County was required to develop more restrictive surface water control standards for new development projects as part of the renewal of the Countywide NPDES permit. All municipalities within the County have to require post - construction stormwater controls as part of their obligations under Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP). This is a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board), allowing municipal stormwater systems to discharge to local creeks, San Francisco Bay, and other water bodies. The project is not subject to C.3. stormwater infiltration requirements for the following reasons. Overall, the project would disturb 1,294 sf of the site surface for landscaping installation purposes, and an additional 511 sf for the purposes of trenching for lighting installation. In total, the project would result in disturbance of 1,805 sf of land. The San Mateo C.3. Stormwater Technical Guidance identifies the following applicable threshold for C.3. regulated projects: uncovered parking lots (stand -alone or part of another use) that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. The proposed project does not trigger this threshold. The proposed commercial parking lot use does not involve any operations typically associated with the generation or discharge of polluted water. Thus, typical operations on the project site would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, nor degrade water quality. No washing of vehicles or refueling will occur on the project site. These activities will be conducted on the two westerly parcels, which are not the subject of this IS/MND. Because the proposed project would comply with all applicable regulations and would not involve uses associated with the generation or discharge of polluted water, the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality, and the project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, impacts would be considered less than significant. 50 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration b. The project site is vacant and has been previously paved. The proposed project would not include any need for an increase in water use at the site. In addition, because the project would result in removal of a portion of the pavement along the southern boundary of the site and the subsequent introduction of landscaping to that portion, the project would result in a reduction in impervious surfaces on the site, as compared to existing conditions. Thus, the proposed project would allow for a greater potential area for groundwater recharge than what currently exists on the site. Therefore, overall, implementation of the proposed project would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Because the project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge, the project's impact would be considered less than significant. c,d. The proposed project site is currently a vacant, paved lot that is surrounded by existing commercial and industrial development in an urban, developed area. The project would result in the continued use of the site as a parking lot and would slightly reduce the amount of impervious surface area on the project site due to the introduction of landscaping along the site's southern boundary. Implementation of the proposed project would consist of striping and sealing for parking spaces, trenching and installation of lighting, and installation of landscaping, none of which would result in any alteration to the existing drainage patterns on the site. Therefore, the project would have no impact related to substantially altering the existing drainage pattern of the site or area such that substantial erosion/siltation or flooding would occur on- or off -site. g. The proposed project consists of striping and sealing a parking area, trenching for and installing parking lot lighting, and placing landscaping along a portion of the southern site boundary. Therefore, the proposed project would not place any housing within a 100 - year floodplain, and no impact would occur. h,i. The project site is located within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood hazard Zone X (shaded), according to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map for the project site.4 Zone X (shaded) is defined as an area of moderate flood hazard, usually the area between the limits of the 100 -year and 500 -year floods. However, the project site has been previously paved, is relatively flat, and is surrounded by existing development in an industrial and commercial area. The proposed project would not include the construction of any structures on -site. In addition, according to Figure 4.7 -1, Draft General Plan Policies for Flood Protection, of the City's General Plan EIR, the project site is not located within the 100 -year floodplain. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed project would not result in an increase in risks associated with placing structures within a 100 -year floodplain. In conclusion, the proposed project would not place a structure within a 100 -year floodplain that would impede or redirect flood flows, and would not expose people or structures to risks involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. Therefore, impacts related to flooding would be considered less than sign ifican t. 'Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map Number 06081 C0043E. October 16, 2012. 51 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration j. Tsunamis are defined as sea waves created by undersea fault movement. A tsunami poses little danger away from shorelines. When tsunamis reach the shoreline, high swells of water break and wash inland with great force. A seiche is a long - wavelength, large -scale wave action set up in a closed body of water such as a lake or reservoir, with destructive capacity that is not as great as that of a tsunami. The City of South San Francisco is located approximately five miles east of the Pacific Ocean, separated by mountainous terrain, and approximately one mile west of the San Francisco Bay. According to the General Plan, earthquakes could cause tsunamis or seiches in the San Francisco Bay and, as portions of the City are located adjacent to the Bay and are low - lying, tsunami or seiche inundation is a possibility. Wave run -up is estimated at approximately 4.3 feet (msl) for tsunami with a 100 -year recurrence and 6.0 feet (msl) for a 500 -year tsunami. The project site is 13 feet above msl; therefore, the project site would be outside the runup zone subject to inundation by a 500 -year tsunami and outside the any potential tsunami hazard zone. As such, the proposed project would not be expected to be exposed to flooding risks associated with seiches or tsunamis. Mudflows typically occur in mountainous or hilly terrain, and the project site and surrounding area is relatively flat. Thus, the likelihood for danger from mudflows would be low at the site. Because the proposed project would not be threatened by seiches, tsunamis, or mudflows, a less - than - significant impact from such phenomena would result. 52 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less -Than- No Significant Impact Impact a. Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ X b. Conflict with any applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local ❑ ❑ X ❑ coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ X plan or natural communities conservation plan? Discussion a. The proposed project site is currently developed with a surface parking lot and is surrounded by existing development. Therefore, the project would not physically divide an established community and no impact would occur. b. According to the land use map for the Lindenville Planning Sub -Area of the SSF General Plan, the proposed project site is designated Community Commercial (CC), with an accompanying "Regional Commercial" designation. According to the General Plan, regional commercial areas are reserved for region - serving commercial uses. However, the proposed use of the site as a rental car storage /staging area is consistent with the overall range of uses allowed by the broader CC GP designation. For example, the CC land use designation includes retail and department stores, eating and drinking establishments, commercial recreation, service stations, automobile sales and repair services, financial, business and personal services, motels, educational and social services are permitted. Therefore, because the project site would serve as a parking lot for a commercial rental car company, the project would be consistent with the project site's current General Plan land use designation. In addition, the proposed project site is currently surrounded by existing industrial and commercial development, including auto body, other auto services, and long -term parking lot uses. The proposed project site is currently zoned Freeway Commercial (FC) and automobile /vehicle rental uses are not permitted under the FC zoning designation; therefore, the project applicant is seeking approval of a rezone of the project parcels to MI to allow vehicle rental uses on the site, and to establish consistency with the current MI zoning designation for the parcels immediately adjacent to the west. Because the proposed project would be consistent with the current General Plan land use designation for the site and because the proposed rezone of the project site to MI would result in consistency with existing surrounding land uses, including the parcels immediately to the west, the project's overall impact related to a conflict with applicable 53 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect would be less than significant. C. The San Bruno Mountain HCP was prepared for the County of San Mateo in 1982 and was authorized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 1983. According to the General Plan EIR, the City of South San Francisco contains two areas specifically set aside as habitat for the conservation of threatened and endangered species — San Bruno Mountain and the portion of Sign Hill currently classified as a City park — which are subject to the San Bruno Mountain HCP. The proposed project site is not within the planning area for the San Bruno Mountain HCP. The City itself does not have an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Therefore, no impact would occur related to a conflict with such a plan. 54 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated ❑ ❑ ❑ x on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Discussion a,b. The proposed project site has not been delineated as a locally important mineral recovery site within the General Plan or on any other land use plan. Mineral resources of value to the region have been not identified at the project site. In addition, the project site has been previously developed and is surrounded by other existing developments. Therefore, no impact to mineral resources would occur as a result of the proposed project. 55 June 2016 Less Than Less - XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. Potentially Significant Than- No Would the project: Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and ❑ ❑ ❑ X the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated ❑ ❑ ❑ x on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Discussion a,b. The proposed project site has not been delineated as a locally important mineral recovery site within the General Plan or on any other land use plan. Mineral resources of value to the region have been not identified at the project site. In addition, the project site has been previously developed and is surrounded by other existing developments. Therefore, no impact to mineral resources would occur as a result of the proposed project. 55 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ ❑ x ❑ groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing ❑ ❑ K ❑ without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above ❑ ❑ X ❑ levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or El El El K working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 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 ❑ El ❑ X levels? Discussion a,c. The proposed project would include striping and sealing the vacant project site to create parking spaces, trenching and installation of lighting, and installation of landscaping. The project would not result in a change to the existing uses on the site and the site is surrounded by existing commercial and industrial land uses. The site does not currently contain any noise - producing uses. In addition, the nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed project would be located to the north approximately 1,500 feet from the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of established standards or cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Therefore, a less - than - significant impact would result. b. The primary vibration - generating activities associated with the project would occur during trenching for lighting and during striping and sealing of the project site. The types of vibration impact include human annoyance and building structural damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of perception. Building damage can take the form of cosmetic or structural. Table 5 shows the typical vibration levels produced by construction equipment. 56 June 2016 Less Than Less - XII. NOISE. Potentially Significant Than- No Would the project result in: Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local ❑ ❑ x ❑ general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ ❑ x ❑ groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing ❑ ❑ K ❑ without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above ❑ ❑ X ❑ levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or El El El K working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 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 ❑ El ❑ X levels? Discussion a,c. The proposed project would include striping and sealing the vacant project site to create parking spaces, trenching and installation of lighting, and installation of landscaping. The project would not result in a change to the existing uses on the site and the site is surrounded by existing commercial and industrial land uses. The site does not currently contain any noise - producing uses. In addition, the nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed project would be located to the north approximately 1,500 feet from the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of established standards or cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Therefore, a less - than - significant impact would result. b. The primary vibration - generating activities associated with the project would occur during trenching for lighting and during striping and sealing of the project site. The types of vibration impact include human annoyance and building structural damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of perception. Building damage can take the form of cosmetic or structural. Table 5 shows the typical vibration levels produced by construction equipment. 56 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Table 5 Vibration Levels for Varying Construction Equipment Type of Equipment Peak Particle Velocity (ppv) @ 25 feet inches /second Approximate Velocity Level @ 25 feet (VdB) Large Bulldozer 0.089 87 Loaded Trucks 0.076 86 Small Bulldozer 0.003 58 Auger/Drill Rigs 0.089 87 Jackhammer 0.035 79 Vibratory Hammer 0.070 85 Vibratory Compactor/Roller 0.210 94 Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines, May 2006 The Table 5 data indicates that construction vibration levels, with the exception of the vibratory compactor /roller, are less than the 0.2 in/sec ppv threshold of damages to buildings at distances of 25 feet. With respect to vibratory equipment, implementation of the project would only involve the use of jackhammers to break up pavement and, per Table 3, at a 25 -foot distance jackhammers would generate 0.035 ppv. The nearest structures are over 25 feet from the project site; therefore, vibration would be less than 0.2 in/sec. Based upon the information in Table 5 and the Caltrans Technical Advisory, vibrations are not predicted to exceed safe thresholds at any adjacent sensitive receptors. Construction of the project would not require the use of pile driving. Additionally, the risk of annoyance due to construction vibrations is very low considering the distance to the nearest receptors. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. d. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would result in temporary increase in noise levels from limited pavement removal, parking lot striping and sealing, and trenching for lighting conduit. All construction would be conducted in accordance with Title 8, Section 8.32.050(d) of the City's Municipal Code. Section 8.32.050(d) indicates that construction, alteration, repair or landscape maintenance activities which are authorized by a valid City permit shall be allowed on weekdays between the hours of 8 AM and 8 PM, on Saturdays between the hours of 9 AM and 8 PM, and on Sundays and holidays between the hours of 10 AM and 6 PM, or at such other hours as may be authorized by the permit, if they meet at least one of the following noise limitations: (1) No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding ninety dB at a distance of twenty -five feet. If the device is housed within a structure or trailer on the property, the measurement shall be made outside s California Department of Transportation. Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations [pg.11]. February 20, 2002. 57 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration the structure at a distance as close to 25 feet from the equipment as possible. (2) The noise level at any point outside of the property plane of the project shall not exceed ninety dB. The Building Division enforces and monitors the construction noise regulations. Construction- related impacts would be short-term in nature and would be reduced to a less - than - significant level through adherence to the Municipal Code regulations regarding the days and hours of construction activity. e. The San Francisco International Airport (SFO) is located approximately 1.5 miles east of the project site, on the opposite side of Highway 101. According to the City's General Plan EIR, aircraft departures from SFO are the primary source of transportation noise in the City. Figure 4.5 -2, Aircraft Noise and Noise Insulation Program Area, of the City's General Plan EIR indicates that the project site is located just outside the 65 dB aircraft noise exposure contour. The San Mateo County CALUP establishes noise /land use compatibility standards, which specify the compatible noise standard for commercial land uses to be less than 70 dB. Because the proposed project would not be subjected to aircraft noise above 65 dB, which is less than the 70 dB compatibility standards, and the project would not introduce any residents or employees to the area, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels associated with the nearby airport. Therefore, a less - than - significant impact would occur. £ The proposed project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Thus, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area, and no impact would occur. 58 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion a. The one -acre project site is currently vacant. The proposed project would consist of striping and sealing the lot for rental car parking, as well as installing lighting and landscaping. As such, the project would not directly induce population growth in the developed area. In addition, the project would not include any employment- generating uses. Furthermore, the project would not indirectly induce population growth because road extensions or added infrastructure would not occur in previously undeveloped areas. Thus, development of the proposed project would result in no impact related to inducing substantial population growth either directly or indirectly. b,c. The one -acre project site is vacant land unoccupied and located within an industrial /commercial area of South San Francisco. Given the vacant state of the site and industrially- developed character of the site's immediate vicinity, the project would have no impact related to the displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing or people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. 59 June 2016 Less Than XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Potentially Significant Less -Than- No Would the project: Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through ❑ ❑ ❑ �t projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement ❑ ❑ ❑ X housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement ❑ ❑ ❑ X housing elsewhere? Discussion a. The one -acre project site is currently vacant. The proposed project would consist of striping and sealing the lot for rental car parking, as well as installing lighting and landscaping. As such, the project would not directly induce population growth in the developed area. In addition, the project would not include any employment- generating uses. Furthermore, the project would not indirectly induce population growth because road extensions or added infrastructure would not occur in previously undeveloped areas. Thus, development of the proposed project would result in no impact related to inducing substantial population growth either directly or indirectly. b,c. The one -acre project site is vacant land unoccupied and located within an industrial /commercial area of South San Francisco. Given the vacant state of the site and industrially- developed character of the site's immediate vicinity, the project would have no impact related to the displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing or people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. 59 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new Potentially Less Than Significant Less - or physically altered governmental facilities, the p y y g ve Significant With Than- Significant No Impact construction o which could cause significant of ld hnpact Mitigation Incorporated Impact environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a. Fire protection? ❑ ❑ X ❑ b. Police protection? ❑ ❑ X ❑ c. Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ X d. Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ X e. Other Public Facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ X Discussion a,b. The proposed project site is located within the jurisdiction of the South San Francisco Fire Department ( SSFFD), which provides fire protection services and emergency medical services within the City and to areas within the County. The 92 employees of the SSFFD operate out of five stations within the City of South San Francisco. The nearest fire station is Fire Station 62 located at 249 Harbor Way, which is approximately 0.5- mile east of the project site. The South San Francisco Police Department ( SSFPD) provides law enforcement services to the project site. The SSFPD serves a population of over 60,000 residents and is allotted 83 sworn and 35 civilian positions. The SSFPD is divided into two Divisions — Operations and Services — each commanded by a Captain. The SSFPD is located at 33 Arroyo Drive, which is approximately 1.5 miles northwest of the project site. The proposed project site would store cars for the proximate car rental facility. In order to deter theft, the chain link fencing around the project site would remain. Therefore, the increase in police services demand associated with the project would be expected to be minimal. In addition, the project would not result in the construction of any flammable structures on the project site. Therefore, the project would not result in any increase in demand for police and fire protection services or the need for new or physically altered fire or police service facilities and a less - than - significant impact would occur. c. Because the proposed project would consist of striping and sealing for parking spaces, trenching and installation of lighting, and installation of landscaping, the project would not directly or indirectly induce population growth in the City. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed project would not increase the number of students within the City or the demand for school services. Therefore, the proposed project would result in no impact associated with the provision of school facilities or services. d,e. As the proposed project would consist of striping and sealing for parking spaces, trenching and installation of lighting, and installation of landscaping, the project would 60 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration not directly or indirectly induce population growth in the City. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed project would not increase the demand for parks or other public facilities or services; and the project would result in no impact. 61 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion a,b. As described above in the Public Services section of this IS/MND, the proposed project is a commercial rental car parking /staging area and, therefore, would not include the need for park facilities. In addition, as discussed in the Population and Housing section of this IS/MND, the project would not directly or indirectly increase population growth, and an increased demand for new, or expansion of, any existing park facilities would not occur. Therefore, the project would result in no impact associated with recreation. 62 June 2016 Less Than XV.RECREATION. Potentially Significant Less -Than- No Would the project: Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational ❑ ❑ ❑ X facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational ❑ ❑ X facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion a,b. As described above in the Public Services section of this IS/MND, the proposed project is a commercial rental car parking /staging area and, therefore, would not include the need for park facilities. In addition, as discussed in the Population and Housing section of this IS/MND, the project would not directly or indirectly increase population growth, and an increased demand for new, or expansion of, any existing park facilities would not occur. Therefore, the project would result in no impact associated with recreation. 62 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration XVI. TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC. Less Than Less - Potentially Significant Than- No Would the project: Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant ❑ ❑ x ❑ components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or ❑ ❑ x ❑ other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in ❑ ❑ ❑ �t location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous ❑ ❑ x ❑ intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ x ❑ f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle or pedestrian ❑ ❑ x ❑ facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Discussion a,b. As discussed previously in this IS /MND, the proposed project is located adjacent to vacant parcels to the west (APNs 015- 114 -470 and 015 -114 -460) for which the project applicant has previously received a Minor Use Permit (15 -0001) and Design Review approval (DR15 -0024) from the City of South San Francisco. The parcels are zoned MI and are intended for future use as the Payless Car Rental business. Future improvements to the two western parcels will include lot striping to accommodate an anticipated 150 rental cars, a 1,850 -sf modular office space, a 1,300 -sf canopy cover for vehicle hand washing with water collection and reclamation system, a 5,000 - gallon fuel dispensing tank, and landscape, security fences, gates and associated site works. The aforementioned improvements are not part of the proposed project analyzed in this IS /MND. However, the transportation assessment that was prepared for the project by 63 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Fehr & Peers6 analyzed traffic operations under the scenario of buildout of the western parcels (referred to as the "Arata Property" in the assessment) in addition to the proposed project. The scope of work associated with the proposed project only includes restriping the proposed project site to add a maximum of 200 vehicle stalls for temporary staging of vehicles, installing landscaping on a portion of the southern boundary of the site, and trenching and installing additional lighting. Trip Generation Trip generation rates are not available in the 9th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication Trip Generation Manual for car rental sites. Therefore, vehicle trip generation estimates for the western parcels and the proposed project during both AM and PM peak hours were developed using driveway counts collected from a similar Payless rental car business. Table 6, below, shows the vehicle trip generation estimates for three scenarios — 50 percent occupancy of the western parcels (No Project), 100 percent occupancy of the western parcels (No Project) and 100 percent occupancy of the western parcels (Plus Project). Table 6 Trip Generation # of Vehicles Available for Rental Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total 70 (Approximately 50% Occupancy) (Western Parcels) 124 5 1 6 6 5 11 150 —(Approximately 100% Occupancy) (Western Parcels) 265 10 1 11 12 10 22 350 (Approximately 100% Occupancy (Western Parcels + Proposed Project) 619 22 2 24 27 23 50 Source: Fehr & Peers, Arata Transportation Assessment, February 3, 2015. Existing Plus Western Parcels Plus Proposed Project Traffic Operations Traffic operations throughout the study area were analyzed using the methodology detailed in the transportation assessment (see Appendix B). Table 7, below, shows the LOS results for both Existing Plus Western Parcels and Existing Plus Western Parcels Plus Proposed Project scenarios. Attachment A of Appendix B documents detailed existing conditions, impact criteria, and findings. 'Fehr & Peers. Arata Property Transportation Assessment. February 3, 2015. 64 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Table 7 Existing, Existing Plus Western Parcels, and Existing Plus Western Parcels Plus Project Conditions Intersection Operations Summary Existing + 50% Existing + 100% Existing + 100% Existing Occupancy Occupancy Occupancy Intersection Control' Peak Conditions (Western Parcels) (Western Parcels) Western Parcels) Hour (No Project) (No Project) + Proposed Project Delay LOS' Delay'- LOS2 Delay LOS2 Dela z LOS2 San Mateo Ave. /Airport Blvd.' Signal AM 35 D 31 D 35 D 35 D PM 43 D 43 D 43 D 43 D San Mateo Ave. /Lowrie Ave. SSSC AM <10 A (B) <10 A (C) <10 A (C) <10 A (C) EB 15 EB 15 (EB 15) (EB 15) PM <10 A (C) <10 A (C) <10 A (C) <10 A (C) (EB23) (EB23) (EB23) (EB24) San Mateo Ave./Peninsula Auto Body SSSC AM <10 A (B) <10 A (B) <10 A (B) <10 A (C) Driveway /Ingress Driveway (WB 14) (WB 15) (WB 15) (WB 15) PM <10 A (B) <10 A (B) <10 A (B) <10 A (B) (WB 12) (WB 12) (WB 12) (WB 12) San Mateo Ave./Egress Driveway SSSC AM N /A4 N /A4 <10 A (B) <10 A (B) <10 A (B) (WB13) (W13 13) (WB 12) PM N /A4 N /A4 <10 A (B) <10 A (B) <10 A (B) (WB 13) (WB 12) (WB 13) Notes: 1. Signal = signalized intersection; SSSC = side - street stop - controlled intersection 2. Traffic operations results include LOS and delay. LOS is based on delay thresholds published in the Highway Capacity Manual. 3. N/A = intersection does not exist under existing conditions Source: Fehr & Peers, Arata Property Transportation Assessment, February 3, 2015. 65 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration The significance criteria states that acceptable operations for the study intersections is LOS D (less than 55 seconds of average control delay per vehicle) or better. As shown in Table 7, below, all intersections analyzed for the western parcels, and in the vicinity of the proposed project, are projected to meet the standard under the evaluated scenarios; therefore, the buildout of the western parcels and implementation of the project itself would not have significant impacts on the study intersections. Conclusion As discussed above, although the proposed project would cause a slight increase in traffic in the area, the incremental increase would not result in adverse traffic impacts per the thresholds of significance used for this analysis. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less - than - significant impact related to causing an increase in traffic that would be substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system, and the exceedance of any LOS standards. C. The proposed project would not directly induce population growth in the area and thus would not be expected to result in any increase in air traffic levels. As such, the project would not result in any affects to or from the nearby SFO airport. Because the project would not result in any changes to existing regional air traffic patterns or activity, no impact would occur. d. The transportation assessment includes a sight distance assessment that was conducted at the San Mateo Avenue driveways of the western parcels. Failure to meet minimum sight distances for either corner sight distance or stopping sight distance, as defined in Chapter 400 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM), could warrant the installation of traffic control. Corner sight distance signifies the line of sight maintained between the driver of a vehicle waiting at the cross road — in the case of the western parcels, the egress driveway north of Lowrie Avenue and the driver of an approaching vehicle on San Mateo Avenue. Based on a 25 mile per hour (mph) roadway, adequate sight distance would be feasible if landscaping is maintained and parking is prohibited adjacent to the exit driveway. Stopping sight distance is the distance required by the driver of a vehicle, traveling at a given speed, to bring the vehicle to a stop after an object in the road becomes visible and in advance of reaching the object. The HDM defines the minimum stopping sight distance requirement as 150 feet for a roadway with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. For vehicles turning from San Mateo Avenue into the project driveway or vehicles passing the egress driveway, sight distance is estimated to be over 150 feet, thus meeting the stopping sight distance requirements. With buildout of the western parcels and adjustment of the speed limit, stopping sight distance conditions would become even greater. The transportation assessment includes recommendations for the western parcels to ensure that sight distance impacts are less than significant with operation of the western 66 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration parcels. The recommendations include maintenance of landscaping along San Mateo Avenue, adjacent to driveways, to avoid sight distance conflicts and restriction of on- street parking on San Mateo Avenue on either side of the egress driveway (approximately 60 feet to the north and 20 feet to the south). These recommendations were included as conditions of the MUP approved for the western parcels on June 19, 2015. The proposed project would not alter or encroach upon the site design for the western parcels, as the project consists of striping and sealing the project site, and installation of lighting and landscaping. Thus, the project itself would result in a less - than - significant impact. e. The proposed project site has been previously developed and is surrounded by existing similar developments. Modifications to the existing circulation system in the project area would not occur as a result of the proposed project. According to the transportation assessment, a fire station is located on Harbor Way, approximately 0.5 -mile from the western parcels and the project site. Emergency vehicles are able to access the western parcels from the two driveways on San Mateo Avenue and, if one entrance were temporarily blocked, alternative access to the parcels would still be available. Implementation of the proposed project would not alter this access. As such, emergency access to the site and/or surrounding area would not be modified. In addition, the project design includes sufficient emergency vehicle access to the site. Access to the western parcels would be provided by two driveways — one for egress and one for ingress — on San Mateo Avenue. The access intersections are expected to operate with minimal delay; however, the transportation assessment indicates that way - finding signs should be provided on the western parcels, directing drivers to vehicle return stalls, exit driveway, and major destinations (e.g., Highway 101). In addition, shuttle access to and from the western parcels would be provided by the two driveways off San Mateo Avenue. A shuttle bus parking stall, adjacent to the car rental building, would be provided on the western parcels to allow customers to enter and exit the building directly from the shuttle. These recommendations were included as conditions of the MUP approved for the western parcels on June 19, 2015. The proposed project would not alter or encroach upon the site design for the western parcels, as the project consists of striping and sealing the project site, and installation of lighting and landscaping. Thus, the project itself would result in less - than - significant impacts related to emergency access and site circulation. f. The proposed proj ect site is located less than one mile from the San Bruno Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station and from the South San Francisco Caltrain station. San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) operates 73 bus routes and paratransit service throughout San Mateo County and parts of San Francisco and Palo Alto. The closest SamTrans routes to the project site are 38 and 133, located west of the project site. 67 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration According to the transportation assessment, buildout of the western parcels and the proposed project would be expected to generate very few transit trips. The transportation assessment indicates that the transit facilities have the capacity and design to adequately accommodate additional transit trips that would be associated with the western parcels and the project site. Pedestrian facilities are provided adjacent to the western parcels, such that pedestrians could access the parcels via a designated pedestrian walkway from San Mateo Avenue to the future car rental office. While San Mateo Avenue is a designated bicycle route, bicycle facilities are not currently planned to be provided on the western parcels. According to the transportation assessment, buildout of the western parcels is expected to generate very few pedestrian trips, and the existing pedestrian facilities in the project area, including sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals, have the capacity and design to adequately accommodate the additional pedestrian trips that could be generated. In addition, very few bicycle trips are expected to be generated, and Bike Route 15 on San Mateo Avenue would have the capacity and design to adequately accommodate additional bicycle trips that could be generated. As discussed above, the proposed project would not alter or encroach upon the site design for the western parcels, as the project consists of striping and sealing the project site, and installation of lighting and landscaping. In addition, the proposed project would be consistent with General Plan goals and policies associated with alternative transportation, as well as all applicable State and local standards, including compliance with parking standards. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any adopted policies supporting alternative transportation, and impacts would be less than significant. 68 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of ❑ ❑ ❑ X existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing ❑ ❑ X ❑ facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and ❑ ❑ X ❑ resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the ❑ ❑ )t ❑ project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste ❑ ❑ X ❑ disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ❑ ❑ X ❑ regulations related to solid waste? Discussion a,b. Wastewater services in the vicinity of the project site are provided by the South San Francisco /San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant, which is located adjacent to the San Francisco Bay on Colma Creek. The average dry weather flow through the wastewater facility is nine million gallons per day (MGD). The proposed project consists of striping and sealing for parking spaces, trenching and installation of lighting, and installation of landscaping on the site. Existing on -site land uses would not be modified and implementation of the project would not result in the need for wastewater services to be provided to the site. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate any additional wastewater flows into the South San Francisco /San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant and no impact would occur. C. The proposed project would not be subject to the C.3 Standards because, as discussed in the Hydrology and Water Quality section of this IS/MND, implementation of the project would only result in disturbance of a total of 1,805 sf (or 0.04 -acre) of land. In addition, the proposed project would result in a decrease in the amount of impervious surfaces on- 69 June 2016 Less Than XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Potentially significant Less -Than- No Would the project: Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control ❑ ❑ ❑ X Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of ❑ ❑ ❑ X existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing ❑ ❑ X ❑ facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and ❑ ❑ X ❑ resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the ❑ ❑ )t ❑ project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste ❑ ❑ X ❑ disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ❑ ❑ X ❑ regulations related to solid waste? Discussion a,b. Wastewater services in the vicinity of the project site are provided by the South San Francisco /San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant, which is located adjacent to the San Francisco Bay on Colma Creek. The average dry weather flow through the wastewater facility is nine million gallons per day (MGD). The proposed project consists of striping and sealing for parking spaces, trenching and installation of lighting, and installation of landscaping on the site. Existing on -site land uses would not be modified and implementation of the project would not result in the need for wastewater services to be provided to the site. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate any additional wastewater flows into the South San Francisco /San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant and no impact would occur. C. The proposed project would not be subject to the C.3 Standards because, as discussed in the Hydrology and Water Quality section of this IS/MND, implementation of the project would only result in disturbance of a total of 1,805 sf (or 0.04 -acre) of land. In addition, the proposed project would result in a decrease in the amount of impervious surfaces on- 69 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration site due to the replacement of a portion of existing pavement on the southern boundary of the site with landscaping. The proposed project would utilize an existing catch basin to collect stormwater. The water would then be conveyed to the City's storm drain system via an existing on -site connection. In conclusion, the proposed project would not result in the need for construction of any new storm drainage facilities and a less - than - significant impact would occur to existing storm drainage facilities as a result of project implementation. d,e. The California Water Service Company — Peninsula District (CWSC) serves the portion of the City of South San Francisco east of Interstate 280, within which the project site is located. The CWSC currently provides potable water service for the project site. The proposed project consists of striping and sealing for parking spaces, trenching and installation of lighting, and installation of landscaping. Existing land uses on the site would not be modified; however it should be noted that implementation of the project would result in some additional landscaping on -site, the maintenance of which would require a slight increase in water provided to the site. The proposed landscaping would require minimal water for the purposes of upkeep. The General Plan EIR determined that new development and intensification allowed under the Draft General Plan will result in an increased demand for public water. Water demand projections for the City by the California Water Service Company for the year 2020 range from 5.9 million gallons per day to 9.1 MGD. Assuming the SFWD contract allocation is not modified during the remaining contract period, the CWSC has adequate supply to meet even the highest projected demand. Draft General Plan policies and implementation programs provide the framework for the continued provision of an adequate supply of high quality water to existing and proposed development within the City. The proposed project is consistent with the project site's General Plan land use designation. The General Plan EIR indicates that impacts related to water facilities supply at buildout of the General Plan would be less- than - significant with implementation of General Plan goals and policies; therefore, the proposed project's impacts related to water facilities and supply would be considered less than significant. f,g. According to the City's General Plan EIR, disposal and treatment of solid and hazardous waste is overseen by San Mateo County. Solid waste is collected from South San Francisco homes and businesses and then processed at the Scavenger Company's materials recovery facility and transfer station. Materials that cannot be recycled or composted are transferred to the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill, located along State Route 92 between Half Moon Bay and the City of San Mateo. The proposed project would not generate any solid waste during operation. The only solid waste generated by the project would be during the construction phase and the waste would be limited to the removed pavement along the southern boundary and the two 70 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration parking lot lights that would also be removed. The project is consistent with the type and intensity of development expected for the site in the General Plan and the project would comply with all federal, State, and local regulations related to solid waste. The City's General Plan determined that the increase in solid waste that would result with buildout of the General Plan would not be a significant impact. Because the proposed project would generate minimal solid waste result in a less - than - significant impact related to solid waste services. 71 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion a. As mentioned previously, the project site has a low sensitivity for biological resources and cultural resources. Although unlikely, the potential exists for the project to affect nesting birds during construction activities if found nesting in the existing on -site trees. In addition, the possibility exists that subsurface excavation of the site during grading and other construction activities could unearth deposits of cultural significance. However, this IS /MND includes mitigation measures that would reduce any potential impacts to a less - than- significant level. Therefore, the proposed project would have less - than - significant overall impacts to the quality of the environment, plant and wildlife species, and important examples of California history or prehistory. b. The proposed project in conjunction with other development within the City of South San Francisco could incrementally contribute to cumulative impacts in the area. However, as discussed in this IS /MND, the project would not result in any impacts with the exception of potential project -level impacts to biological and cultural resources, for which mitigation measures will be required to be implemented, reducing the impacts to a less - than- significant level. While other projects within the City of South San Francisco could result in related impacts, the project's incremental contribution would not be cumulatively considerable, and the proposed project would ultimately result in a less - than- significant impact. c. Because the project site has previously been developed and the site is surrounded by existing development, and because the project would develop the site consistent with the 72 June 2016 Less Than XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF Potentially Significant Less -Than- No SIGNIFICANCE. Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 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 ❑ ❑ X ❑ community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable ❑ ❑ X ❑ when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human ❑ ❑ X ❑ beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion a. As mentioned previously, the project site has a low sensitivity for biological resources and cultural resources. Although unlikely, the potential exists for the project to affect nesting birds during construction activities if found nesting in the existing on -site trees. In addition, the possibility exists that subsurface excavation of the site during grading and other construction activities could unearth deposits of cultural significance. However, this IS /MND includes mitigation measures that would reduce any potential impacts to a less - than- significant level. Therefore, the proposed project would have less - than - significant overall impacts to the quality of the environment, plant and wildlife species, and important examples of California history or prehistory. b. The proposed project in conjunction with other development within the City of South San Francisco could incrementally contribute to cumulative impacts in the area. However, as discussed in this IS /MND, the project would not result in any impacts with the exception of potential project -level impacts to biological and cultural resources, for which mitigation measures will be required to be implemented, reducing the impacts to a less - than- significant level. While other projects within the City of South San Francisco could result in related impacts, the project's incremental contribution would not be cumulatively considerable, and the proposed project would ultimately result in a less - than- significant impact. c. Because the project site has previously been developed and the site is surrounded by existing development, and because the project would develop the site consistent with the 72 June 2016 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration site's existing land use designation, substantial adverse effects on human beings are not anticipated with implementation of the proposed project. More specifically, as described in this IS/MND, the criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions generated by the project would be below the BAAQMD's thresholds of significance. In addition, the project would not involve the use of hazardous materials that could impact human health. Therefore, overall, the project's impact to human health would be less than significant. 73 June 2016 Appendix A CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 1 of 16 Date: 4/28/2016 3:17 PM Payless Vehicle Rental Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Precipitation Freq (Days) 64 Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Parking Lot 200.00 Space 0.99 80,000.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m /s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 64 Climate Zone 5 Operational Year 2017 Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company CO2 Intensity 641.35 CH4Intensity 0.029 N20 Intensity 0.006 (lb /MWhr) (lb /MWhr) (lb /MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non - Default Data Project Characteristics - Land Use - proposed project consists of restriping and seal coating an existing parking lot, along with other minor improvements (removal of portion of pavement and replacement with landscaping, trenching and installation of lighting) Construction Phase - based on anticipated on -site improvements Off -road Equipment - based on anticipated on -site improvements Off -road Equipment - based on anticipated on -site improvements Off -road Equipment - adjusted for max 8 hrs /day Demolition - approximate disturbance area Vehicle Trips - trip generation rate based on project traffic assessment Land Use Change - Sequestration - CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 2 of 16 Date: 4/28/2016 3:17 PM Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblArchitecturalCoating EF_ Nonresidential _Exterior } 150.00 250.00 --------------------- g ------ tblArchitectural Coatin Y----------------------------- - �----------------------------- t-------- EF_ Nonresidential i 100.00 ----- ------- ------ 250.00 tblArchitecturalCoating _Interior EF_ Residential 150.00 250.00 ; _Exterior - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - tblArchitecturalCoating Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------------------------------------------------------- EF_ Residential °v 100.00 250.00 ---- - ----- s---- onPh--------- _Interior --------- - - ---- Days------- ----- �------ - - - - -- -5.00 ------------ T---------- --- --- ---- - - - - -- ----------------------------- tblConstruction Phase _----------- --- -- ------------ j�----------------------------- t----------- NumDa y s a 10.00 -- ------- ------ 5.00 ----------------------------- tblLandUse _----------------- 9------------ �----------------------------- t-------------------------- LotAcrea 1.80 0.99 e i ---- -- ----- ----- --- --- - - --- tblOffRoadEquipment ------------------------------ �------------------------------ --- LoadFactor i 0.37 --- -- ------------------ 0.37 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - tblOffRoadEquipment Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - { - -------------------------------------------------------- Off Road EquipmentType } Concrete /Industrial Saws tblOffRoadEquipment ; Off Road EquipmentType - Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes tblOffRoadEquipment ; Off Road Equ ipmentType Generator Sets tblOffRoadEquipment ; Off Road Equ ipmentType Air Compressors -----------------------------_----------------------------- tblOffRoadEquipment -}-------------------------------------------------------- OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount + 2.00 1.00 -----------------------------_----------------------------- tblOffRoadEquipment ------------------------------ t- UsageHours a 6.00 ------- --- -- ------ - -- ---- 8.00 -----------------------------_----------------------------- tblOffRoadEquipment ------------------------------ t---- UsageHours s 1.00 ----- --- --- -- --- - --- -- 8.00 -----------------------------_----------------------------- tblOffRoadEquipment ---------------------------------- UsageHours v 6.00 --- -- ------------ - ----- 8.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - tblProjectCharacteristics Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - { - -------------------------------------------------------- OperationalYear } 2014 2017 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - tblVehicleTri Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- T - ST_TR 0.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.77 s i ------------------ tblVehicleTri Y----------------------------- - �------------------------------ t--- SU_TR 0.00 ------ -- -- -- --- -- -- - - -- 1.77 p---------- s - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - tblVehicleTrips •i - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -• --------------------------------------------------------- WD_TR 0.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.77 2.0 Emissions Summary CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 3 of 16 Date: 4/28/2016 3:17 PM 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Year lb/day lb/day 2017 •1 6.0304 i 20.6360 i 16.5688 i 0.0211 0.1830 i 1.1503 i 1.3333 0.0372 i 1.0828 1.1200 0.0000 i 2,001.708 i 2,001.708 i 0.4324 0.0000 i 2,010.787 5 i 5 i i i 9 0.00 Total 6.0304 20.6360 16.5688 0.0211 0.1830 1.1503 1.3333 0.0372 1.0828 1.1200 0.0000 2,001.708 2,001.708 0.4324 0.0000 2,010.787 5 5 9 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio - CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Year lb/day lb/day 2017 •i 6.0304 20.6360 16.5688 0.0211 0.1830 1.1503 1.3333 0.0372 1.0828 1.1200 0.0000 i 2,001.708 2,001.708 0.4324 0.0000 2,010.787 i i i i i i 5 i 5 i i i 9 0.00 Total 6.0304 20.6360 16.5688 0.0211 0.1830 1.1503 1.3333 0.0372 1.0828 1.1200 0.0000 2,001.708 2,001.708 0.4324 0.0000 2,010.787 5 5 9 ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio - CO2 NBio -0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 4 of 16 Date: 4/28/2016 3:17 PM 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio - CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Area •i 1.7209 i 2.00OOe- 0.0208 i 0.0000 8.00OOe- i 8.00OOe- i i 8.00OOe- 8.00OOe- 0.0438 i 0.0438 i 1.2000e- 0.0463 004 005 005 005 005 ■ 004 i ---------- •-------'-------'-------'-------'-------'-------'-------' ----- --'-- ------ ------- +------- ------'-------'-------'-------*------- Energy •i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Mobile •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mobile •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total Total 1.7209 2.00OOe- 0.0208 0.0000 0.0000 8.00OOe- 8.00OOe- 0.0000 8.00OOe- 8.0000e- 0.0438 0.0438 0.0438 1.2000e- 0.0000 0.0463 004 004 005 005 005 005 005 005 004 004 Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio - CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total I PM2.5 I PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Area •i 1.7209 2.00OOe- 0.0208 0.0000 8.00OOe- 8.00OOe- 8.00OOe- 8.00OOe- 0.0438 0.0438 1.2000e- 0.0463 i i i i 004 005 005 005 005 . 004 i Energy •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 Mobile •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i i i i i Total 1.7209 2.00OOe- 0.0208 0.0000 0.0000 8.00OOe- 8.00OOe- 0.0000 8.00OOe- 8.00OOe- 0.0438 0.0438 1.2000e- 0.0000 0.0463 004 005 005 005 005 004 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 5 of 16 Date: 4/28/2016 3:17 PM 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio -0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e !1/1/2017 11/6/2017 5: 5: i PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total 10: i -------------------------- - -- ----- -- --- -- ----- - - -- -- +--- i Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 84• 0.74 -- --- ----------------- - - - - -- ---- ---- ----------- - - -- -- +------------ +------- - - - - -- -------- - - - --- Trenching 'Air Compressors ; 1 ! 8.001 78• 0.48 -------------------------- -- ---- --- ------ ------ - - - - -- 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number ------- ------- Trenching Week ; 1 ! 8.001 1 •Demolition +Demolition !1/1/2017 11/6/2017 5: 5: i i 2 •Trenching +Trenching !1/7/2017 11/20/2017 1 5 10: i -------------------------- - -- ----- -- --- -- ----- - - -- -- +--- i 3 •Architectural Coating -Architectural Coating 1/21/2017 2/3/2017 5. 10. Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non - Residential Indoor: 3,600; Non - Residential Outdoor: 1,200 (Architectural Coating — sgft) OffRoad Equipment Phase Name I Offroad Equipment Type I Amount I Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating 'Air Compressors ; 1 ! 8.00: 78, 0.48 ------------------------- -- -- ----- ------------ ----- - - ------- ------- Trenching 'Concrete/Industrial Saws ; 1 ! 8.001 81, 0.73 ------------------------- -- -- ----- -- --- -- --- -- - - ---- +------------+-------------t-------------- Demolition 'Concrete/Industrial Saws ; 1 ! 8.001 81 • 0.73 -------------------------- - -- ----- -- --- -- ----- - - -- -- +--- ------- -- +------- - - - - -- - -- ----- - - - - -- Trenching +Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes ; 1! 8.001 97• 0.37 -------------------------- -- -- ----- ----- ----- -- -- ---- +--- -- --- ---- +------- - - - - -- - ----- -- -- ---- Trenching 'Generator Sets ; 1 ! 8.001 84• 0.74 -- --- ----------------- - - - - -- ---- ---- ----------- - - -- -- +------------ +------- - - - - -- -------- - - - --- Trenching 'Air Compressors ; 1 ! 8.001 78• 0.48 -------------------------- -- ---- --- ------ ------ - - - - -- +------------+-------------t-------------- Demolition 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 1 ! 8.001 255• 0.40 ---------------------- - - - - -- --------------------------+----------------- '•------------ T-------- - - - - - -------------- Demolition •Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes 1 8.00, 97, 0.37 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 6 of 16 Date: 4/28/2016 3:17 PM Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor I Hauling Count I Number I Number Number Length I Length I Length Class I Vehicle Class I Vehicle Class Demolition 3; 8.00 0.001 2.00. 12.40 7.30; 20.00;LD_Mix !HDT Mix IHHDT ---- ---- ----�--------- Trenching -----� 4; ---- ---- i--------- 10.00' -- ------------ 0.00: 0.00: - - - - -- ---------------------------------- 12.40: 7.30; 20.00: LD_Mix '.----------- ---------- i HDT_Mix I HHDT ................ S ......... . . . . .. ---------- }---------- r---------}----...---. �......._.........._---------- t... . --------- +---------- r--- - - - - -. Architectural Coating 1 7.00 , 0.00 , 0.00 , 12.40- 7.30- 20.00 - LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Demolition - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day I I I I I I I I I I I Fugitive Dust •I I I I I 0.1006 I 0.0000 I 0.1006 I 0.0152 I 0.0000 0.0152 � I I 0.0000 0.0000 •' I I I I I I I I I I I I � I •' I I I I I I I I ' I I I T - - - - -- -- I I 1 I Off -Road •I 2.0880 I 20.4977 I 16.0835 I 0.0183 I I 1.1484 I 1.1484 I I 1.0810 1.0810 1 1,820.938 1 1,820.938 I 0.4285 I i 1,829.936 3 I 3 I I I 5 Total 2.0880 20.4977 16.0835 0.0183 0.1006 1.1484 1.2490 0.0152 1.0810 1.0963 1,820.938 1,820.938 0.4285 1,829.936 3 3 5 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 7 of 16 Date: 4/28/2016 3:17 PM 3.2 Demolition - 2017 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total I PM2.5 I PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 8.0100e- i 0.1035 0.0794 3.000Oe- i 6.9700e- 1.3700e- i 8.3400e- 1.9100e- i 1.2600e- 3.1700e- + i 29.7628 29.7628 i 2.2000e- i i 29.7673 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 . 004 i +------ - ------'-------'-------'-------+------- ---• ------- ' ------- ' ------- ' ------- ' ------- ' ------- ' ------- ' ------- ' ---------------- Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road 2.0880 i 20.4977 i 16.0835 0.0183 i 1.1484 1.1484 i 1.0810 1.0810 0.0000 i 1,820.938 i 1,820.938 i 0.4285 i : 1,829.936 3 i 3 i i i 5 Worker •i 0.0290 i 0.0348 0.4059 9.3000e- 0.0754 i 5.8000e- i 0.0760 0.0200 i 5.3000e- 0.0205 75.0164 75.0164 i 3.6500e- 75.0931 004 004 004 . 003 i 20.4977 Total 0.0370 0.1383 0.4853 1.2300e- 0.0824 1.9500e- 0.0844 0.0219 1.7900e- 0.0237 0.4285 104.7792 104.7792 3.8700e- 104.8604 003 003 003 3 5 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio - CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •1 i i i 0.1006 0.0000 0.1006 i 0.0152 0.0000 0.0152 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Off -Road 2.0880 i 20.4977 i 16.0835 0.0183 i 1.1484 1.1484 i 1.0810 1.0810 0.0000 i 1,820.938 i 1,820.938 i 0.4285 i : 1,829.936 3 i 3 i i i 5 Total 2.0880 20.4977 16.0835 0.0183 0.1006 1.1484 1.2490 0.0152 1.0810 1.0963 0.0000 1,820.938 1,820.938 0.4285 1,829.936 3 3 5 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 8 of 16 Date: 4/28/2016 3:17 PM 3.2 Demolition - 2017 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.3 Trenching - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total I PM2.5 I PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 8.0100e- i 0.1035 0.0794 3.000Oe- i 6.9700e- 1.3700e- i 8.3400e- 1.9100e- i 1.2600e- 3.1700e- + i 29.7628 29.7628 i 2.2000e- i i 29.7673 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 . 004 i Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1.9096 14.6703 Worker •i 0.0290 i 0.0348 0.4059 9.3000e- 0.0754 i 5.8000e- i 0.0760 0.0200 i 5.3000e- 0.0205 75.0164 75.0164 i 3.6500e- 75.0931 004 004 004 . 003 i Total 0.0370 0.1383 0.4853 1.2300e- 0.0824 1.9500e- 0.0844 0.0219 1.7900e- 0.0237 104.7792 104.7792 3.8700e- 104.8604 003 003 0 003 6 003 3.3 Trenching - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio - CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road 1.9096 i 14.6703 i 12.3976 0.0199 1.0661 i 1.0661 1.0479 1.0479 1,907.938 i 1,907.938 0.2393 i i 1,912.963 0 i 0 6 Total 1.9096 14.6703 12.3976 0.0199 1.0661 1.0661 1.0479 1.0479 1,907.938 1,907.938 0.2393 1,912.963 0 0 6 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 9 of 16 Date: 4/28/2016 3:17 PM 3.3 Trenching - 2017 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 + i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0 i 0 6 +------- ------'-------' ------- '-------+------- ------------ •------- '------- '------- '------- '------- '------- '------- ' ------- ' ---------------- Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1.9096 14.6703 Worker •i 0.0362 i 0.0435 0.5074 1.1600e- 0.0943 i 7.2000e- i 0.0950 0.0250 i 6.7000e- 0.0257 + i 93.7705 93.7705 i 4.5700e- i i 93.8664 003 004 004 . 003 i Total 0.0362 0.0435 0.5074 1.1600e- 0.0943 7.2000e- 0.0950 0.0250 6.7000e- 0.0257 93.7705 93.7705 4.5700e- 93.8664 003 004 0 004 6 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio - CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road 1.9096 i 14.6703 i 12.3976 0.0199 1.0661 i 1.0661 1.0479 1.0479 0.0000 i 1,907.938 i 1,907.938 0.2393 i i 1,912.963 0 i 0 6 Total 1.9096 14.6703 12.3976 0.0199 1.0661 1.0661 1.0479 1.0479 0.0000 1,907.938 1,907.938 0.2393 1,912.963 0 0 6 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 10 of 16 Date: 4/28/2016 3:17 PM 3.3 Trenching - 2017 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.4 Architectural Coating - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 + i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 T-0-0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 003 Worker •i 0.0362 i 0.0435 0.5074 1.1600e- 0.0943 i 7.2000e- i 0.0950 0.0250 i 6.7000e- 0.0257 + i 93.7705 93.7705 i 4.5700e- i i 93.8664 003 004 004 . 003 i 2.9134 Total 0.0362 0.0435 0.5074 1.1600e- 0.0943 7.2000e- 0.0950 0.0250 6.7000e- 0.0257 0.0396 93.7705 93.7705 4.5700e- 93.8664 003 003 004 004 003 3.4 Architectural Coating - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating •i 5.5620 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road 0.4431 i 2.9134 i 2.4908 3.9600e- i 0.2311 i 0.2311 i 0.2311 0.2311 i 375.2641 i 375.2641 i 0.0396 i 376.0961 003 Total 6.0051 2.9134 2.4908 3.9600e- 0.2311 0.2311 0.2311 0.2311 375.2641 375.2641 0.0396 376.0961 003 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 11 of 16 Date: 4/28/2016 3:17 PM 3.4 Architectural Coating - 2017 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 + i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 +------- ------'-------' ------- '-------+------- ------------ •------- '------- '------- '------- '------- '------- '------- ' ------- ' ---------------- Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •1 0.4431 i 2.9134 i 2.4908 3.9600e- i 0.2311 i 0.2311 i 0.2311 0.2311 0.0000 i 375.2641 i 375.2641 i 0.0396 i 376.0961 003 Worker •i 0.0254 i 0.0304 0.3552 8.1000e- 0.0660 i 5.1000e- i 0.0665 0.0175 i 4.7000e- 0.0180 + i 65.6394 65.6394 i 3.2000e- i i 65.7065 004 004 004 . 003 i 6.0051 Total 0.0254 0.0304 0.3552 8.1000e- 0.0660 5.1000e- 0.0665 0.0175 4.7000e- 0.0180 375.2641 65.6394 65.6394 3.2000e- 65.7065 003 004 004 004 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio - CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating •1 5.5620 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •1 0.4431 i 2.9134 i 2.4908 3.9600e- i 0.2311 i 0.2311 i 0.2311 0.2311 0.0000 i 375.2641 i 375.2641 i 0.0396 i 376.0961 003 Total 6.0051 2.9134 2.4908 3.9600e- 0.2311 0.2311 0.2311 0.2311 0.0000 375.2641 375.2641 0.0396 376.0961 003 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 12 of 16 Date: 4/28/2016 3:17 PM 3.4 Architectural Coating - 2017 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 + i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 +------- ------' ------ -' ------- '------- �------- ------------ •------- '------- '------- '------- '------- '------- '------- ' ------- ' ---------------- Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0254 i 0.0304 0.3552 8.1000e- 0.0660 i 5.1000e- i 0.0665 0.0175 i 4.7000e- 0.0180 + i 65.6394 65.6394 i 3.2000e- i i 65.7065 004 004 004 . 003 i Total 0.0254 0.0304 0.3552 8.1000e- 0.0660 5.1000e- 0.0665 0.0175 4.7000e- 0.0180 65.6394 65.6394 3.2000e- 65.7065 004 004 004 003 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile ROG I NOx I CO I S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 - 0.0000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 13 of 16 Date: 4/28/2016 3:17 PM 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Parking Lot + 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.3 Trip Type Information LDA I LDT1 I LDT2 I MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH 0.546114 • 0.062902 , 0.174648 , 0.122995 , 0.034055 , 0.004856 , 0.015640 , 0.024397 , 0.002087 , 0.003279 , 0.006673 , 0.000688 , 0.001667 §.g Ae ff%ywDetail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Miles Trip % Trip Purpose % Land Use H -W or C -W H -S or C -C H -O or C -NW H -W or C -W H -S or C -C H -O or C -NW Primary Diverted Pass -by Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 LDA I LDT1 I LDT2 I MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH 0.546114 • 0.062902 , 0.174648 , 0.122995 , 0.034055 , 0.004856 , 0.015640 , 0.024397 , 0.002087 , 0.003279 , 0.006673 , 0.000688 , 0.001667 §.g Ae ff%ywDetail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day I I 1 I I NaturalGas •1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 I I I I 0.0000 � 0.0000 I I I � I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 Mitigated ,� I I I I 1 1 I 1 ■ 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 , I 1 I NaturalGas : 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 14 of 16 Date: 4/28/2016 3:17 PM 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated Mitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 I Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Land Use kBTU /yr lb/day lb/day Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 7700 0.0000 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0000 0.0000 0.0000 00000 0.0000 70000 I 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 C114 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 I Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Land Use kBTU /yr lb/day lb/day Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0000 0.0000 0.0000 00000 0.0000 70000 I 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 15 of 16 Date: 4/28/2016 3:17 PM 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio - CO2 NBio - CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category E.1 I lb/day PM10 lb/day Mitigated 2.000Oe- 0.0208 i 0.0000 8.000Oe- i 8.000Oe- i i 8.000Oe- 8.000Oe- 0.0438 0.0438 i 1.2000e- i i 0.0463 Z 004 005 005 005 005 . 1 004 i - - - - - - - - - - ��--------------+--------------}-------------- i--------------- 4-------------- - }--------------+-------------- - --------------}--------------+ - - - - - - - + - - - - - - �-- ------} ------ - +---- - -� ---- - * - - - - - - - Unmitigated 1.7209 2.000Oe- 0.0208 0.0000 - 8.000Oe- - 8.000Oe- 8.000Oe- 8.000Oe- 0.0438 0.0438 - 1.2000e- 0.0463 Products 004 005 005 005 005 004 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio - CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural i 6.8600e- 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 � i � 0.0000 0.0000 Coating 003 ,i - - - - - - - - - - - :i - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - '- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * -- - - - - - Consumer .1 1.7120 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 � i � 0.0000 0.0000 Products Landscaping •i 2.0100e- 2.000Oe- 0.0208 0.0000 8.000Oe- 8.000Oe- 8.000Oe- 8.000Oe- 0.0438 0.0438 1.2000e- 0.0463 i i i i 003 004 005 005 005 005 . 004 i Total 1.7209 2.000Oe- 0.0208 0.0000 8.000Oe- 8.000Oe- 8.000Oe- 8.000Oe- 0.0438 0.0438 0e 1.200- 0.0463 004 005 005 005 005 004 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 16 of 16 Date: 4/28/2016 3:17 PM 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours /Day DaysNear Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Vegetation ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Subcategory lb/day lb/day Architectural •i 6.8600e- 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating 003 -- - - - - - - - •r-------'-------'-------'-------'-------'-------'-------'-------'---------------+--------------'-------'-------'-------*------- Consumer •i 1.7120 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 Products Landscaping •i 2.0100e- i 2.00OOe- i 0.0208 i 0.0000 i i 8.00OOe- i 8.00OOe- i i 8.00OOe- 8.00OOe- 0.0438 i 0.0438 i 1.2000e- 0.0463 003 004 005 005 005 005 . 004 i Total 1.7209 2.00OOe- 0.0208 0.0000 8.00OOe- 8.00OOe- 8.00OOe- 8.0000e- 0.0438 0.0438 1.2000e- 0.0463 004 005 005 005 005 004 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours /Day DaysNear Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Vegetation CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 1 of 16 Date: 4/28/2016 3:36 PM Payless Vehicle Rental Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Precipitation Freq (Days) 64 Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Parking Lot 200.00 Space 0.99 80,000.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m /s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 64 Climate Zone 5 Operational Year 2017 Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company CO2 Intensity 641.35 CH4Intensity 0.029 N20 Intensity 0.006 (lb /MWhr) (lb /MWhr) (lb /MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non - Default Data Project Characteristics - Land Use - proposed project consists of restriping and seal coating an existing parking lot, along with other minor improvements (removal of portion of pavement and replacement with landscaping, trenching and installation of lighting) Construction Phase - based on anticipated on -site improvements Off -road Equipment - based on anticipated on -site improvements Off -road Equipment - based on anticipated on -site improvements Off -road Equipment - adjusted for max 8 hrs /day Demolition - approximate disturbance area Vehicle Trips - trip generation rate based on project traffic assessment Land Use Change - Sequestration - CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 2 of 16 Date: 4/28/2016 3:36 PM Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblArchitecturalCoating EF_ Nonresidential _Exterior } 150.00 250.00 --------------------- g ------ tblArchitectural Coatin Y----------------------------- - �----------------------------- t-------- EF_ Nonresidential i 100.00 ----- ------- ------ 250.00 tblArchitecturalCoating _Interior EF_ Residential 150.00 250.00 ; _Exterior - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - tblArchitecturalCoating Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------------------------------------------------------- EF_ Residential °v 100.00 250.00 ---- - ----- s---- onPh--------- _Interior --------- - - ---- Days------- ----- �------ - - - - -- -5.00 ------------ T---------- --- --- ---- - - - - -- ----------------------------- tblConstruction Phase _----------- --- -- ------------ j�----------------------------- t----------- NumDa y s a 10.00 -- ------- ------ 5.00 ----------------------------- tblLandUse _----------------- 9------------ �----------------------------- t-------------------------- LotAcrea 1.80 0.99 e i ---- -- ----- ----- --- --- - - --- tblOffRoadEquipment ------------------------------ �------------------------------ --- LoadFactor i 0.37 --- -- ------------------ 0.37 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - tblOffRoadEquipment Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - { - -------------------------------------------------------- Off Road EquipmentType } Concrete /Industrial Saws tblOffRoadEquipment ; Off Road EquipmentType - Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes tblOffRoadEquipment ; Off Road Equ ipmentType Generator Sets tblOffRoadEquipment ; Off Road Equ ipmentType Air Compressors -----------------------------_----------------------------- tblOffRoadEquipment -}-------------------------------------------------------- OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount + 2.00 1.00 -----------------------------_----------------------------- tblOffRoadEquipment ------------------------------ t- UsageHours a 6.00 ------- --- -- ------ - -- ---- 8.00 -----------------------------_----------------------------- tblOffRoadEquipment ------------------------------ t---- UsageHours s 1.00 ----- --- --- -- --- - --- -- 8.00 -----------------------------_----------------------------- tblOffRoadEquipment ---------------------------------- UsageHours v 6.00 --- -- ------------ - ----- 8.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - tblProjectCharacteristics Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - { - -------------------------------------------------------- OperationalYear } 2014 2017 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - tblVehicleTri Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- T - ST_TR 0.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.77 s i ------------------ tblVehicleTri Y----------------------------- - �------------------------------ t--- SU_TR 0.00 ------ -- -- -- --- -- -- - - -- 1.77 p---------- s - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - tblVehicleTrips •i - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -• --------------------------------------------------------- WD_TR 0.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.77 2.0 Emissions Summary CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 3 of 16 Date: 4/28/2016 3:36 PM 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Year lb/day lb/day 2017 •1 6.0304 i 20.6498 16.5934 i 0.0210 0.1830 i 1.1503 i 1.3333 0.0372 i 1.0828 1.1200 0.0000 i 1,994.447 i 1,994.447 i 0.4324 0.0000 i 2,003.527 7 i 7 i i i 2 0.00 Total 6.0304 20.6498 16.5934 0.0210 0.1830 1.1503 1.3333 0.0372 1.0828 1.1200 0.0000 1,994.447 1,994.447 0.4324 0.0000 2,003.527 7 7 2 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio - CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Year lb/day lb/day 2017 •i 6.0304 20.6498 16.5934 0.0210 0.1830 1.1503 1.3333 0.0372 1.0828 1.1200 0.0000 i 1,994.447 1,994.447 0.4324 0.0000 2,003.527 i i i i i i 7 i 7 i i i 2 0.00 Total 6.0304 20.6498 16.5934 0.0210 0.1830 1.1503 1.3333 0.0372 1.0828 1.1200 0.0000 1,994.447 1,994.447 0.4324 0.0000 2,003.527 7 7 2 ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio - CO2 NBio -0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 4 of 16 Date: 4/28/2016 3:36 PM 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio - CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Area •i 1.7209 i 2.00OOe- 0.0208 i 0.0000 8.00OOe- i 8.00OOe- i i 8.00OOe- 8.00OOe- 0.0438 i 0.0438 i 1.2000e- 0.0463 004 005 005 005 005 ■ 004 i ---------- •-------'-------'-------'-------'-------'-------'-------' ----- --'-- ------ ------- +------- ------'-------'-------'-------*------- Energy •i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Mobile •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mobile •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total Total 1.7209 2.00OOe- 0.0208 0.0000 0.0000 8.00OOe- 8.00OOe- 0.0000 8.00OOe- 8.0000e- 0.0438 0.0438 0.0438 1.2000e- 0.0000 0.0463 004 004 005 005 005 005 005 005 004 004 Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio - CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total I PM2.5 I PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Area •i 1.7209 2.00OOe- 0.0208 0.0000 8.00OOe- 8.00OOe- 8.00OOe- 8.00OOe- 0.0438 0.0438 1.2000e- 0.0463 i i i i 004 005 005 005 005 . 004 i Energy •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 Mobile •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i i i i i Total 1.7209 2.00OOe- 0.0208 0.0000 0.0000 8.00OOe- 8.00OOe- 0.0000 8.00OOe- 8.00OOe- 0.0438 0.0438 1.2000e- 0.0000 0.0463 004 005 005 005 005 004 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 5 of 16 Date: 4/28/2016 3:36 PM 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio -0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e !1/1/2017 11/6/2017 5: 5: i PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total 10: i -------------------------- - -- ----- -- --- -- ----- - - -- -- +--- i Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 84• 0.74 -- --- ----------------- - - - - -- ---- ---- ----------- - - -- -- +------------ +------- - - - - -- -------- - - - --- Trenching 'Air Compressors ; 1 ! 8.001 78• 0.48 -------------------------- -- ---- --- ------ ------ - - - - -- 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number ------- ------- Trenching Week ; 1 ! 8.001 1 •Demolition +Demolition !1/1/2017 11/6/2017 5: 5: i i 2 •Trenching +Trenching !1/7/2017 11/20/2017 1 5 10: i -------------------------- - -- ----- -- --- -- ----- - - -- -- +--- i 3 •Architectural Coating -Architectural Coating 1/21/2017 2/3/2017 5. 10. Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non - Residential Indoor: 3,600; Non - Residential Outdoor: 1,200 (Architectural Coating — sgft) OffRoad Equipment Phase Name I Offroad Equipment Type I Amount I Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating 'Air Compressors ; 1 ! 8.00: 78, 0.48 ------------------------- -- -- ----- ------------ ----- - - ------- ------- Trenching 'Concrete/Industrial Saws ; 1 ! 8.001 81, 0.73 ------------------------- -- -- ----- -- --- -- --- -- - - ---- +------------+-------------t-------------- Demolition 'Concrete/Industrial Saws ; 1 ! 8.001 81 • 0.73 -------------------------- - -- ----- -- --- -- ----- - - -- -- +--- ------- -- +------- - - - - -- - -- ----- - - - - -- Trenching +Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes ; 1! 8.001 97• 0.37 -------------------------- -- -- ----- ----- ----- -- -- ---- +--- -- --- ---- +------- - - - - -- - ----- -- -- ---- Trenching 'Generator Sets ; 1 ! 8.001 84• 0.74 -- --- ----------------- - - - - -- ---- ---- ----------- - - -- -- +------------ +------- - - - - -- -------- - - - --- Trenching 'Air Compressors ; 1 ! 8.001 78• 0.48 -------------------------- -- ---- --- ------ ------ - - - - -- +------------+-------------t-------------- Demolition 'Rubber Tired Dozers ; 1 ! 8.001 255• 0.40 ---------------------- - - - - -- --------------------------+----------------- '•------------ T-------- - - - - - -------------- Demolition •Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes 1 8.00, 97, 0.37 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 6 of 16 Date: 4/28/2016 3:36 PM Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor I Hauling Count I Number I Number Number Length I Length I Length Class I Vehicle Class I Vehicle Class Demolition 3; 8.00 0.001 2.00. 12.40 7.30; 20.00;LD_Mix !HDT Mix IHHDT ---- ---- ----�--------- Trenching -----� 4; ---- ---- i--------- 10.00' -- ------------ 0.00: 0.00: - - - - -- ---------------------------------- 12.40: 7.30; 20.00: LD_Mix '.----------- ---------- i HDT_Mix I HHDT ................ S ......... . . . . .. ---------- }---------- r---------}----...---. �......._.........._---------- t... . --------- +---------- r--- - - - - -. Architectural Coating 1 7.00 , 0.00 , 0.00 , 12.40- 7.30- 20.00 - LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Demolition - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day I I I I I I I I I I I Fugitive Dust •I I I I I 0.1006 I 0.0000 I 0.1006 I 0.0152 I 0.0000 0.0152 � I I 0.0000 0.0000 •' I I I I I I I I I I I I � I •' I I I I I I I I ' I I I T - - - - -- -- I I 1 I Off -Road •I 2.0880 I 20.4977 I 16.0835 I 0.0183 I I 1.1484 I 1.1484 I I 1.0810 1.0810 1 1,820.938 1 1,820.938 I 0.4285 I i 1,829.936 3 I 3 I I I 5 Total 2.0880 20.4977 16.0835 0.0183 0.1006 1.1484 1.2490 0.0152 1.0810 1.0963 1,820.938 1,820.938 0.4285 1,829.936 3 3 5 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 7 of 16 Date: 4/28/2016 3:36 PM 3.2 Demolition - 2017 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total I PM2.5 I PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 9.5300e- i 0.1091 0.1166 3.000Oe- i 6.9700e- 1.3800e- i 8.3500e- 1.9100e- i 1.2700e- 3.1700e- + i 29.6932 29.6932 i 2.2000e- i i 29.6977 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 . 004 i Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 010000 i i i i i i i i • 3 i 3 i i i 5 Worker •i 0.0289 i 0.0431 0.3932 8.6000e- 0.0754 i 5.8000e- i 0.0760 0.0200 i 5.3000e- 0.0205 69.2078 69.2078 i 3.6500e- i i 69.2845 004 004 004 . 003 i 20.4977 Total 0.0384 0.1521 0.5099 1.1600e- 0.0824 1.9600e- 0.0844 0.0219 1.8000e- 0.0237 0.4285 98.9010 98.9010 3.8700e- 98.9823 003 003 003 3 5 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •i 0.1006 0.0000 0.1006 i 0.0152 0.0000 0.0152 i i 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road 2.0880 i 20.4977 i 16.0835 0.0183 i 1.1484 1.1484 i 1.0810 1.0810 0.0000 i 1,820.938 i 1,820.938 i 0.4285 i : 1,829.936 '� i i i i i i i i • 3 i 3 i i i 5 Total 2.0880 20.4977 16.0835 0.0183 0.1006 1.1484 1.2490 0.0152 1.0810 1.0963 0.0000 1,820.938 1,820.938 0.4285 1,829.936 3 3 5 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 8 of 16 Date: 4/28/2016 3:36 PM 3.2 Demolition - 2017 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.3 Trenching - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total I PM2.5 I PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 9.5300e- i 0.1091 0.1166 3.000Oe- i 6.9700e- 1.3800e- i 8.3500e- 1.9100e- i 1.2700e- 3.1700e- + i 29.6932 29.6932 i 2.2000e- i i 29.6977 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 . 004 i Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1.9096 14.6703 Worker •i 0.0289 i 0.0431 0.3932 8.6000e- 0.0754 i 5.8000e- i 0.0760 0.0200 i 5.3000e- 0.0205 69.2078 69.2078 i 3.6500e- i i 69.2845 004 004 004 . 003 i Total 0.0384 0.1521 0.5099 1.1600e- 0.0824 1 .9600e- 0.0844 0.0219 1.8000e- 0.0237 98.9010 98.9010 0e 3.870- 98.9823 003 003 0 003 6 003 3.3 Trenching - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio - CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road 1.9096 i 14.6703 i 12.3976 0.0199 1.0661 i 1.0661 1.0479 1.0479 1,907.938 i 1,907.938 0.2393 i i 1,912.963 0 i 0 6 Total 1.9096 14.6703 12.3976 0.0199 1.0661 1.0661 1.0479 1.0479 1,907.938 1,907.938 0.2393 1,912.963 0 0 6 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 9 of 16 Date: 4/28/2016 3:36 PM 3.3 Trenching - 2017 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 + i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0 i 0 6 +------- ------'-------' ------- '-------+------- ------------ •------- '------- '------- '------- '------- '------- '------- ' ------- ' ---------------- Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1.9096 14.6703 Worker •i 0.0361 i 0.0538 0.4915 1.0700e- 0.0943 i 7.2000e- i 0.0950 0.0250 i 6.7000e- 0.0257 + i 86.5098 86.5098 i 4.5700e- 86.6057 003 004 004 . 003 i Total 0.0361 0.0538 0.4915 1.0700e- 0.0943 7.2000e- 0.0950 0.0250 6.7000e- 0.0257 86.5098 86.5098 4.5700e- 86.6057 003 004 0 004 6 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio - CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road 1.9096 i 14.6703 i 12.3976 0.0199 1.0661 i 1.0661 1.0479 1.0479 0.0000 i 1,907.938 i 1,907.938 0.2393 i i 1,912.963 0 i 0 6 Total 1.9096 14.6703 12.3976 0.0199 1.0661 1.0661 1.0479 1.0479 0.0000 1,907.938 1,907.938 0.2393 1,912.963 0 0 6 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 10 of 16 Date: 4/28/2016 3:36 PM 3.3 Trenching - 2017 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 3.4 Architectural Coating - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 + i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 T-0-0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 003 Worker •i 0.0361 i 0.0538 0.4915 1.0700e- 0.0943 i 7.2000e- i 0.0950 0.0250 i 6.7000e- 0.0257 + i 86.5098 86.5098 i 4.5700e- 86.6057 003 004 004 . 003 i 2.9134 Total 0.0361 0.0538 0.4915 1.0700e- 0.0943 7.2000e- 0.0950 0.0250 6.7000e- 0.0257 0.0396 86.5098 86.5098 4.5700e- 86.6057 003 003 004 004 003 3.4 Architectural Coating - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating •i 5.5620 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road 0.4431 i 2.9134 i 2.4908 3.9600e- i 0.2311 i 0.2311 i 0.2311 0.2311 i 375.2641 i 375.2641 i 0.0396 i 376.0961 003 Total 6.0051 2.9134 2.4908 3.9600e- 0.2311 0.2311 0.2311 0.2311 375.2641 375.2641 0.0396 376.0961 003 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 11 of 16 Date: 4/28/2016 3:36 PM 3.4 Architectural Coating - 2017 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 + i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 +------- 1 --'-------'--------------- ------------ •------- '------- '------- '------- '------- '------- '------- ' ------- ' ---------------- Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •1 0.4431 i 2.9134 i 2.4908 3.9600e- 0.2311 i 0.2311 0.2311 0.2311 0.0000 i 375.2641 i 375.2641 i 0.0396 76.0961 003 Worker •i 0.0253 i 0.0377 0.3441 7.5000e- 0.0660 i 5.1000e- i 0.0665 0.0175 i 4.7000e- 0.0180 + F 60.5568 60.5568 i 3.2000e- i i 60.6240 004 004 004 . 003 i 6.0051 Total 0.0253 0.0377 0.3441 7.5000e- 0.0660 5.1000e- 0.0665 0.0175 4.7000e- 0.0180 375.2641 60.5568 60.5568 3.2000e- 60.6240 003 004 004 004 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio - CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating •1 5.5620 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •1 0.4431 i 2.9134 i 2.4908 3.9600e- 0.2311 i 0.2311 0.2311 0.2311 0.0000 i 375.2641 i 375.2641 i 0.0396 76.0961 003 Total 6.0051 2.9134 2.4908 3.9600e- 0.2311 0.2311 0.2311 0.2311 0.0000 375.2641 375.2641 0.0396 376.0961 003 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 12 of 16 Date: 4/28/2016 3:36 PM 3.4 Architectural Coating - 2017 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 + i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 +------- 1 --'-------'--------------- ------------ •------- '------- '------- '------- '------- '------- '------- ' ------- ' ---------------- Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0253 i 0.0377 0.3441 7.5000e- 0.0660 i 5.1000e- i 0.0665 0.0175 i 4.7000e- 0.0180 + F 60.5568 60.5568 i 3.2000e- i i 60.6240 004 004 004 . 003 i Total 0.0253 0.0377 0.3441 7.5000e- 0.0660 5.1000e- 0.0665 0.0175 4.7000e- 0.0180 60.5568 60.5568 3.2000e- 60.6240 004 004 004 003 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile ROG I NOx I CO I S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 - 0.0000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 13 of 16 Date: 4/28/2016 3:36 PM 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Parking Lot + 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.3 Trip Type Information LDA I LDT1 I LDT2 I MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH 0.546114 • 0.062902 , 0.174648 , 0.122995 , 0.034055 , 0.004856 , 0.015640 , 0.024397 , 0.002087 , 0.003279 , 0.006673 , 0.000688 , 0.001667 §.g Ae ff%ywDetail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Miles Trip % Trip Purpose % Land Use H -W or C -W H -S or C -C H -O or C -NW H -W or C -W H -S or C -C H -O or C -NW Primary Diverted Pass -by Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 LDA I LDT1 I LDT2 I MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH 0.546114 • 0.062902 , 0.174648 , 0.122995 , 0.034055 , 0.004856 , 0.015640 , 0.024397 , 0.002087 , 0.003279 , 0.006673 , 0.000688 , 0.001667 §.g Ae ff%ywDetail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day I I 1 I I NaturalGas •1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 I I I I 0.0000 � 0.0000 I I I � I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 Mitigated ,� I I I I 1 1 I 1 ■ 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 , I 1 I NaturalGas : 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 14 of 16 Date: 4/28/2016 3:36 PM 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated Mitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 I Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Land Use kBTU /yr lb/day lb/day Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 7700 0.0000 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0000 0.0000 0.0000 00000 0.0000 70000 I 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 C114 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 I Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Land Use kBTU /yr lb/day lb/day Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0000 0.0000 0.0000 00000 0.0000 70000 I 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 15 of 16 Date: 4/28/2016 3:36 PM 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio - CO2 NBio - CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category E.1 I lb/day PM10 lb/day Mitigated 2.000Oe- 0.0208 i 0.0000 8.000Oe- i 8.000Oe- i i 8.000Oe- 8.000Oe- 0.0438 0.0438 i 1.2000e- i i 0.0463 Z 004 005 005 005 005 . 1 004 i - - - - - - - - - - ��--------------+--------------}-------------- i--------------- 4-------------- - }--------------+-------------- - --------------}--------------+ - - - - - - - + - - - - - - �-- ------} ------ - +---- - -� ---- - * - - - - - - - Unmitigated 1.7209 2.000Oe- 0.0208 0.0000 - 8.000Oe- - 8.000Oe- 8.000Oe- 8.000Oe- 0.0438 0.0438 - 1.2000e- 0.0463 Products 004 005 005 005 005 004 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio - CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural i 6.8600e- 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 � i � 0.0000 0.0000 Coating 003 ,i - - - - - - - - - - - :i - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - '- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * -- - - - - - Consumer .1 1.7120 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 � i � 0.0000 0.0000 Products Landscaping •i 2.0100e- 2.000Oe- 0.0208 0.0000 8.000Oe- 8.000Oe- 8.000Oe- 8.000Oe- 0.0438 0.0438 1.2000e- 0.0463 i i i i 003 004 005 005 005 005 . 004 i Total 1.7209 2.000Oe- 0.0208 0.0000 8.000Oe- 8.000Oe- 8.000Oe- 8.000Oe- 0.0438 0.0438 0e 1.200- 0.0463 004 005 005 005 005 004 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 16 of 16 Date: 4/28/2016 3:36 PM 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours /Day DaysNear Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Vegetation ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Subcategory lb/day lb/day Architectural •i 6.8600e- 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating 003 -- - - - - - - - •r-------'-------'-------'-------'-------'-------'-------'-------'---------------+--------------'-------'-------'-------*------- Consumer •i 1.7120 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 Products Landscaping •i 2.0100e- i 2.00OOe- i 0.0208 i 0.0000 i i 8.00OOe- i 8.00OOe- i i 8.00OOe- 8.00OOe- 0.0438 i 0.0438 i 1.2000e- 0.0463 003 004 005 005 005 005 . 004 i Total 1.7209 2.00OOe- 0.0208 0.0000 8.00OOe- 8.00OOe- 8.00OOe- 8.0000e- 0.0438 0.0438 1.2000e- 0.0463 004 005 005 005 005 004 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours /Day DaysNear Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Vegetation CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 1 of 22 Date: 4/28/2016 3:51 PM Payless Vehicle Rental Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Precipitation Freq (Days) 64 Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Parking Lot 200.00 Space 0.99 80,000.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m /s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 64 Climate Zone 5 Operational Year 2017 Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company CO2 Intensity 641.35 CH4Intensity 0.029 N20 Intensity 0.006 (lb /MWhr) (lb /MWhr) (lb /MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non - Default Data Project Characteristics - Land Use - proposed project consists of restriping and seal coating an existing parking lot, along with other minor improvements (removal of portion of pavement and replacement with landscaping, trenching and installation of lighting) Construction Phase - based on anticipated on -site improvements Off -road Equipment - based on anticipated on -site improvements Off -road Equipment - based on anticipated on -site improvements Off -road Equipment - adjusted for max 8 hrs /day Demolition - approximate disturbance area Vehicle Trips - trip generation rate based on project traffic assessment Land Use Change - Sequestration - CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 2 of 22 Date: 4/28/2016 3:51 PM Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblArchitecturalCoating EF_ Nonresidential _Exterior } 150.00 250.00 --------------------- g ------ tblArchitectural Coatin Y----------------------------- - �----------------------------- t-------- EF_ Nonresidential i 100.00 ----- ------- ------ 250.00 tblArchitecturalCoating _Interior EF_ Residential 150.00 250.00 ; _Exterior - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - tblArchitecturalCoating Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------------------------------------------------------- EF_ Residential °v 100.00 250.00 ---- - ----- s---- onPh--------- _Interior --------- - - ---- Days------- ----- �------ - - - - -- -5.00 ------------ T---------- --- --- ---- - - - - -- ----------------------------- tblConstruction Phase _----------- --- -- ------------ j�----------------------------- t----------- NumDa y s a 10.00 -- ------- ------ 5.00 ----------------------------- tblLandUse _----------------- 9------------ �----------------------------- t-------------------------- LotAcrea 1.80 0.99 e i ---- -- ----- ----- --- --- - - --- tblOffRoadEquipment ------------------------------ �------------------------------ --- LoadFactor i 0.37 --- -- ------------------ 0.37 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - tblOffRoadEquipment Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - { - -------------------------------------------------------- Off Road EquipmentType } Concrete /Industrial Saws tblOffRoadEquipment ; Off Road EquipmentType - Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes tblOffRoadEquipment ; Off Road Equ ipmentType Generator Sets tblOffRoadEquipment ; Off Road Equ ipmentType Air Compressors -----------------------------_----------------------------- tblOffRoadEquipment -}-------------------------------------------------------- OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount + 2.00 1.00 -----------------------------_----------------------------- tblOffRoadEquipment ------------------------------ t- UsageHours a 6.00 ------- --- -- ------ - -- ---- 8.00 -----------------------------_----------------------------- tblOffRoadEquipment ------------------------------ t---- UsageHours s 1.00 ----- --- --- -- --- - --- -- 8.00 -----------------------------_----------------------------- tblOffRoadEquipment ---------------------------------- UsageHours v 6.00 --- -- ------------ - ----- 8.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - tblProjectCharacteristics Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - { - -------------------------------------------------------- OperationalYear } 2014 2017 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - tblVehicleTri Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- T - ST_TR 0.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.77 s i ------------------ tblVehicleTri Y----------------------------- - �------------------------------ t--- SU_TR 0.00 ------ -- -- -- --- -- -- - - -- 1.77 p---------- s - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - tblVehicleTrips •i - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -• --------------------------------------------------------- WD_TR 0.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.77 2.0 Emissions Summary CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 3 of 22 Date: 4/28/2016 3:51 PM 2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Year tons /yr MT /yr 2017 •1 0.0452 i 0.1400 0.1199 i 1.8000e- 1.2200e- i 9.3700e- i 0.0106 i 3.000Oe- i 9.1100e- 9.4000e- 0.0000 i 15.3851 i 15.3851 i 2.2800e- 0.0000 i 15.4330 004 003 003 004 003 003 ■ 003 i 0.00 Total 0.0452 0.1400 0.1199 1.8000e- 1.2200e- 9.3700e- 0.0106 3.000Oe- 9.1100e- 9.4000e- 0.0000 15.3851 15.3851 2.2800e- 0.0000 15.4330 004 003 003 004 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio - CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Year tans /yr MT /yr 2017 •i 0.0452 0.1400 0.1199 1.8000e- 1.2200e- 9.3700e- 0.0106 3.000Oe- 9.1100e- 9.4000e- 0.0000 i 15.3851 15.3851 2.2800e- 0.0000 i 15.4330 i i i i i i 004 003 003 004 003 003 ■ 003 i 0.00 Total 0.0452 0.1400 0.1199 1.8000e- 1.2200e- 9.3700e- 0.0106 3.000Oe- 9.1100e- 9.4000e- 0.0000 15.3851 15.3851 2.2800e- 0.0000 15.4330 004 003 003 004 003 003 003 ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio -0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 4 of 22 Date: 4/28/2016 3:51 PM 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 Total I Category tons /yr MT /yr Area •i 0.3139 i 2.000Oe- 1.8700e- i 0.0000 1.000Oe- i 1.000Oe- i i 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 0.0000 i 3.5700e- i 3.5700e- i 1.000Oe- 0.0000 i 3.7800e- �� 005 003 005 005 005 005 ■ 003 003 005 i 003 Energy •i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 20.4802 20.4802 i 9.3000e- 1.9000e- i 20.5590 �� ■ 004 004 i Mobile •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Waste •i i i i i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Water •i i i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total 0.3139 2.000Oe- 1.8700e- 0.0000 0.0000 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 0.0000 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 0.0000 20.4837 20.4837 9.4000e- 1.9000e- 20.5628 005 003 005 005 005 005 004 004 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 5 of 22 Date: 4/28/2016 3:51 PM 2.2 Overall Operational Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio - CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 Total I Category tons /yr MT /yr Area •i 0.3139 i 2.000Oe- 1.8700e- i 0.0000 1.000Oe- i 1.000Oe- i i 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 0.0000 i 3.5700e- i 3.5700e- i 1.000Oe- 0.0000 i 3.7800e- �� 005 003 005 005 005 005 ■ 003 003 005 i 003 0.00 Energy •i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 20.4802 20.4802 i 9.3000e- 1.9000e- i 20.5590 �� ■ 004 004 i 0.00 Mobile •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.00 0.00 Waste •i i i i i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.00 0.00 Water •i i i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.00 Total 0.3139 2.000Oe- 1.8700e- 0.0000 0.0000 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 0.0000 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 0.0000 20.4837 20.4837 9.4000e- 1.9000e- 20.5628 005 003 005 005 005 005 004 004 ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio -0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 6 of 22 Date: 4/28/2016 3:51 PM 2.3 Vegetation Vegetation 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase CO2e Category MT New Trees 0.0000 Total 0.0000 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number I I Week 1 Demolition +Demolition 11/1/2017 1/6/2017 5: 5 �---- ------------- --- ---I---- -- --------- --- --- ------------;------------,--------4---------------------------------- 2 •Trenching +Trenching 11/7/2017 :1/20/2017 5: 10 -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +------------------------ T------------------- - - - - -' - - - - -- -- °— ° ° - - °� ° ° - -° ° °� - ------------------------ 3 •Architectural Coating •Architectural Coating 1/21/2017 2/3/2017 5. 10, Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non - Residential Indoor: 3,600; Non - Residential Outdoor: 1,200 (Architectural Coating — sgft) OffRoad Equipment CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 7 of 22 Date: 4/28/2016 3:51 PM Phase Name I Offroad Equipment Type I Amount I Usage Hours I Horse Power I Load Factor Architectural Coating +Air Compressors ; 11 8.00: 78, 0.48 ------------------------- -- Trenching -- ----- ----- -- ----- - - - - -- +Concrete /Industrial Saws +------------+-------------t-------------- ; 1 ; 8.001 81, 0.73 - -------------------- - - - - -- Demolition -------------------------- +Concrete /Industrial Saws +------------ ; 11 +------------- 8.001 t-------- 81, - - - - -- 0.73 ----------------- ---- - - - - -- Trenching -------------------------- +Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes +---------- ; 1; -- +------------- 8.001 t- ------- 97• - - - --- 0.37 -- ---- --------------- - - - - - -- Trenching -- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----= +Generator Sets +---------- ; 1 ; -- +------------- 8.001 t- ----- 84• --- - ---- 0.74 --------------------------- -r-- Trenching --- -- -- --- ----- --- ------= +Air Compressors +------------+-------------t-------------- i 1 ; 8.001 78• 0.48 ------------------------- --- Demolition -- ----- ----- ----- -- -- ---- +Rubber Tired Dozers +------------ i 1 ; +------------- 8.001 t- ------ 255, - - - -- -- 0AC ------- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - -f --------------------------+----------------- i------------- T-------- - - - - -t - - - - - -- - - - - - -• Demolition •Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes 1 • 8.00• 97• 0.37 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip I Worker Trip I Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor I Hauling Count I Number I Number I Number Length Length Length Class I Vehicle Class I Vehicle Class Demolition 3; 8.00 0.001 2.00i 12.40: 7.30: 20.00:1-D Mix !HDT Mix IHHDT ---- ---- ----�- Trenching -------- --- --� 4; ----- --- i----------------------------------------------------------------':-------------------- 10.00: 0.00: 0.00: 12.40: 7.30: 20.00 :LD_Mix :HDT_Mix IHHDT ---- ------ ------------------- r---------- I----------- ----------------------------------------------------- ----- - ----- +---- - - - - -- -------- Architectural Coating 1 • 7.00, 0.00, 0.00• 12.40• 7.30, 20.00 TLD_Mix �HDT_Mix THHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 8 of 22 Date: 4/28/2016 3:51 PM 3.2 Demolition - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 Total I Category tons /yr MT /yr Fugitive Dust •i 2.5000e- 0.0000 i 2.5000e- 4.000Oe- i 0.0000 4.000Oe- • 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 004 004 005 005 Off Road •i 5.2200e- i 0.0512 0.0402 i 5.000Oe- i 2.8700e- i 2.8700e- i 2.7000e- 2.7000e- 0.0000 i 4.1298 4.1298 9.7000e- i 0.0000 4.1502 003 005 003 003 003 003 . 004 i Total 5.2200e- 0.0512 0.0402 5.000Oe- 2.5000e- 2.8700e- 3.1200e- 4.000Oe- 2.7000e- 2.7400e- 0.0000 4.1298 4.1298 9.7000e- 0.0000 71502 1.000Oe- 003 0.2260 005 004 003 003 005 003 003 005 [6700000 5 004 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio - CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 Total I Category tons /yr MT /yr Hauling •i 2.000Oe- 2.7000e- 2.5000e- 0.0000 2.000Oe- 0.0000 2.000Oe- 0.0000 0.0000 1.000Oe- 0.0000 i 0.0674 0.0674 0.0000 0.0000 0.0674 i i i i i i i i 005 004 004 005 005 005 Vendor �� 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 Worker •i 7.000Oe- i 1.000Oe- i 9.5000e- 0.0000 i 1.8000e- 0.0000 1.8000e- i 5.000Oe- 0.0000 5.000Oe- 0.0000 i 0.1584 i 0.1584 i 1.000Oe- i 0.0000 i 0.1585 005 004 004 004 004 005 005 . 005 i Total 9.0000e- 3.7000e- 1.2000e- 0.0000 2.000Oe- 0.0000 2.000Oe- 5.000Oe- 0.0000 Oe- 0.0000 0.2258 0.2258 1.000Oe- 0.0000 0.2260 005 004 003 004 004 005 [6700000 5 005 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 9 of 22 Date: 4/28/2016 3:51 PM 3.2 Demolition - 2017 Mitigated Construction On -Site Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 Total I Category tons /yr MT /yr Fugitive Dust •i 2.5000e- 0.0000 i 2.5000e- 4.000Oe- i 0.0000 4.000Oe- • 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 004 004 005 005 Off Road •i 5.2200e- i 0.0512 0.0402 i 5.000Oe- i 2.8700e- i 2.8700e- i 2.7000e- 2.7000e- 0.0000 i 4.1298 4.1298 9.7000e- i 0.0000 4.1502 003 005 003 003 003 003 . 004 i Total 5.2200e- 0.0512 0.0402 5.000Oe- 2.5000e- 2.8700e- 3.1200e- 4.000Oe- 2.7000e- 2.7400e- 0.0000 4.1298 4.1298 9.7000e- 0.0000 71502 1.000Oe- 003 0.2260 005 004 003 003 005 003 003 005 [6700000 5 004 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio - CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 Total I Category tons /yr MT /yr Hauling •i 2.000Oe- 2.7000e- 2.5000e- 0.0000 2.000Oe- 0.0000 2.000Oe- 0.0000 0.0000 1.000Oe- 0.0000 i 0.0674 0.0674 0.0000 0.0000 0.0674 i i i i i i i 005 004 004 005 005 005 Vendor �� 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 Worker •i 7.000Oe- i 1.000Oe- i 9.5000e- 0.0000 i 1.8000e- 0.0000 1.8000e- i 5.000Oe- 0.0000 5.000Oe- 0.0000 i 0.1584 i 0.1584 i 1.000Oe- i 0.0000 i 0.1585 005 004 004 004 004 005 005 . 005 i Total 9.0000e- 3.7000e- 1.2000e- 0.0000 2.000Oe- 0.0000 2.000Oe- 5.000Oe- 0.0000 Oe- 0.0000 0.2258 0.2258 1.000Oe- 0.0000 0.2260 005 004 003 004 004 005 [6700000 5 005 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 10 of 22 Date: 4/28/2016 3:51 PM 3.3 Trenching - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons /yr MT /yr Off -Road •i 9.5500e- i 0.0734 i 0.0620 1.000Oe- 5.3300e- i 5.3300e- 5.2400e- 5.2400e- + 0.0000 i 8.6543 8.6543 i 1.0900e- i 0.0000 8.6771 003 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 Total 9.5500e- 0.0734 0.0620 1.000Oe- 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 . 005 i 5.3300e- 5.3300e- 1.7000e- 5.2400e- 5.2400e- 0.0000 8.6543 8.6543 1.0900e- 0.0000 8.6771 1.2000e- 003 0.3959 j 004 j 0.0000 003 003 004 003 003 005 004 003 004 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio - CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons /yr MT /yr Hauling �� 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 - ---- -----% ---------------------'--------------------- '-------------- '---- - - -- -- ---------------- '--------- - - - - - Vendor �� 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 Worker •1 1.7000e- i 2.5000e- i 2.3700e- 1.000Oe- i 4.5000e- 0.0000 4.6000e- i 1.2000e- 0.0000 1.2000e- 0.0000 i 0.3959 i 0.3959 2.000Oe- i 0.0000 i 0.3964 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 . 005 i Total 1.7000e- 2.5000e- 2.3700e- 1.000Oe- 4.5000e- 0.0000 4.6000e- 1.2000e- 0.0000 1.2000e- 0.0000 0.3959 0.3959 2.000Oe- 0.0000 0.3964 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 11 of 22 Date: 4/28/2016 3:51 PM 3.3 Trenching - 2017 Mitigated Construction On -Site Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons /yr MT /yr Off -Road •i 9.5500e- i 0.0734 i 0.0620 1.000Oe- 5.3300e- i 5.3300e- 5.2400e- 5.2400e- + 0.0000 i 8.6543 8.6543 i 1.0900e- i 0.0000 8.6771 003 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 Total 9.5500e- 0.0734 0.0620 1.000Oe- 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 . 005 i 5.3300e- 5.3300e- 1.7000e- 5.2400e- 5.2400e- 0.0000 8.6543 8.6543 1.0900e- 0.0000 8.6771 1.2000e- 003 0.3959 j 004 j 0.0000 003 003 004 003 003 005 004 003 004 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio - CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons /yr MT /yr Hauling �� 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor �� 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 Worker •1 1.7000e- i 2.5000e- i 2.3700e- 1.000Oe- i 4.5000e- 0.0000 4.6000e- i 1.2000e- 0.0000 1.2000e- 0.0000 i 0.3959 i 0.3959 2.000Oe- i 0.0000 i 0.3964 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 . 005 i Total 1.7000e- 2.5000e- 2.3700e- 1.000Oe- 4.5000e- 0.0000 4.6000e- 1.2000e- 0.0000 1.2000e- 0.0000 0.3959 0.3959 2.000Oe- 0.0000 0.3964 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 12 of 22 Date: 4/28/2016 3:51 PM 3.4 Architectural Coating - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons /yr MT /yr Archit. Coating •1 0.0278 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 + 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 2.2200e- i 0.0146 0.0125 i 2.000Oe- i i 1.1600e- i 1.1600e- i 1.1600e- 1.1600e- 0.0000 i 1.7022 1.7022 1.8000e- i 0.0000 1.7059 003 005 003 003 003 003 . 004 i Total 0.0300 0.0146 0.0125 2.000Oe- 1.2000e- 1.1600e- 1.1600e- 0.0000 1.1600e- 1.1600e- 0.0000 1.7022 1.7022 1.8000e- 0.0000 77059 0.2772 1.000Oe- 0.0000 0.2775 005 004 003 003 003 003 004 005 004 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio - CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons /yr MT /yr Hauling �� 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 - ---- -----% ------- '-------'-------' ------- ' ------- ' ------- ' ------- ' ------- ' --------------- +------- '------- '------- '-- - - - - - Vendor �� 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 Worker •i 1.2000e- i 1.7000e- i 1.6600e- 0.0000 i 3.2000e- 0.0000 3.2000e- i 8.000Oe- 0.0000 9.000Oe- 0.0000 i 0.2772 i 0.2772 i 1.000Oe- i 0.0000 i 0.2775 004 004 003 004 004 005 005 . 005 i Total 1.2000e- 1.7000e- 1.6600e- 0.0000 3.2000e- 0.0000 3.2000e- 8.000Oe- 0.0000 9.000Oe- 0.0000 0.2772 0.2772 1.000Oe- 0.0000 0.2775 004 004 003 004 004 005 005 005 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 13 of 22 Date: 4/28/2016 3:51 PM 3.4 Architectural Coating - 2017 Mitigated Construction On -Site Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons /yr MT /yr Archit. Coating •1 0.0278 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 + 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 2.2200e- i 0.0146 0.0125 i 2.00OOe- i i 1.1600e- i 1.1600e- i 1.1600e- 1.1600e- 0.0000 i 1.7022 1.7022 1.8000e- i 0.0000 1.7059 003 005 003 003 003 003 . 004 i Total 0.0300 0.0146 0.0125 2.00OOe- 1.2000e- 1.1600e- 1.1600e- 0.0000 1.1600e- 1.1600e- 0.0000 1.7022 1.7022 1.8000e- 0.0000 77059 0.2772 1.00OOe- 0.0000 0.2775 005 004 003 003 003 003 004 005 004 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio - CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons /yr MT /yr Hauling �� 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor �� 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 Worker •i 1.2000e- i 1.7000e- i 1.6600e- 0.0000 i 3.2000e- 0.0000 3.2000e- i 8.00OOe- 0.0000 9.00OOe- 0.0000 i 0.2772 i 0.2772 i 1.00OOe- i 0.0000 i 0.2775 004 004 003 004 004 005 005 . 005 i Total 1.2000e- 1.7000e- 1.6600e- 0.0000 3.2000e- 0.0000 3.2000e- 8.00OOe- 0.0000 9.00OOe- 0.0000 0.2772 0.2772 1.00OOe- 0.0000 0.2775 004 004 003 004 004 005 005 005 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 14 of 22 Date: 4/28/2016 3:51 PM 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 4.2 Trip Summary Information ROG I NOx I CO I S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e Category tons /yr MT /yr Mitigated •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 + 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Parking Lot ; 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.3 Trip Type Information LDA I LDT1 I LDT2 I MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH 0.546114• 0.062902, 0.174648, 0.122995, 0.034055• 0.004856, 0.015640, 0.024397, 0.002087, 0.003279, 0.006673• 0.000688• 0.001667 2.1 Atef.&y Detail Historical Energy Use: N Miles Trip % Trip Purpose % Land Use H -W or C -W H -S or C -C H -O or C -NW H -W or C -W H -S or C -C H -O or C -NW Primary Diverted Pass -by Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 LDA I LDT1 I LDT2 I MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH 0.546114• 0.062902, 0.174648, 0.122995, 0.034055• 0.004856, 0.015640, 0.024397, 0.002087, 0.003279, 0.006673• 0.000688• 0.001667 2.1 Atef.&y Detail Historical Energy Use: N CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 15 of 22 Date: 4/28/2016 3:51 PM 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio - CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category s Use tons /yr PM10 PM10 Total MT /yr PM2.5 Electricity 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 20.4802 20.4802 9.3000e- 1.9000e- i 20.5590 Mitigated ,� i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i . i i i 004 004 1 ,� ------------ •------- '------- '------- '------- ' ------- ' ------- ' ------- '------- ' ---- - --- ------- +------- i '-------'-------'-------y'------- Electricity �� i i i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 20.4802 20.4802 9.3000e- i 1.9000e- i 20.5590 Unmitigated ,� . i 004 004 i i NaturalGas �� 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Mitigated NaturalGas 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU /yr tons /yr MT /yr Parking Lot 0 �i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 16 of 22 Date: 4/28/2016 3:51 PM 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e 004 004 s Use Total 20.4802 PM10 PM10 I Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total 004 004 Land Use kBTU /yr tons /yr MT /yr Parking Lot 0 �i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Use I Land Used kWh /yr MT /yr Parking Lot 70400 20.4802 i 9.3000e- 1.9000e- 20.5590 004 004 Total 20.4802 9.3000e- 1.9000e- 20.5590 004 004 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 17 of 22 Date: 4/28/2016 3:51 PM 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Mitigated 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Exhaust PM10 Use I Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 I Bio- CO2 Land Use kWh /yr MT /yr Parking Lot 70400 •i 20.4802 i 9.3000e- i 1.9000e- 20.5590 Category 004 004 tons /yr Total 20.4802 9.3000e- 1.9000e- 20.5590 1.000Oe- i 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 0.0000 i 3.5700e- i 3.5700e- i 1.000Oe- i 0.0000 004 004 005 003 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area ROG I NOx I CO I S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total I Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e Category tons /yr MT /yr Mitigated •i 0.3139 i 2.000Oe- 1.8700e- 0.0000 1.000Oe- i 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 0.0000 i 3.5700e- i 3.5700e- i 1.000Oe- i 0.0000 3.7800e- •� 005 003 005 005 005 005 ; 003 003 005 i 003 Unmitigated 0.3139 2.000Oe- 1.8700e- 0.0000 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 0.0000 3.5700e- 3.5700e- - 1.000Oe- 0.0000 3.7800e- 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 003 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 18 of 22 Date: 4/28/2016 3:51 PM 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated Mitigated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I SubCategory tons /yr MT /yr Architectural •i 1.2500e- 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 Coating 003 ---------- • '------- '--------- ----- - +---- -- '------- '------- '----- -- *----- - r-------'-------'-------'-------'-------'-------'------- r------ Consumer •1 0.3124 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Products � Landscaping •i 1.8000e- i 2.000Oe- 1.8700e- i 0.0000 1.000Oe- i 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 0.0000 i 3.5700e- 3.5700e- i 1.000Oe- i 0.0000 3.7800e- Landscaping •i 1.8000e- i 2.000Oe- 1.8700e- i 0.0000 i i 1.000Oe- i 1.000Oe- i i 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 0.0000 i 3.5700e- i 3.5700e- i 1.000Oe- 0.0000 i 3.7800e- �� 004 005 003 005 005 005 005 . 003 003 005 i 003 0.3139 Total 03139 2.000Oe- 1.8700e- 0.0000 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 0.0000 3.5700e- 3.5700e. 1.0000e- 0.0000 3.7800e- 005 003 005 003 005 005 005 005 005 005 005 003 003 003 005 003 Mitigated 7.0 Water Detail ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio - CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total SubCategory tons /yr MT /yr Architectural •i 1.2500e- 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 Coating ;i 003 Consumer •i 0.3124 i i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 Products Landscaping •i 1.8000e- i 2.000Oe- 1.8700e- i 0.0000 1.000Oe- i 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 0.0000 i 3.5700e- 3.5700e- i 1.000Oe- i 0.0000 3.7800e- �� 004 005 003 005 005 005 005 . 003 003 005 i 003 Total 0.3139 2.000Oe- 1.8700e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 0.0000 3.5700e- 3.5700e- 1.000Oe- 0.0000 3.7800e- 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 7.0 Water Detail CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 19 of 22 Date: 4/28/2016 3:51 PM 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated Total CO2 C N20 CO2e Category MT /yr Mitigated •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated Indoor /Out Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e door Use Land Use Mgal MT /yr Parking Lot 0/0 •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 20 of 22 Date: 4/28/2016 3:51 PM 7.2 Water by Land Use Mitigated 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Category /Year Indoor /Out Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e MT /yr door Use _ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 'rig-- ""________}____ - --- }__._"""_._.r ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I Land Use Mgal MT /yr Parking Lot 0/0 �i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Category /Year Total CO2 C N20 CO2e MT /yr Mitigated •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 _ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 'rig-- ""________}____ - --- }__._"""_._.r ' ' ' ' ' ' ' Unmitigated 0.0000 - 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 21 of 22 Date: 4/28/2016 3:51 PM 8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated Mitigated Waste Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Disposed I Land Use tons MT /yr Parking Lot 0 �i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours /Day Days /Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Waste Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Disposed Land Use tons MT /yr Parking Lot 0 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours /Day Days /Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 22 of 22 Date: 4/28/2016 3:51 PM 10.0 Vegetation 10.2 Net New Trees Species Class Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category MT Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 10.2 Net New Trees Species Class Number of Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Trees MT Miscellaneous 0 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 1 of 7 Date: 4/28/2016 4:06 PM Payless Vehicle Rental Bay Area AQMD Air District, Mitigation Report Construction Mitigation Summary Phase ROG I NOx I CO I S02 Exhaust PM10 I Exhaust PM2.5 I Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e :No Change Percent Reduction 0, 1 :No Change -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------ T------ T------ Z------------- r------ T------ 7----- -�------ Z---'---------T- - - - - -T ------T - - - - -- Architectural Coating 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00. 0.00 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00: 0.00 --------------------- - - - - -- ------+------+------ i------+ ------ +------ i------r------ +------ +------ +------ t - - - - -- Demolition 0.001 0.001 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.009 0.00: 0.00 i 0.001 0.00 i 0.00: 0.00 ---------------------------------- ------- ------- ------- t------- ------- _ ------ r------ t------- ------- ------- ------ Trenching 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00• 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OFFROAD Equipment Mitigation Equipment Type I Fuel Type I Tier I Number Mitigated I Total Number of Equipment I DPF I Oxidation Catalyst Air Compressors :Diesel :No Change ; 0; 2; No Change i 0.00 Generator Sets :Diesel :No Change , 0, 1 :No Change 0.00 Concrete /Industrial Saws •Diesel :No Change , 0, 2: No Change 0.00 Rubber Tired Dozers :Diesel :No Change , 0, 1 :No Change 0.00 ------------------------------------------_--------------------------------- - - - - -- ------- - - - - -- --------------------- +------------ E----------- - - - - -- - Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes Diesel :No Change 0. 2,No Change 0.00 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 2 of 7 Date: 4/28/2016 4:06 PM Equipment Type ROG NOx I CO S02 Exhaust PM 10 1 Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 I CH4 N20 CO2e Unmitigated tons /yr Unmitigated mt/yr Air Compressors i 4.43000E -003 i 2.91300E -002 ; 2.49100E -002 ; 4.00000E -005 i 2.31000E -003 i 2.31000E -003 f T Concrete / Industria i 4.36000E -003 3.19600E -002 2.81200E -002 5.00000E -005 2.30000E -003 2.30000E -003 I Saws _ ,------------------------------------------------------- I , , , , I_ ■ Generator Sets i 2.85000E -003 ; 2.23200E -002 ; 1.88700E -002 ; 3.00000E -005 ; 1.50000E -003 1.50000E -003 T Rubber Tired I 2.98000E -003 I 3.29800E -002 I 2.48500E -002 I 2.00000E -005 I 1.53000E -003 I 1.41000E -003 ■ Dozers 1 1 1 1 1 ■ Tractors /Loaders / r 2.37000E -003 2.27700E -002 1.79100E -002 2.00000E -005 1.71000E -003 1.58000E -003 Backhoes 0.00000E +000 i 3.40434E +000 i 3.40434E +000 i 3.60000E -004 i 0.00000E +000 1 3.41189E +000 I 0.00000E +000 1 4.03242E +000 4.03242E +000 3.50000E -004 0.00000E +000 4.03987E +000 ,_ I 1 I I 0.00000E +000 i 2.82604E +000 i 2.82604E +000 2.30000E -004 0.00000E +000? 2.83084E +000 I 0.00000E +000 1 2.06387E +000 1 2.06387E +000 I 6.30000E -004 I 0.00000E +000 2.07714E +000 0.00000E +000 2.15959E +000 2.15959E +000 6.60000E -004 0.00000E +000 2.17348E +000 Equipment Type ROG NOx CO I S02 Exhaust PM 10 1 Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Mitigated tons /yr Mitigated mt/yr ----- ------r--- - - - - -- I---------- I- -- ------- ------------ -------- -- ----------� --- - - - --- ----- -----r------------------------------------------ T ---------- Air Compressors , 4.43000E -003 , 2.91300E -002 , 2.49100E -002 , 4.00000E -005 , 2.31000E -003 , 2.31000E -003 f 0.00000E +000 I 3.40433E +000 , 3.40433E +000 , 3.60000E -004 , 0.00000E +000 1 3.41188E +000 Concrete /Industrial , 4.36000E -003 I 3.19600E -002 I 2.81200E -002 I 5.00000E -005 I 2.30000E -003 I 2.30000E -003 ■ 0.00000E +000 1 4.03242E +000 1 4.03242E +000 I 3.50000E -004 I 0.00000E +000 4.03987E +000 Saws , I Generator Sets , 2.85000E -003 , 2.23200E -002 , 1.88700E -002 , 3.00000E -005 , 1.50000E -003 , 1.50000E -003 r 0.00000E +000 1 2.82603E +000 , 2.82603E +000 , 2.30000E -004 , 0.00000E +000 1 2.83084E +000 Rubber Tired Dozers, 2.98000E -003 , 3.29800E -002 , 2.48500E -002 , 2.00000E -005 , 1.53000E -003 , 1.41000E -003 r 0.00000E +000 1 2.06386E +000 ; 2.06386E +000 ; 6.30000E -004 ; 0.00000E +000 1 2.07714E +000 Tractors /Loaders /Ba 2.37000E -003 2.27700E -002 1.79100E -002 2.00000E -005 1.71000E -003 1.58000E -003 • 0.00000E +000 2.15958E +000 2.15958E +000 6.60000E -004 0.00000E +000 2.17348E +000 ckhoes Equipment Type ROG NOx CO S02 Exhaust PM 10 1 Exhaust PM2.5 I Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction '-,-----------------------------------------------------------------T ---------- ,------------------------------------------- T ---------- Air Compressors I 0.00000E +000 , 0.00000E +000 , 0.00000E +000 , 0.00000E +000 , 0.00000E +000 , 0.00000E +000 r 0.00000E +000 I 2.93743E -006 , 2.93743E -006 , 0.00000E +000 , 0.00000E +000 I 2.93093E -006 -------------I----------i----------i----------i----------i----------i---------- i ---------- I ----------i----------i----------i----------+---------- Concrete /Industrial I 0.00000E +000 I 0.00000E +000 I 0.00000E +000 I 0.00000E +000 I 0.00000E +000 I 0.00000E +000 • 0.00000E +000 I 0.00000E +000 I 0.00000E +000 I 0.00000E +000 I 0.00000E +000 0.00000E +000 Saws ' ■ ' ' _ ----- ,_ ,_ Generator Sets i 0.00000E +000 i 0.00000E +000 i 0.00000E +000 i 0.00000E +000 i 0.00000E +000 i 0.00000E +000 f 0.00000E +000 i 3.53852E -006 i 3.53852E -006 i 0.00000E +000 i 0.00000E +000 i 0.00000E +000 Rubber Tired Dozers! 0.00000E +000 1-0-0-0-00-0-E-+-0-00- 1-0-0-0-00-0-E-+-0-00- 1-0-0-0-00-0-E-+-0-00- 1-0-0-0-00-0-E-+-0-00- 1-0-0-0-000E+000 0.00000E +000 I 4.84527E -006 , 4.84527E -006 I 0.00000E +000 , 0.00000E +000 1 0.00000E +000 Tractors /Loaders /Ba 0.00000E +000 0.00000E +000 0.00000E +000 0.00000E +000 0.00000E +000 0.00000E +000 • 0.00000E +000 4.63051E-006 4.63051E-006 0.00000E +000 0.00000E +000 0.00000E +000 ckhoes CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 3 of 7 Date: 4/28/2016 4:06 PM Fugitive Dust Mitigation Yes /No Mitigation Measure Mitigation Input Mitigation Input Mitigation Input No ;Soil Stabilizer for unpaved :PM10 Reduction ; :PM2.5 Reduction: Roads ' . ............... 1----------------- - -- - - -- -� - - ---------------- - - - - -- --------------- ------------------------------ - s - - -- - - - -- - - -- No Replace Ground Cover of Area % PM10 Reduction + ! PM2.5 Reduction ; 5 f Disturbed 5 , ---------- r------------ ---------------5--------- - - - - -- --------- - - - - -- --------- - - - --- } --------- - - - - -- --------------- --------- - - - - -- ;Wate 5 i No r Exposed Area %PM10 Reduction IPM2.5 Reduction- Frequency (per % ti r r ! day) s ti •__ • �--------------------------- 5---------------'" --------------- ,................................ -------------------------------- }--------------- No rUnpaved Road Mitigation %Moisture Contents !Vehicle Speed 5% ;(mph) % r ; No :Clean Paved Road :% PM Reduction : 0.00: Operational Percent Reduction Summary Unmitigated Mitigated Percent Reduction Phase Source PM10 PM2.5 PM10 PM2.5 PM10 PM2.5 Architectural Coating ' Fugitive Dust , 0.00' 0.00. 0.00; 0.00 0.00: 0.0 -- -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - �-- ------ -------- ------- - t ------- - - - -�........................ - -;----------------=- ------ -----------;------------- - - - - - - - - - - - Architectural Coating Roads 0.00' 0.00 0.00, 0.00 0.00: 0.0 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----------- ------------------------------- t ------ - - - - -� -- --- ------ -;----------------=- -----------------;------------- i - - - - - - - - - - - - - Demolition Fugitive Dust 0.00' 0.00 0.00; 0.00 0.00 0.0 ----- ----- ----- ----- %---------------------- ------- - - - -�- ------ -- --- -;----- -----------= ------- --- ------ --e - - - - - - - - - - - - Demolition 'Roads , 0.00' 0.001 0.00; 0.00 0.00: 0.0 ----- ----- ----- ----- �-- ------ ------ -------- - -----------------------------------------;----------------=- -----------------;------------- i - - - - - - - - - - - - - Trenching Fugitive Dust ,t 0.00' 0.00. 0.00; , 0.00 0.00 0.0 ....._ - -- . r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - }- - - - - - - - - - - - - --------------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - Trenching Roads 0.00: 0.00: 0.00. 0.00, 0.00. 0.0 Operational Percent Reduction Summary CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 4 of 7 Date: 4/28/2016 4:06 PM Category ROG NOx CO S02 Exhaust PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Bio -0O2 NBio- CO2 Total CH4 I N20 CO2e 0.00 Percent Reduction - - - - - - - -- ! --------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- - - - - -- i i----------- - - - - -i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - -T _ _ _ _ _ _ -T _ _ _ _ _ _ T------ I ------------- T- - - - - -1 _ - _ _ _ _ I _ _ _ _ _ _ T------ -I ------------- T- - - - - -T Architectural Coating 0.001 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.009 0.00: 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 ------ ------------------------------- ------- ------+------+------+------+------ ;------r------+------+------+------+------ Consumer Products 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 : 0.00 : 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 -----------------------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------i------r------+------+------+------+------ No ;Land Use ;Increase Transit Accessibility Electricity 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.009 0.00, 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.00 --------- ----- -------------------------- ------+------+------+------+------+------;------r------+------+------+------+------ Hearth 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00+ 0.00 : 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 --------- ------------------------------- ------ �------+------+------+------ �------ i------r------ +------ �------ +------ + - ----- Landscaping 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.00V 0.00, 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.00 -----------------------------------------------+ ------ +------+ ------- ------- ------ ;------ r------+ ------- ------+------+------ Mobile 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 .9 0.00 : 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 -----------------------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------i ------ r------+------+------+------+------ Natural Gas 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 .9 0.00 : 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 ------- - ---- ------- ----- ------ --------- ------ �------+------+------+------ � ------ i ------ r------ +------------- +------ t - -- - -- Water Indoor 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00.9 0.00: 0.00 i 0.001 0.001 0.00 i 0.00 ----- ------- ------- ------- ------- --- ---- i------ I- ------ ------ ------- -------}------ Water Outdoor r 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00• 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Operational Mobile Mitigation Project Setting: Mitigation Category Measure % Reduction I Input Value 1 Input Value 2 Input Value No ;Land Use ;Increase Density ; 0.00 ; - - - - - - - - - - -:-------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- ---------------------------------- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- -------- ------------- No ;Land Use ;Increase Diversity 0.00 0.15; - - - - - - - - - - -!--------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- ---------------------------------------- - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - No ;Land Use ;Improve Walkability Design 0.00 ; - - - - - - - -- ! --------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- - - - - -- i i----------- - - - - -i ----------------------------i------------- - - - - -t ----- - --- No ;Land Use ;Improve Destination Accessibility 0.001 ; - - - - - - - - - - -!--------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- i ---------------------------------- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- No ;Land Use ;Increase Transit Accessibility 0.25 ; ----------- ! --------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- -------- ------------------------------ No ;Land Use ;Integrate Below Market Rate Housing 0.00 ; - - - - - - - - - - -!-------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- -------------- -------------------------- --------- - ---------- - -------- Land Use :Land Use SubTotal 0.00 ; - - - - - - - - - - -'- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - '- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -' - - - - - - - - - - - CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 5 of 7 Date: 4/28/2016 4:06 PM ---'---------------------------------------------------------------------- ,--------- - - - - -- --------------,------------- No ;Neighborhood Enhancements Improve Pedestrian Network ' '� r _________________1 No ;Neighborhood Enhancements ;Provide Traffic Calming Measures I No ;Neighborhood Enhancements ;Implement NEV Network 0.001 ; I ;Neighborhood Enhancements ;Neighborhood Enhancements Subtotal 0.001 ; ' - - - - - - - - - - -:--------------------------------------------------------- i------------------------------------ - - - -i----------------- I ---------------- #------------- - - - - -t - - - - - - - - - - - No ;Parking Policy Pricing ;Limit Parking Supply 0.00? ; - - - - - - - - - - -i--------------------------------------------------- " - - - -- --------- - - - - -- i ------------------------- i------------ - - - - ±- ------------- - - - - -t -------- - - - - -- 4 ' - - - - - " - - - - No ;Parking Policy Pricing ;Unbundle Parking Costs ; 0.001 ; I No ;Parking Policy Pricing ;On- street Market Pricing 0.001 ; I ;Parking Policy Pricing ;Parking Policy Pricing Subtotal 0.001 ; I No ;Transit Improvements ;Provide BRT System 0.001 ; I No ;Transit Improvements ;Expand Transit Network 0.001 ; I No ;Transit Improvements ;Increase Transit Frequency 0.001 ; I ;Transit Improvements ;Transit Improvements Subtotal 0.001 ; I ;Land Use and Site Enhancement Subtotal 0.001 ; I No ;Commute ;Implement Trip Reduction Program 1 ; I No ;Commute ;Transit Subsidy I No ;Commute ;Implement Employee Parking "Cash Out" ; I No ;Commute ;Workplace Parking Charge - - - - - - - - - - -:--------------------------------------------------------- i---------------------------------- - - - - -- f - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - y---------- - ---------- - -------- i------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - No ;Commute 'Encourage Telecommuting and Alternative + 0.00; Work Schedules No ;Commute ;Market Commute Trip Reduction Option 0.00 ; I No ;Commute ;Employee Vanpool /Shuttle 0.001 2.00; I No ;Commute ;Provide Ride Sharing Program 1 ; I ;Commute ;Commute Subtotal 0.001 ; - - - - - - - - - - -'- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - • CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.20113.2.2 Page 6 of 7 Date: 4/28/2016 4:06 PM - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - k - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----------------------------- No :School Trip :Implement School Bus Program 0.00: ----------- ---------------------------- ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------- ---------------- ------------------- ----------- :Total VMT Reduction 0.00: Area Mitigation IMeasure implemented IMitigation Measure I Input Value No :Only Natural Gas Hearth ------------------------------------------------------------------ No -------------------------- No Hearth ----------------------- No --------------------------------------------------------------------- Use Low VOC Cleaning Supplies ----------------------- No --------------------------------------------------------------------- ;Use Low VOC Paint (Residential Interior) 100.00 ----------------------- No --------------------------------------------------------------------- ;Use Low VOC Paint (Residential Exterior) 150.00 ----------------------- No --------------------------------------------------------------------- ;Use Low VOC Paint (Non-residential Interior) 100.00 ----------------------- No --------------------------------------------------------------------- Use Low VOC Paint (Non-residential Exterior) 150.00 ----------------------- No --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1% Electric Lawnmower ----------------------- No --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1% Electric Leafblower ----------------------- No --------------------------------------------------------------------- :% Electric Chainsaw Energy Mitigation Measures Measure Implemented I Mitigation Measure Input Value 1 Input Value 2_ No ':Exceed Title 24 ------------------------ ------- ------------ --- ---- ---------------------------------------------- No Install High Efficiency Lighting - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - No On-site Renewable Appliance Type Land Use Subtype % Improvement ClothWasher 30.00 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 7 of 7 Date: 4/28/2016 4:06 PM DishWasher 15.00 •------------------------i------------------------------------------------- Fan ; 50.00 ------------------------- 4------------------- - - - - -- ---------------------- Refrigerator 15.00 Water Mitigation Measures Measure Implemented I Mitigation Measure I Input Value 1 1input Value 2 1 No ;Apply Water Conservation on Strategy ----------------- - - - - -- --------------------------------------------------------+-------------- No Use Reclaimed Water ----------------------------------------------------------+-------------- No Use Grey Water ----------------- - - - - -- --------------------------------------------------------±-------------- No :Install low -flow bathroom faucet 32.00, ------------------ - - - - -- --------------------------------------------------------±-------------- No ; Install low -flow Kitchen faucet 18.00, --------------------------------------------------------±-------------- No :Install low -flow Toilet 20.00, --------------------------------------------------------±-------------- No ; Install low -flow Shower 20.00, ------------------------------------ - - - - -- --- ------ - - - - -+ No ;Turf Reduction - ----- - - - - -- ---------------------------------------------------------±-------------- No Use Water Efficient Irrigation Systems 6.10, ---------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - No ; Water Efficient Landscape Solid Waste Mitigation Mitigation Measures Input Value Institute Recycling and Composting Services Percent Reduction in Waste Disposed Appendix B FEHR PEERS February 3, 2015 Mark Melbye Kidder Matthews Towers at Shores Center 203 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 530 Redwood City, CA 94065 Subject: Arata Property Transportation Assessment (SF14 -0769) Dear Mr. Melbye: This letter provides the draft transportation assessment of the proposed Project at the Arata Property in South San Francisco, CA. This letter summarizes the site plan review and analysis findings. Detailed documentation of the existing conditions and analysis for review and comment by City staff follows this letter in Attachment A. As detailed in this letter, all intersections are projected to meet the standards for acceptable operations under the evaluated scenarios; therefore, the Project does not have a significant impact on the study intersections, and intersection mitigation is not needed. The following sections present the Project description, site plan review, and transportation impact assessment findings. All figures and attachments are at the end of this document. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project site is located at 1350 San Mateo Avenue in South San Francisco and is bound by San Mateo Avenue to the west, Colma Creek to the north, and the Peninsula Auto Body Driveway to the south. Figure 1 shows the Project location. The Project intends to replace the currently vacant lot, formally a Park - and -Fly parking lot, with a Car Rental Kiosk and associated parking lot as well as construct an egress driveway approximately 200 feet north of the San Mateo Avenue at Lowrie Avenue intersection and an ingress driveway just north of the Peninsula Autobody driveway. Patrons accessing the former Park - and -Fly site used a driveway off of the Peninsula Auto Body driveway, approximately 50 feet east of San 332 Pine Street 1 4th Floor I San Francisco, CA 94104 1 (415) 348 -0300 1 Fax (415) 773 -1790 www.fehrandpeers.com Mark Melbye, Kidder Matthews February 3, 2015 Page 2 of 7 Mateo Avenue. Access to the site through the Peninsula Autobody Driveway would close once the new driveways are constructed. In the near term, the Project would occupy the western parcels of the site, which would contain approximately 150 parking stalls. Upon approval of rezoning the eastern parcels, the Project would construct additional temporary vehicle staging lanes on the eastern parcels. In total, the site would contain approximately 350 parking stalls. SITE PLAN REVIEW The Project site plans have been reviewed with consideration for safe and efficient circulation of vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians through the Project site and on the roadways adjacent to the Project site. The site plan review focused on: • The Proposed driveways interface with the existing roadway network, including sight distances and driveway spacing • Vehicle circulation and drive aisles within the site • Pedestrian access and circulation within and adjacent to the site • Bicycle access and circulation within and adjacent to the site Site recommendations are presented on Figure 2. VEHICULAR ACCESS AND CIRCULATION Access to the Project would be provided by two driveways, one for egress and one for ingress, on San Mateo Avenue. The site access intersections are expected to operate with minimal delay. Recommendation: Provide way- finding signs in the lot, directing drivers to vehicle return stalls, exit driveway, and major destinations (e.g. US -101). Site Distance and Driveway Assessment A sight distance assessment was conducted at the San Mateo Avenue driveways. Chapter 400 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM) defines the minimum required sight distances for different design speeds. The HDM defines two kinds of sight distance: stopping sight distance and corner sight distance, which are defined below. Failure to meet the minimum sight distances could warrant the installation of traffic control. Mark Melbye, Kidder Matthews February 3, 2015 Page 3 of 7 Corner Sight Distance Corner sight distance signifies the line of sight maintained between the driver of a vehicle waiting at the cross road, in this case the egress driveway north of Lowrie Avenue and the driver of an approaching vehicle on San Mateo Avenue. Based on a 25 mile per hour (mph) roadway, adequate sight distance is feasible if landscaping is maintained and parking is prohibited adjacent to the exit driveway. Stopping Sight Distance Stopping sight distance is the distance required by the driver of a vehicle, traveling at a given speed, to bring the vehicle to a stop after an object in the road becomes visible and in advance of reaching the object. The HDM defines the minimum stopping sight distance requirement as 150 feet for a roadway with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. For vehicles turning from San Mateo Avenue into the project driveway or vehicles passing the egress driveway, sight distance is estimated to be over 150 feet, thus meeting the stopping sight distance requirements. If the Project is constructed and the speed limit adjusted, stopping sight distance conditions would become even greater. Recommendation: Maintain landscaping along San Mateo Avenue, adjacent to the Project driveways, to avoid sight distance conflicts (shrubs should not be higher than approximately 30 inches and tree canopies should be approximately six feet from the ground). Recommendation: On- street parking should be restricted on San Mateo Avenue on either side of the egress Project driveway to limit sight distance issues; approximately 60 feet to the north and 20 feet to the south. Figure 3 summarizes the sight distance assessment. Shuttle Vehicle Access Shuttle access to and from the site is provided by two driveways off San Mateo Avenue. The site plan indicates a bus parking stall, adjacent to the car rental building which allows customers to enter and exit the building directly from the shuttle. Mark Melbye, Kidder Matthews February 3, 2015 Page 4 of 7 Emergency Vehicle Access A fire station is located on Harbor Way, approximately 0.5 miles from the Project site. Emergency vehicles can access the site from either driveway on San Mateo Avenue, so if one entrance is blocked, alternative access would be available. Pedestrian Access Pedestrian facilities are provided adjacent to the site, such that pedestrians walking to the Project could access the site. A designated pedestrian walkway is provided from San Mateo Avenue to the Rental Office. Bicycle Access San Mateo Avenue is a designated bicycle route. Bicycle facilities on site are not provided. If employees are to bike to the site, bicycle parking should be considered. PROPOSED PROJECT TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT This section provides the transportation impact assessment of the Project, or the existing conditions plus the expected impact of the Project. EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC OPERATIONS Traffic operations throughout the study area are analyzed using the Synchro models used in the evaluation of the existing peak hours. Table 1 shows the LOS results for both scenarios and Attachment A documents detailed existing conditions, impact criteria, and findings. The significance criteria states that acceptable operations for the study intersections is LOS D (less than 55 seconds of average control delay per vehicle) or better. As shown in Table 7, all intersections are projected to meet this standard under the evaluated scenarios; therefore, the Project does not have a significant impact on the study intersections, and intersection mitigation is not needed. The Synchro worksheets used to complete this analysis are provided in Attachment B. Mark Melbye, Kidder Matthews February 3, 2015 Page 5 of 7 TABLE 1: EXISTING CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS SUMMARY Existing Plus 100% Existing Existing Plus 50% Existing Plus 100% Intersection Control 1 Peak Conditions Occupancy Occupancy Occupancy (Eastern Parcels Acquired) Hour Delay2 LOS2 Delay2 LOS2 Delay2 LOS2 Delay2 LOS2 1. San Mateo Avenue/ Signal AM 35 D 31 D 35 D 35 D Airport Boulevard3 PM 43 D 43 D 43 D 43 D 2. San Mateo Avenue / SSSC AM <10 (EB 15) A (B) <10 (EB 15) A (C) <10 (EB 15) A (C) <10 (EB 15) A (C) Lowrie Avenue PM <10 (EB 23) A (C) <10 (EB 23) A (C) <10 (EB 23) A (C) <10 (EB 24) A (C) 3. San Mateo Avenue / Peninsula Auto Body SSSC AM <10 (WB 14) A (B) <10 (WB 15) A (B) <10 (WB 15) A (B) <10 (WB 15) A (C) Driveway / Ingress PM <10 (WB 12) A (B) <10 (WB 12) A (B) <10 (WB 12) A (B) <10 (WB 12) A (B) Driveway 4. San Mateo Avenue / SSSC AM n /a4 n /a4 <10 (WB 13) A (B) <10 (WB 13) A (B) <10 (WB 12) A (B) Egress Driveway PM n /a4 n /a4 <10 (WB 13) A (B) <10 (WB 12) A (B) <10 (WB 13) A (B) Notes: 1. Signal = signalized intersection; SSSC = side - street stop controlled intersection. 2. Traffic operations results include LOS (level of service) and delay (seconds per vehicle). LOS is based on delay thresholds published in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2010). 3. Due to its unique intersection geometries and operations, HCM 2000 was used for the analysis. 4. n/a = Intersection does not existing under existing conditions. Source: Fehr & Peers, November 2014. Mark Melbye, Kidder Matthews February 3, 2015 Page 6 of 7 PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES The Project is expected to generate very few pedestrian trips. The existing pedestrian facilities in the project area, including sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals, have the capacity and design to adequately accommodate additional pedestrian trips generated by the Project. Recommendations: City engineering staff should review site plan designs to assure that safe and comfortable pedestrian conditions are constructed as part of the Project, including assuring that all sidewalks and curb ramps meet the American Disability Act (ADA) guidelines. Project driveways should be designed to minimize cross - slopes within the sidewalks and with good visibility between entering /exiting vehicles and pedestrians on the sidewalks. BICYCLE FACILITIES The Project is expected to generate very few bicycle trips. Bike Route 15 on San Mateo Avenue, the existing bicycle facility in the project area, has the capacity and design to adequately accommodate additional bicycle trips generated by the Project. TRANSIT FACILITIES The Project is expected to generate very few transit trips. As detailed in Attachment A, the existing transit facilities within one mile of the Project site are BART, Caltrain, and SamTrans stations. These facilities have the capacity and design to adequately accommodate additional transit trips generated by the Project. This concludes our transportation findings of the Project at the Arata Property in South San Francisco. For questions or comments, please contact Sarah Nadiranto at (415) 426 -2521. Sincerely, FEHR & PEERS Sarah Nadiranto Mark Melbye, Kidder Matthews February 3, 2015 Page 7 of 7 Figures Figure 1: Project Study Area Figure 2: Site Plan Review Figure 3: Sight Distance Assessment Attachments Attachment A: Detailed Documentation and Findings Attachment B: LOS Calculation Worksheets Attachment C: Data Collection — Peak Period Intersection Counts and Driveway Counts QStudy Intersection M Project Site Proposed Intersection Figure 1 Project Location and Study Intersections ADJACENT BUILDING Maintain landscaping and prohibit parking 20' on 11 either side of driveway to l limit sight distance issues. 1 li Ill III III li 1 � 1 I � co<Mq c9F Other Recommendations • Provide way- finding signs in the lot, directing drivers to vehicle return stalls, GqN exit driveway, and major destinations (i.e., US -101). q \ • The fire department should review the �3F °. site plan for fire truck and emergency vehicle access. y \ � gI PN 6i5 -U. 1.8 ¢ —I 8 — ® I I M PAYLESS CAR _ 1.2 I I RENTAL OFFICE _ 2 ' I IZ III 87 9 1.10 ftft 6g_ I IIII S , 5= 821'66 "E I 369,69 _ I IIII � IIII � 1.9 I IIII _ I I20 0 1 o I I 1.6 FLEk REiURNro, (45 _ I 1 G RETURN, (30) I -m N, (N) LANDSCAPE b 8 I '1 ,, I 1.5 ,78 " 293.66" iN) LINDSCA TYP PE I �xo IAN 6,5_„ •A ,�� I I II BOVR uE6-„4 -s00 II _� �o9aosWJ II ADJACENT BUILDING II I I Source: Avis Budget Group, October 2014 Near -Term Project Site (150 stalls) Total Project Site Pending Rezoning Approval (350 stalls) Note: Vehicles occupied in "Ready Stalls" are available for rental. Flex Return /Return stalls are used for vehicle return and storage. Flex Return /Return stalls operate like a Valet lot where cars are parked behind one another to maximize space. J rN Figure Site Plan Review . cu THIS SECTION Oti NOTTO SCALE N i o „z Stopping Sight Distance = 150'+ / ADJACENT BUILDING x I /� IQrte, /^ I 0) s I I20 p 1.6 I G o I / M1fWaY $ 1.4 I � ' I I I I I ' I ' 1 I Source: Avis Budget Group, October 2014 ---- Jo- Sight Distance Near -Term Project Site (150 stalls) ---- loo. Line of Sight M Total Project Site Pending Rezoning Approval (350 stalls) rN t iyurc _; Sight Distance FEHR PEERS ATTACHMENT A Attachment A documents the transportation assessment of the proposed Payless Car Rental Project (Project) at the Arata Property. The Attachment documents study locations and study scenarios, significance criteria, existing conditions, Project description including trip generation and trip distribution, and transportation impact assessment for review and comment by City staff. Figures and Attachments referenced below are found at the end of this document. STUDY LOCATIONS AND SCENARIOS The following intersections were selected for assessment based on knowledge of the local area, discussions with City staff, and a preliminary estimate of the amount and prevailing directions of travel of Project - generated vehicles: 1. San Mateo Avenue / Airport Boulevard 2. San Mateo Avenue/ Lowrie Avenue 3. San Mateo Avenue /Peninsula Auto Body Driveway / Project Ingress Driveway 4. San Mateo Avenue / Egress Driveway (Does not existing under existing conditions) The intersections were evaluated for the weekday morning (7:00 to 9:00 AM) and evening (4:00 to 6:00 PM) peak periods. Figure A -1 shows the study intersection locations in relationship to the site and existing AM and PM peak hour turning movement data. For this study, the following scenarios were evaluated: • Existing — Existing (2014) conditions based on traffic counts collected in September 2014 • Existing Plus Project — Existing conditions plus Project - generated vehicles. Rental car operations vary day to day dependent on the season, day of week, and time period. For this reason, three plus Project scenarios were assessed: o Existing Plus Project ( -50% Occupancy): Assumes approx. 50- percent of the western parcel spaces (70 vehicles) are occupied and available for customer rental o Existing Plus Project ( -100% Occupancy): Assumes approx. 100 - percent of the western parcel spaces (150 vehicles) are occupied and available for customer rental 332 Pine Street 141" Floor I San Francisco, CA 94104 1 (415) 348 -0300 1 Fax (415) 773 -1790 www.fehrandpeers.com Arata Property Transportation Assessment February 3, 2015 Page 2 of 12 o Existing Plus Project ( -100% Occupancy Full Site): Assumes approx. 100 - percent of the eastern and western parcel spaces (350 vehicles) are occupied and available for customer rental The operational performance of a roadway network is commonly described with the term level of service (LOS). LOS is a qualitative description of operating conditions, ranging from LOS A (free - flow traffic conditions with little or no delay) to LOS F (oversaturated conditions where traffic flows exceed design capacity, resulting in long queues and delays.) LOS E corresponds to operations "at capacity." When volumes exceed capacity, stop- and -go conditions result and operations are designated as LOS F. The LOS analysis methods used in this study are consistent with the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) published by the Transportation Research Board. The HCM methods for calculating LOS for signalized intersections and unsignalized intersections are described below. SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Traffic operations at signalized intersections are evaluated using the LOS method described in Chapter 16 of the HCM. A signalized intersection's LOS is based on the weighted average control delay measured in seconds per vehicle and includes initial deceleration delay, queue move -up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration. Table 1 summarizes the relationship between the control delay and LOS for signalized intersections. Arata Property Transportation Assessment February 3, 2015 Page 3 of 12 TABLE 1: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS CRITERIA Average Level of Control Delay Service Description (seconds per vehicle) Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable traffic signal A < 10.0 progression and /or short cycle lengths. B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and /or > 10.0 to 20.0 short cycle lengths. C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and /or > 20.0 to 35.0 longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable D progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop > 35.0 to 55.0 and individual cycle failures are noticeable. Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long E cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent > 55.0 to 80.0 occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. F Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to > 80.0 over - saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. Source: Highway Capacity Manua(, Transportation Research Board, 2010. UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Traffic conditions at unsignalized intersections are evaluated using the method from Chapter 17 of the HCM. With this method, operations are defined by the average control delay per vehicle (measured in seconds) for each movement that must yield the right -of -way. For all -way stop - controlled intersections, the average control delay is calculated for the intersection as a whole. At two -way or side street - controlled intersections, the control delay (and LOS) is calculated for each controlled movement, the left turn movement from the major street, and the entire intersection. Table 2 summarizes the relationship between delay and LOS for unsignalized intersections. Arata Property Transportation Assessment February 3, 2015 Page 4 of 12 TABLE 2: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS CRITERIA Average Level of Control Delay Service Description (seconds per vehicle) A Little or no delays < 10.0 B Short traffic delays > 10.0 to 15.0 C Average traffic delays > 15.0 to 25.0 D Long traffic delays > 25.0 to 35.0 E Very long traffic delays > 35.0 to 50.0 F Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded > 50.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manua(, Transportation Research Board, 2010. r,MAIMIu111.1 GLIr9:1:Ir, Significance criteria are used to determine whether a Project impact is considered significant and therefore require mitigation. The Project would have a significant impact on the environment if it would cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, or delay and congestion at intersections), or change the condition of an existing street (e.g., street closures, changing direction of travel) in a manner that would substantially impact access or traffic load and capacity of the street system. The City of South San Francisco does not have a level of service policy for vehicles, but strives to balance modes of travel and provide equitable access, recognizing that people travel by a variety of modes, not just in vehicles and that the use of an auto - focused level of service standard does not address the mobility needs for non -auto roadway users. 611100111[ALIlloxiI X114.1/_1 For the purpose of this study and understanding the potential effects of the Project, a significant impact would be identified if: Arata Property Transportation Assessment February 3, 2015 Page 5 of 12 • If a signalized intersection is projected to operate within expected delay ranges (i.e., LOS D or better with an average control delay of equal to or less than 55 seconds per vehicle) without the project and the project is expected to cause the facility to operate at an unacceptable LOS (LOS E or F); • If an intersection is projected to operate at or over capacity (i.e., LOS E or F) without the project, and the project is expected to increase the average control delay by more than 5 seconds; or • If the operations of an unsignalized study intersection is projected to decline with the addition of project traffic, and if the installation of a traffic signal based on the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Peak Hour Signal Warrant (Warrant 3) would be warranted. • The project substantially increases traffic hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment); • The project results in inadequate emergency access; • The project conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities; • A pedestrian or bicycle impact is considered significant if it would: o Disrupt existing pedestrian facilities; o Interfere with planned pedestrian facilities; or o Create inconsistencies with adopted pedestrian system plans, guidelines, policies, or standards. • A bicycle impact is considered significant if it would: • Disrupt existing bicycle facilities; • Interfere with planned bicycle facilities; • Create inconsistencies with adopted bicycle system plans, guidelines, policies, or standards; or • Not provide secure and safe bicycle parking in adequate proportion to anticipated demand. • A transit impact is considered significant if it would result in development that is inaccessible to transit riders. Arata Property Transportation Assessment February 3, 2015 Page 6 of 12 EXISTING CONDITIONS This section outlines the data collection involved in this analysis. It outlines the existing pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities and summarized existing operating conditions. DATA COLLECTION Existing peak hour vehicle turning movement, bicycle, and pedestrian volume counts were collected from 7:00 to 9:00 AM and from 4:00 to 6:00 PM on Wednesday, September 10, 2014 at the three existing study intersections. The weekday AM peak hour in the study area is generally from 8:00 to 9:00 AM, the weekday PM peak hour is generally from 4:45 to 5:45 PM. Figure A -1 shows the existing peak hour intersection volumes, lane configurations, and traffic control for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Additionally, 24 -hour vehicle counts were collected at San Mateo Avenue south of Lowrie Avenue and the two driveways off of the Payless Car rental lot ( "Burlingame Payless ") at 1409 Rollins Road in Burlingame, CA'. Additional data collection was also completed, including observations of the lane configurations, signal timings, intersection operations and vehicle queuing. Detailed traffic count sheets are provided in Attachment C. Field Observations Existing transportation operations were observed at the Project site and the Burlingame Payless during the AM and PM peak period. During the AM peak hour, no major queues were present at the study intersections. Typically, each movement was served within the given green time and queues were within the constructed pocket length. Spillback to downstream intersections was not observed. Similarly, during the PM peak period, queue spillback to downstream intersections was not observed. An increase in vehicle traffic along Airport Boulevard was observed during the PM peak hour due to its direct access to the US -101 South on -ramp. However, vehicles were typically served within the given green time. The Burlingame Payless does not have on- premises vehicle washing and fueling, so once a customer returns the rental, the vehicle is driven to an off -site facility for cleaning. At times, a vehicle could be driven off the site up to three times before ready for another customer rental. 1 The purpose of the off -site 24 -hour vehicle counts is to collect existing roadway volume information to capture vehicle trip generation of an existing site with similar operating characteristics of the proposed Project. Vehicle count devices were placed away from the intersection to avoid queued vehicles at the signal sitting on the hoses and low traffic speeds, which can lead to inaccurate counts. The peak period study intersection and existing driveway counts adequately captured the traffic at the driveways generated by the land use. Arata Property Transportation Assessment February 3, 2015 Page 7 of 12 The South San Francisco site proposes on- premises washing and possibly fueling, such that off - site cleaning vehicle trips would not occur regularly. Customer Shuttle Observations The Burlingame Payless has two entrances: one driveway onto Rollins Road on the north end of the site and a second driveway onto Carolan Avenue on the south end of the site. Therefore, customer shuttles and vans arriving from San Francisco International Airport enter on Rollins Road and exit on Carolan Avenue, minimizing the space needed for circulation and maneuvering within the parking lot. Burlingame Payless generally operates at least two shuttles operating at ten minute headways: a mid -size passenger bus and a passenger van. EXISTING TRAFFIC OPERATIONS Traffic operations throughout the study area are analyzed using the Synchro 8.0 software program. Synchro calculations are based on the procedures outlined in the HCM. Table 3 shows the LOS results for the existing weekday AM and PM peak hours. As shown below, the study intersections perform at LOS C or better during the AM peak hour and LOS D or better during the PM peak hours. Long queues and delays are not observed in the analysis and results are consistent with field observations collected in September 2014. The San Mateo Avenue and Airport Boulevard intersection operates at LOS C and D during the AM and PM peak hour, respectively. The delay during the PM peak hour is associated with an increase in traffic volumes at the intersection because of direct access to the US -101 southbound on -ramp. At the side - street stop controlled intersections, average intersection delay was less than ten seconds and the worst street stop had a delay of 23 seconds. Overall, all study intersections operate well with nominal delay. Arata Property Transportation Assessment February 3, 2015 Page 8 of 12 TABLE 3: EXISTING CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS SUMMARY Control Peak Existing Conditions Intersection 1 Hour Delay2 LOSZ 1. San Mateo Avenue / Airport Boulevard3 Signal AM 35 D PM 43 D 2. San Mateo Avenue / Lowrie Avenue SSSC AM <10 (EB 15) A (B) PM <10 (EB 23) A (C) 3. San Mateo Avenue / Peninsula Auto SSSC AM <10 (WB 14) A (B) Body Driveway / Ingress Driveway PM <10 (WB 12) A (B) AM n /a4 n /a4 4. San Mateo Avenue / Egress Driveway SSSC PM n /a4 n /a4 Notes: 1. Signal = signalized intersection; SSSC = side - street stop controlled intersection. 2. Traffic operations results include LOS (level of service) and delay (seconds per vehicle). LOS is based on delay thresholds published in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2010). 3. Due to its unique intersection geometries and operations, HCM 2000 was used for the analysis. 4. n/a = Intersection does not existing under existing conditions. Sou rce: Fehr & Peers, November 2014. PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES San Mateo Avenue, which runs adjacent to the western edge of the Project site, has a narrow sidewalk on both sides of the street. There are several supply /light - industrial businesses and parking lots with driveways and curb cuts along San Mateo Avenue. The nearest crosswalks to the Project site are at San Mateo Avenue and Airport Boulevard /Produce Avenue, approximately 500 feet to the north. Figure A -2 shows existing AM /PM pedestrian crossings at existing study intersections. BICYCLE FACILITIES The stretch of San Mateo Avenue adjacent to the Project site does not have visible sharrows (bike and arrow pavement markings placed to guide bicyclists to the best place to ride on the road and remind drivers to share the road with cyclists) but signs along the road designate it as Bike Route 15. The route continues south towards the Centennial Way Trail, which is a 2.85 -mile linear park on top of the underground BART tube with a Class I bicycle and pedestrian trailz less than a mile 2 Centennial Way Brochure, City of South San Francisco: Arata Property Transportation Assessment February 3, 2015 Page 9 of 12 from the Project site. The bicycle route on San Mateo Avenue also extends north from the Project site through the intersection with South Airport Boulevard and Produce Avenue and continues south along South Airport Boulevard. Figure A -2 shows existing bicycle facilities in the study area and bicycle turning movements for the AM and PM peak hour. TRANSIT FACILITIES While the Project site is less than a mile from the San Bruno Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Station and less than a mile from the South San Francisco Caltrain station, neither of these transit services are close enough to affect project trips. Similarly, San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) operates 73 bus routes and paratransit service throughout San Mateo County and parts of San Francisco and Palo Alto, but there are no stops within a half mile (or a 10- minute walk) of the project site. This section provides an overview of the proposed Project components and addresses the proposed Project's potential impacts on the surrounding roadway network. This was done using a three -step process: 1) Trip Generation — The amount of vehicle traffic entering /existing the Project site was estimated. 2) Trip Distribution — The direction of trips would use to approach and depart the site was projected. 3) Trip Assignment —Trips were then assigned to specific roadway segments and intersection turning movements. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Trip generation rates are not available in the 9th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication Trip Generation Manual for car rental sites. Therefore, vehicle trip generation estimates for the Project during both AM and PM peak hours were developed using driveway counts collected from the Burlingame Payless. It is our understanding that the proposed http: / /www.ssf. net /DocumentCenter /Home/View /1255 Arata Property Transportation Assessment February 3, 2015 Page 10 of 12 Project will operate similarly to the Payless site, with the exception of the vehicle washing and fueling operations. To calculate trip generation rates, 24 -hour pneumatic tube data was collected during an average weekday and total number of parking spaces on site were counted at Burlingame Payless. AM and PM peak hour trip generation rates were estimated based on the number of incoming and outgoing vehicles to the number of available parking stalls. The Burlingame site requires each returned rental make additional trips for vehicle washing and fueling; therefore a factor was applied to decrease driveway counts to account for additional trips that will not occur at the South San Francisco site. The analysis assumes that no off -site vehicle trips would be required, such that vehicle washing and fueling operations would occur on site. The Project site plan proposes to construct a washing station, however, a fueling station may not be provided. If a fueling station is not provided, trip generation rates could increase. However, data collected at the Burlingame Payless site shows that 85- percent of customers return the vehicle with a full tank of gasoline, such that 15- percent of vehicles need to be taken off -site for fuel. Therefore, it is assumed that if 15- percent of vehicles need to drive off -site for fuel, it would not generate enough vehicle traffic to adversely affect intersection delay. Table 4 shows trip generation estimates based on the methodology described above. TABLE 4: TRIP GENERATION RATES Time Period AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Source: Fehr & Peers, September 2014. Rate per % Enter % Exit Occupied Stall 0.06 95% 5% 0.14 54% 46% 1.77 62% 38% Table 5 shows the vehicle trip generation estimates for the three plus Project scenarios Arata Property Transportation Assessment February 3, 2015 Page 11 of 12 Number of Vehicles Available for Rent 70 ( -50% Occupancy) 150 ( -100% Occupancy) 350 ( -100% Occupancy of Eastern and Western Parcels) Source: Fehr & Peers, September 2014. Table 5: Project Trip Generation AM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total 124 5 1 6 265 10 1 11 619 22 2 24 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT PM Peak Hour In Out Total 6 5 11 12 10 22 27 23 50 Trip distribution is defined as the directions of approach and departure that vehicles would use to arrive at and depart from the site. This traffic analysis assumes that all new Project - generated trips would be distributed proportionately based on an assessment of the current movements at the existing intersections. The study assumes approximately 10% of trips will travel to / come from south San Mateo Avenue, with the remaining 90% of trips traveling to / coming from Airport Boulevard. A majority of trips are assumed to access regional destinations by way of US- 101. Figure A -3 and Figure A -4 show the Project - generated trips assigned to the intersection turning movements for the AM and PM peak hour, respectively. Figure A -5 and Figure A -6 show the Project - generated trips added to existing traffic volumes for the AM and PM peak hour, respectively. EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC OPERATIONS As detailed in the letter above, with the Project traffic, intersections are expected to operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours, therefore, the Project does not have a significant impact on the study intersections, and intersection mitigation is not needed. Detailed analysis worksheets are provided in Attachment B. This concludes the detailed assessment. For questions or comments, please contact Sarah Nadiranto at (415) 426 -2521. Arata Property Transportation Assessment February 3, 2015 Page 12 of 12 Figures Figure A -1: Project Study Intersections, Existing Traffic Control, Lane Configurations, and Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Figure A -2: Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities and Intersection Volumes Figure A -3: Project Trip Turning Movements — AM Peak Hour Figure A -4: Project Trip Turning Movements — PM Peak Hour Figure A -5: Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Turning Movements — AM Peak Hour Figure A -6: Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Turning Movements — PM Peak Hour F a 0 x U n (C c� 1. San MateoAve/Airport Blvd 2. LowrieAve/San MateoAve 3. PeninsulaAubbody Dwy /San MateoAve 4. Proposed Dmy/San MateoAve E n M o O 6F" M ' $ 203 (450) n ctOO� X180(207) —362(827) �0(1) 1 (0) San Mateo Avenue Air dB-1-.M Lowrie Avenue Peninsula Aulobod I)dvewa PROPOSED INTERSECTION �11r 30 98(141) 1 50 (167) N G ((79) 5 14) j 126 (220)1 W M O M e V M N M ii & Traffic Signal 0 Turn Lane Q Study Intersection ® Stop Sign AM TM) Peak Hour Traffic Volume 0 Future Study Intersection Figure A -1 Existing Peak Hour Intersection Volumes, • Lane Configurations, and Traffic Control E a 'o X U) L a m N H 1. San MateoAve/Airpolt BW 2. Lmvr eAvetSan MateoAve 3. PeninsdaAutobody Drwy /San MateoAve 4. Proposed Diwy/San MateoAve San Mateo Avenue -o Lowrie Avenue 1 (3) 0 (0) 9 (22) H H H —4 t: I T T I c 1 (0) IF 9a> oho 4(13) ryi m --4 oti°o 0(01 PROPOSED 1 (0) 0 (0) D(0) INTERSECTION 1 a 1 0 1 1 00o a o 2 (S) 1(3) 8 (6) Airport Boulevard � Peninsula Autobody Driveway Pedestrian Crosswalk t Bicycle Lane Direction — Class II Bike Lane Q Study Intersection Bicycle Travel AM (PM) [Mid-Day] Peak Hour Volume i■■i Class III Bike Route Proposed Intersection - Pedestrian - Bicycle T Crosswalk Direction Figure A -2 Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities and Volumes VA i 1. San MateoAve/Airport Blvd 2. LowrieAve/San MateoAve 3. Peninsula Autobody Drwy /San MateoAve 4. Proposed DRW /San MateoAve E m o ¢' ¢' O O ¢' N O O t N O � °^' N O O ® °^' moo a X0(0)[0] o° om oo VIoIo X2(4)[91 0fn N o`n " 0(0)[01 N �11 r 0 (0) [0] 0 (0) [0] �, 1(1)[11 San Mateo Avenue Air rl Boulevard Lowrie Avenue Pe,i—I,Aut,bodv Ddvmav Proosed Ddvewa 1 (1) [1] )TTr 0 (0) [0] 1(1)[1] E7E o E7 E7 0 0 )[ 0 ( ] 00 E7 00 Q�oo ® 00 0� 00 8 QStudy Intersection Traffic Signal plus (100 %) Proposed Intersection ® Stop Sign [100% % plus additional spaces pending zoning] Turn Lane Peak Hour Traffic Volume by Parking Utility Scenario Figure A -3 Project Vehicle Trips - AM 1. San MateoAve/Airport Blvd 2. LowrieAve/San MateoAve 3. Peninsula Autobody Drwy /San MateoAve 4. Proposed DRW /San MateoAve E m F a ¢ O O a N O O t '— O N ' N v ,—, O N ® O O v moo a X0(0)[0] ] N ry 5(9)[21] N 1 (1) I31 ii 'r 0 (0) [01 1, 0 (0) [01 San Mateo Avenue Air rtBaulevaM Lowrie Avenue 1 Pe},i— IaAulobod Ddvewa Proosed Dnvewa 2 (4) [9] 11 0 (0) t01 j 1 (2) [5] �► to o 0 0 (0) [0] 0 0 o F 0 2 4 9� ()t ] " "o0 00 °� 0 � to 00 00 8 QStudy Intersection Traffic Signal plus (100 %) Proposed Intersection ® Stop Sign [100% % plus additional spaces pending zoning] Turn Lane Peak Hour Traffic Volume by Parking Utility Scenario Figure A -4 Project Vehicle Trips - PM 1. San MateoAve/Airport Blvd 2. LowneAve/San MateoAve 3. Peninsula Autobody Drwy /San MateoAve 4. Proposed DRW /San MateoAve N n O N n N M W Use= > M m M m m d® O n c`OO a 203 (203) [203] 182 (184) [189] m rMi m '� �0 (0) [0] ° m �1 (1) [2] I I ii r 362 (362) [362] 1 �j l j` 1 (1) [1] j 1 (1) [1] San Mateo Avenue Air rtBaulevard Lowrie Avenue Peninsula Aulobod Drivewa Proosed Dmewa 99 (99) [99] � 1} ) r 30 (30) [30] -4 151 (151) [151 1 m co rn 5 (5) [5] N M NI M to 129 (129) [1291--* rn`�o ® QStudy Intersection is Traffic Signal 0 Proposed Intersection ® Stop Sign Turn Lane 50%(100%) [100% plus additional Peak Hour Traffic Volume spaces pending zoning] by Parking Utility Scenario Figure A Existing Plus Project Vehicle Trips - AM 1. San MateoAve/Airport Blvd 2. LowneAve/San MateoAve 3. Peninsula Autobody Drwy /San MateoAve 4. Proposed DRW /San MateoAve N .0 M ® ' _m a X450 (450) [450] 9 v X210(212)[218] 5(9)[21] —827 (827) [827] 1 �j l j` 0 (0) 101 1 (1) [3] San Mateo Avenue Ai rtBwlevard Lowrie Avenue %M—I,A,Wbody Dd,may. 143 (145) [150] --0 11 79 (79) [79] 168 (169) [172] to iv �n 14 (14) [14] ui co ^� n 222 (224) [229] A N N ° v O ® O N W 6" a N 7 N V R QStudy Intersection is Traffic Signal 0 Proposed Intersection ® Stop Sign Turn Lane 50%(100%) [100% plus additional Peak Hour Traffic Volume spaces pending zoning] by Parking Utility Scenario Figure A -6 Existing Plus Project Vehicle Trips - PM FEHR PEERS ATTACHMENT 6: LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION WORKSHEETS HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Produce Avenue & San Mateo Avenue & Airport Boulevard 11/17/2014 � � t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0 r 0 r tt r tt r Volume (vph) 98 150 128 362 180 203 186 36 309 157 665 76 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1610 3373 1533 1610 3307 1555 1770 3539 1557 1770 3539 1558 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1610 3373 1533 1610 3307 1555 1770 3539 1557 1770 3539 1558 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 113 172 147 421 209 236 202 39 336 164 693 79 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 129 0 0 187 0 0 270 0 0 52 Lane Group Flow (vph) 93 192 18 210 420 49 202 39 66 164 693 27 Confl. Peds. ( # /hr) 1 2 2 1 2 3 3 2 Confl. Bikes ( # /hr) 9 4 2 Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 8 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.0 12.0 12.0 20.8 20.8 20.8 15.3 19.6 19.6 30.5 34.8 34.8 Effective Green, g (s) 12.0 12.0 12.0 20.8 20.8 20.8 15.3 19.6 19.6 30.5 34.8 34.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.15 0.20 0.20 0.30 0.35 0.35 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 193 404 183 334 687 323 270 693 305 539 1231 542 vls Ratio Prot c0.06 0.06 c0.13 0.13 c0.11 0.01 0.09 c0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.02 vlc Ratio 0.48 0.48 0.10 0.63 0.61 0.15 0.75 0.06 0.22 0.30 0.56 0.05 Uniform Delay, dl 41.1 41.1 39.2 36.1 35.9 32.4 40.5 32.7 33.7 26.6 26.4 21.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.9 0.9 0.2 3.7 1.6 0.2 10.8 0.0 0.4 0.3 1.9 0.2 Delay (s) 43.0 41.9 39.4 39.8 37.5 32.6 51.3 32.7 34.1 26.9 28.3 21.8 Level of Service D D D D D C D C C C C C Approach Delay (s) 41.3 36.7 40.0 27.5 Approach LOS D D D C Intersection Summa HCM 2000 Control Delay 35.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 17.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.0% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Arata Property 8:00 am 9/25/2014 Exisiting Synchro 8 Report Fehr & Peers Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 2: San Mateo Avenue & Lowrie Avenue 11/17/2014 Intersection Int Delay, s /veh Movement 0.8 EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Vol, veh /h 30 5 12 343 331 68 Conflicting Peds, # /hr 0 1 1 0 0 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None 2.218 None 381 None Storage Length 0 - - - Stage 2 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 Platoon blocked, % 0 0 Mov Cap -1 Maneuver Grade, % 0 - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 31 5 12 350 338 69 Major /Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 747 374 408 0 0 Stage 1 373 - - - - Stage 2 374 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - Follow -up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 381 672 1151 Stage 1 696 - - - Stage 2 696 - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 375 671 1150 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 375 - - - Stage 1 695 Stage 2 686 Approach EB NB SIB HCM Control Delay, s 14.9 0.3 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane /Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh /h) 1150 400 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.011 0.089 - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.2 0 14.9 HCM Lane LOS A A B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.3 Arata Property 8:00 am 9125/2014 Exisiting Synchro 8 Report Fehr & Peers Page 2 HCM 2010 TWSC 3: San Mateo Avenue & Peninsula Autobody Driveway 11/17/2014 Intersection Int Delay, s /veh I Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Vol, veh /h 1 0 352 0 1 335 Conflicting Peds, # /hr 9 8 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None None None Storage Length 0 - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 0 367 0 1 349 Major /Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 727 376 0 0 376 0 Stage 1 376 - - - - - Stage 2 351 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - Follow -up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 391 670 1182 Stage 1 694 - - - Stage 2 713 - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 388 665 1182 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 388 - - - Stage 1 689 Stage 2 712 Approach WB NB SIB HCM Control Delay, s 14.3 0 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane /Major Mvmt NBT NBR WBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh /h) 388 1182 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.003 0.001 - HCM Control Delay (s) 14.3 8 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 Arata Property 8:00 am 9125/2014 Exisiting Synchro 8 Report Fehr & Peers Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Produce Avenue & San Mateo Avenue & Airport Boulevard 11/17/2014 � � t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *'t r 0 r tt r tt r Volume (vph) 141 167 220 827 207 450 113 22 205 123 1070 95 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1610 3357 1538 1610 3281 1538 1770 3539 1557 1770 3539 1543 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1610 3357 1538 1610 3281 1538 1770 3539 1557 1770 3539 1543 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow (vph) 142 169 222 835 209 455 114 22 207 124 1081 96 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 175 0 0 341 0 0 190 0 0 60 Lane Group Flow (vph) 101 210 47 417 627 114 114 22 17 124 1081 36 Confl. Peds. ( # /hr) 3 5 5 3 11 3 3 11 Confl. Bikes ( # /hr) 1 13 Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 8 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.7 9.7 9.7 25.0 25.0 25.0 10.2 8.2 8.2 40.0 38.0 38.0 Effective Green, g (s) 9.7 9.7 9.7 25.0 25.0 25.0 10.2 8.2 8.2 40.0 38.0 38.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.40 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 156 325 149 402 820 384 180 290 127 708 1344 586 vls Ratio Prot c0.06 0.06 c0.26 0.19 c0.06 0.01 0.07 c0.31 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.07 0.01 0.02 vlc Ratio 0.65 0.65 0.31 1.04 1.00dl 0.30 0.63 0.08 0.13 0.18 0.80 0.06 Uniform Delay, dl 43.5 43.5 42.1 37.5 34.8 30.4 43.1 42.4 42.6 19.4 27.7 19.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.9 4.4 1.2 54.9 4.3 0.4 7.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 5.2 0.2 Delay (s) 52.4 47.9 43.3 92.4 39.0 30.8 50.2 42.5 43.1 19.5 32.9 19.9 Level of Service D D D F D C D D D B C B Approach Delay (s) 46.8 51.4 45.4 30.6 Approach LOS D D D C Intersection Summa HCM 2000 Control Delay 42.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 17.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 dl Defacto Left Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a left lane. c Critical Lane Group Arata Property 5:00 pm 9/25/2014 Exisiting Synchro 8 Report Fehr & Peers Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 2: San Mateo Avenue & Lowrie Avenue 11/17/2014 Intersection Int Delay, s /veh Movement 2.5 EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Vol, veh /h 79 14 15 406 347 38 Conflicting Peds, # /hr 0 3 4 0 0 4 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None 2.218 None 294 None Storage Length 0 - - - Stage 2 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 Platoon blocked, % 0 0 Mov Cap -1 Maneuver Grade, % 0 - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 92 16 17 472 403 44 Major /Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 936 433 451 0 0 Stage 1 429 - - - - Stage 2 507 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - Follow -up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 294 623 1109 Stage 1 657 - - - Stage 2 605 - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 286 619 1105 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 286 - - - Stage 1 655 Stage 2 591 - Approach EB NB SIB HCM Control Delay, s 22.6 0.3 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane /Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh /h) 1105 311 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.016 0.348 - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.3 0 22.6 HCM Lane LOS A A C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 1.5 Arata Property 5:00 pm 9125/2014 Exisiting Synchro 8 Report Fehr & Peers Page 2 HCM 2010 TWSC 3: San Mateo Avenue & Peninsula Autobody Driveway 11/17/2014 Intersection Int Delay, s /veh I Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Vol, veh /h 0 1 421 1 2 365 Conflicting Peds, # /hr 22 6 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None None None Storage Length 0 - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 1 490 1 2 424 Major /Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 941 512 0 0 513 0 Stage 1 512 - - - - - Stage 2 429 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - Follow -up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 292 562 1052 Stage 1 602 - - - Stage 2 657 - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 286 552 1052 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 286 - - - Stage 1 591 Stage 2 656 Approach WB NB SIB HCM Control Delay, s 11.5 0 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane /Major Mvmt NBT NBR WBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh /h) 552 1052 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 0.002 - HCM Control Delay (s) 11.5 8.4 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 Arata Property 5:00 pm 9125/2014 Exisiting Synchro 8 Report Fehr & Peers Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Produce Avenue & San Mateo Avenue & Airport Boulevard 12/3/2014 � � t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0 r 0 r tt r tt r Volume (vph) 99 151 129 362 182 203 189 36 309 157 665 77 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1610 3372 1533 1610 3308 1555 1770 3539 1557 1770 3539 1558 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1610 3372 1533 1610 3308 1555 1770 3539 1557 1770 3539 1558 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 114 174 148 421 212 236 205 39 336 164 693 80 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 130 0 0 187 0 0 270 0 0 52 Lane Group Flow (vph) 93 195 18 210 423 49 205 39 66 164 693 28 Confl. Peds. ( # /hr) 1 2 2 1 2 3 3 2 Confl. Bikes ( # /hr) 9 4 2 Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 8 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.0 12.0 12.0 20.8 20.8 20.8 15.4 19.6 19.6 30.5 34.7 34.7 Effective Green, g (s) 12.0 12.0 12.0 20.8 20.8 20.8 15.4 19.6 19.6 30.5 34.7 34.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.15 0.20 0.20 0.30 0.35 0.35 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 193 404 183 334 688 323 272 693 305 539 1228 540 vls Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.06 c0.13 0.13 c0.12 0.01 0.09 c0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.48 0.48 0.10 0.63 0.61 0.15 0.75 0.06 0.22 0.30 0.56 0.05 Uniform Delay, dl 41.1 41.1 39.2 36.1 36.0 32.4 40.5 32.7 33.7 26.6 26.5 21.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.9 0.9 0.2 3.7 1.6 0.2 11.2 0.0 0.4 0.3 1.9 0.2 Delay (s) 43.0 42.0 39.4 39.8 37.6 32.6 51.7 32.7 34.1 26.9 28.4 21.9 Level of Service D D D D D C D C C C C C Approach Delay (s) 41.3 36.8 40.2 27.6 Approach LOS D D D C Intersection Summa HCM 2000 Control Delay 35.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 17.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Arata Property 8:00 am 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 70 Synchro 8 Report Fehr & Peers Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 2: San Mateo Avenue & Lowrie Avenue 12/3/2014 Intersection Int Delay, s /veh Movement 0.8 EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Vol, veh /h 30 5 12 343 336 68 Conflicting Peds, # /hr 0 1 1 0 0 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None 2.218 None 377 None Storage Length 0 - - - Stage 2 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 Platoon blocked, % 0 0 Mov Cap -1 Maneuver Grade, % 0 - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 31 5 12 350 343 69 Major /Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 753 380 413 0 0 Stage 1 379 - - - - Stage 2 374 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - Follow -up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 377 667 1146 Stage 1 692 - - - Stage 2 696 - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 371 666 1145 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 371 - - - Stage 1 691 Stage 2 686 Approach EB NB SIB HCM Control Delay, s 15 0.3 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane /Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (vehlh) 1145 396 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.011 0.09 - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.2 0 15 HCM Lane LOS A A C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.3 Arata Property 8:00 am 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 70 Synchro 8 Report Fehr & Peers Page 2 HCM 2010 TWSC 3: San Mateo Avenue & Peninsula Autobody Driveway 12/3/2014 Intersection Int Delay, s /veh 0 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Vol, veh /h 1 0 352 1 6 335 Conflicting Peds, # /hr 9 8 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None None None Storage Length 0 - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 0 367 1 6 349 Major /Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 737 376 0 0 377 0 Stage 1 376 - - - - - Stage 2 361 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - Follow -up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 386 670 1181 Stage 1 694 - - - Stage 2 705 - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 381 665 1181 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 381 - - - Stage 1 689 Stage 2 701 Approach WB NB SIB HCM Control Delay, s 14.5 0 0.1 HCM LOS B Minor Lane /Major Mvmt NBT NBR WBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (vehlh) 381 1181 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.003 0.005 - HCM Control Delay (s) 14.5 8.1 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 Arata Property 8:00 am 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 70 Synchro 8 Report Fehr & Peers Page 3 HCM 2010 TWSC 4: San Mateo Avenue & Proposed Driveway 12/3/2014 Intersection Int Delay, s /veh I Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Vol, veh /h 1 1 373 0 0 403 Conflicting Peds, # /hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None None None Storage Length 0 - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 1 405 0 0 438 Major /Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 843 405 0 0 405 0 Stage 1 405 - - - - - Stage 2 438 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - Follow -up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 334 646 1154 Stage 1 673 - - - Stage 2 651 - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 334 646 1154 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 334 - - - Stage 1 673 Stage 2 651 Approach WB NB SIB HCM Control Delay, s 13.2 0 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane /Major Mvmt NBT NBR WBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (vehlh) 440 1154 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.005 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 13.2 0 - HCM Lane LOS B A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - Arata Property 8:00 am 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 70 Synchro 8 Report Fehr & Peers Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Produce Avenue & San Mateo Avenue & Airport Boulevard 12/1/2014 � � t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *'t r 0 r tt r tt r Volume (vph) 143 168 222 827 210 450 116 22 205 123 1070 96 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1610 3357 1538 1610 3281 1538 1770 3539 1557 1770 3539 1543 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1610 3357 1538 1610 3281 1538 1770 3539 1557 1770 3539 1543 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow (vph) 144 170 224 835 212 455 117 22 207 124 1081 97 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 175 0 0 341 0 0 190 0 0 60 Lane Group Flow (vph) 102 212 49 417 630 114 117 22 17 124 1081 37 Confl. Peds. ( # /hr) 3 5 5 3 11 3 3 11 Confl. Bikes ( # /hr) 1 13 Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 8 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.7 9.7 9.7 25.0 25.0 25.0 10.3 8.2 8.2 40.0 37.9 37.9 Effective Green, g (s) 9.7 9.7 9.7 25.0 25.0 25.0 10.3 8.2 8.2 40.0 37.9 37.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.40 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 156 325 149 402 820 384 182 290 127 708 1341 584 vls Ratio Prot c0.06 0.06 c0.26 0.19 c0.07 0.01 0.07 c0.31 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.07 0.01 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.65 0.65 0.33 1.04 1.00dl 0.30 0.64 0.08 0.13 0.18 0.81 0.06 Uniform Delay, dl 43.5 43.5 42.1 37.5 34.8 30.4 43.1 42.4 42.6 19.4 27.8 19.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 9.5 4.6 1.3 54.9 4.4 0.4 7.5 0.1 0.5 0.1 5.3 0.2 Delay (s) 53.0 48.2 43.4 92.4 39.2 30.8 50.6 42.5 43.1 19.5 33.0 20.0 Level of Service D D D F D C D D D B C B Approach Delay (s) 47.1 51.4 45.6 30.8 Approach LOS D D D C Intersection Summa HCM 2000 Control Delay 42.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 17.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 dl Defacto Left Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a left lane. c Critical Lane Group Arata Property 5:00 pm 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 70 Synchro 8 Report Fehr & Peers Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 2: San Mateo Avenue & Lowrie Avenue 12/1/2014 Intersection Int Delay, s /veh Movement 2.5 EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Vol, veh /h 79 14 15 406 353 38 Conflicting Peds, # /hr 0 3 4 0 0 4 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None 2.218 None 291 None Storage Length 0 - - - Stage 2 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 Platoon blocked, % 0 0 Mov Cap -1 Maneuver Grade, % 0 - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 92 16 17 472 410 44 Major /Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 943 440 458 0 0 Stage 1 436 - - - - Stage 2 507 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - Follow -up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 291 617 1103 Stage 1 652 - - - Stage 2 605 - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 283 613 1099 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 283 - - - Stage 1 650 Stage 2 591 Approach EB NB SIB HCM Control Delay, s 22.9 0.3 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane /Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (vehlh) 1099 308 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.016 0.351 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.3 0 22.9 HCM Lane LOS A A C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 1.5 Arata Property 5:00 pm 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 70 Synchro 8 Report Fehr & Peers Page 2 HCM 2010 TWSC 3: San Mateo Avenue & Peninsula Autobody Driveway 12/1/2014 Intersection Int Delay, s /veh 0 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Vol, veh /h 0 1 421 2 8 365 Conflicting Peds, # /hr 22 6 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None None None Storage Length 0 - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 1 490 2 9 424 Major /Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 956 513 0 0 514 0 Stage 1 513 - - - - - Stage 2 443 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - Follow -up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 286 561 1052 Stage 1 601 - - - Stage 2 647 - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 278 551 1052 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 278 - - - Stage 1 590 Stage 2 640 Approach WB NB SIB HCM Control Delay, s 11.5 0 0.2 HCM LOS B Minor Lane /Major Mvmt NBT NBR WBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (vehlh) 551 1052 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.002 0.009 - HCM Control Delay (s) 11.5 8.5 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 Arata Property 5:00 pm 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 70 Synchro 8 Report Fehr & Peers Page 3 HCM 2010 TWSC 4: San Mateo Avenue 12/1/2014 Intersection Int Delay, s /veh a Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Vol, veh /h 1 5 485 0 0 390 Conflicting Peds, # /hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None None None Storage Length 0 - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 5 527 0 0 424 Major /Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 951 527 0 0 527 0 Stage 1 527 - - - - - Stage 2 424 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - Follow -up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 288 551 1040 Stage 1 592 - - - Stage 2 660 - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 288 551 1040 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 288 - - - Stage 1 592 Stage 2 660 Approach WB NB SIB HCM Control Delay, s 12.6 0 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane /Major Mvmt NBT NBR WBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (vehlh) 478 1040 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.014 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 12.6 0 - HCM Lane LOS B A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - Arata Property 5:00 pm 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 70 Synchro 8 Report Fehr & Peers Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Produce Avenue & San Mateo Avenue & Airport Boulevard 12/3/2014 � � t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0 r 0 r tt r tt r Volume (vph) 99 151 129 362 184 203 191 36 309 157 665 77 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1610 3372 1533 1610 3308 1555 1770 3539 1557 1770 3539 1558 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1610 3372 1533 1610 3308 1555 1770 3539 1557 1770 3539 1558 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 114 174 148 421 214 236 208 39 336 164 693 80 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 130 0 0 187 0 0 270 0 0 52 Lane Group Flow (vph) 93 195 18 210 425 49 208 39 66 164 693 28 Confl. Peds. ( # /hr) 1 2 2 1 2 3 3 2 Confl. Bikes ( # /hr) 9 4 2 Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 8 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.0 12.0 12.0 20.8 20.8 20.8 15.5 19.6 19.6 30.5 34.6 34.6 Effective Green, g (s) 12.0 12.0 12.0 20.8 20.8 20.8 15.5 19.6 19.6 30.5 34.6 34.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.16 0.20 0.20 0.30 0.35 0.35 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 193 404 183 334 688 323 274 693 305 539 1224 539 vls Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.06 c0.13 0.13 c0.12 0.01 0.09 c0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.48 0.48 0.10 0.63 0.62 0.15 0.76 0.06 0.22 0.30 0.57 0.05 Uniform Delay, dl 41.1 41.1 39.2 36.1 36.0 32.4 40.5 32.7 33.7 26.6 26.6 21.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.9 0.9 0.2 3.7 1.7 0.2 11.4 0.0 0.4 0.3 1.9 0.2 Delay (s) 43.0 42.0 39.4 39.8 37.6 32.6 51.9 32.7 34.1 26.9 28.5 22.0 Level of Service D D D D D C D C C C C C Approach Delay (s) 41.3 36.8 40.4 27.7 Approach LOS D D D C Intersection Summa HCM 2000 Control Delay 35.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 17.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Arata Property 8:00 am 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 150 Synchro 8 Report Fehr & Peers Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 2: San Mateo Avenue & Lowrie Avenue 12/3/2014 Intersection Int Delay, s /veh Movement 0.8 EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Vol, veh /h 30 5 12 343 341 68 Conflicting Peds, # /hr 0 1 1 0 0 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None 2.218 None 375 None Storage Length 0 - - - Stage 2 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 Platoon blocked, % 0 0 Mov Cap -1 Maneuver Grade, % 0 - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 31 5 12 350 348 69 Major /Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 758 385 418 0 0 Stage 1 384 - - - - Stage 2 374 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - Follow -up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 375 663 1141 Stage 1 688 - - - Stage 2 696 - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 370 662 1140 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 370 - - - Stage 1 687 Stage 2 686 Approach EB NB SIB HCM Control Delay, s 15 0.3 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane /Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (vehlh) 1140 395 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.011 0.09 - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.2 0 15 HCM Lane LOS A A C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.3 Arata Property 8:00 am 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 150 Synchro 8 Report Fehr & Peers Page 2 HCM 2010 TWSC 3: San Mateo Avenue & Peninsula Autobody Driveway 12/3/2014 Intersection Int Delay, s /veh 0 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Vol, veh /h 1 0 352 1 10 335 Conflicting Peds, # /hr 9 8 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None None None Storage Length 0 - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 0 367 1 10 349 Major /Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 746 376 0 0 377 0 Stage 1 376 - - - - - Stage 2 370 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - Follow -up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 381 670 1181 Stage 1 694 - - - Stage 2 699 - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 374 665 1181 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 374 - - - Stage 1 689 Stage 2 691 Approach WB NB SIB HCM Control Delay, s 14.7 0 0.2 HCM LOS B Minor Lane /Major Mvmt NBT NBR WBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (vehlh) 374 1181 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.003 0.009 - HCM Control Delay (s) 14.7 8.1 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 Arata Property 8:00 am 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 150 Synchro 8 Report Fehr & Peers Page 3 HCM 2010 TWSC 4: San Mateo Avenue & Proposed Driveway 12/3/2014 Intersection Int Delay, s /veh I Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Vol, veh /h 1 1 373 0 0 408 Conflicting Peds, # /hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None None None Storage Length 0 - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 1 405 0 0 443 Major /Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 848 405 0 0 405 0 Stage 1 405 - - - - - Stage 2 443 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - Follow -up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 332 646 1154 Stage 1 673 - - - Stage 2 647 - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 332 646 1154 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 332 - - - Stage 1 673 Stage 2 647 Approach WB NB SIB HCM Control Delay, s 13.2 0 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane /Major Mvmt NBT NBR WBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (vehlh) 439 1154 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.005 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 13.2 0 - HCM Lane LOS B A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - Arata Property 8:00 am 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 150 Synchro 8 Report Fehr & Peers Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Produce Avenue & San Mateo Avenue & Airport Boulevard 12/1/2014 � � t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *'t r 0 r tt r tt r Volume (vph) 145 169 224 827 212 450 119 22 205 123 1070 96 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1610 3357 1538 1610 3282 1538 1770 3539 1557 1770 3539 1543 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1610 3357 1538 1610 3282 1538 1770 3539 1557 1770 3539 1543 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow (vph) 146 171 226 835 214 455 120 22 207 124 1081 97 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 175 0 0 341 0 0 190 0 0 60 Lane Group Flow (vph) 104 213 51 417 632 114 120 22 17 124 1081 37 Confl. Peds. ( # /hr) 3 5 5 3 11 3 3 11 Confl. Bikes ( # /hr) 1 13 Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 8 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.7 9.7 9.7 25.0 25.0 25.0 10.4 8.2 8.2 40.0 37.8 37.8 Effective Green, g (s) 9.7 9.7 9.7 25.0 25.0 25.0 10.4 8.2 8.2 40.0 37.8 37.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.40 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 156 325 149 402 820 384 184 290 127 708 1337 583 vls Ratio Prot c0.06 0.06 c0.26 0.19 c0.07 0.01 0.07 c0.31 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.07 0.01 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.66 0.34 1.04 1.00dl 0.30 0.65 0.08 0.13 0.18 0.81 0.06 Uniform Delay, dl 43.6 43.5 42.2 37.5 34.8 30.4 43.1 42.4 42.6 19.4 27.9 19.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 10.3 4.7 1.4 54.9 4.5 0.4 8.0 0.1 0.5 0.1 5.4 0.2 Delay (s) 53.9 48.2 43.5 92.4 39.3 30.8 51.1 42.5 43.1 19.5 33.2 20.0 Level of Service D D D F D C D D D B C C Approach Delay (s) 47.4 51.5 45.8 30.9 Approach LOS D D D C Intersection Summa HCM 2000 Control Delay 43.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 17.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 dl Defacto Left Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a left lane. c Critical Lane Group Arata Property 5:00 pm 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 150 Synchro 8 Report Fehr & Peers Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 2: San Mateo Avenue & Lowrie Avenue 12/1/2014 Intersection Int Delay, s /veh Movement 2.5 EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Vol, veh /h 79 14 15 406 359 38 Conflicting Peds, # /hr 0 3 4 0 0 4 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None 2.218 None 289 None Storage Length 0 - - - Stage 2 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 Platoon blocked, % 0 0 Mov Cap -1 Maneuver Grade, % 0 - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 92 16 17 472 417 44 Major /Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 950 447 465 0 0 Stage 1 443 - - - - Stage 2 507 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - Follow -up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 289 612 1096 Stage 1 647 - - - Stage 2 605 - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 282 608 1092 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 282 - - - Stage 1 645 Stage 2 591 Approach EB NB SIB HCM Control Delay, s 23 0.3 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane /Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (vehlh) 1092 307 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.016 0.352 - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.3 0 23 HCM Lane LOS A A C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 1.5 Arata Property 5:00 pm 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 150 Synchro 8 Report Fehr & Peers Page 2 HCM 2010 TWSC 3: San Mateo Avenue & Peninsula Autobody Driveway 12/1/2014 Intersection Int Delay, s /veh WIA Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Vol, veh /h 0 1 421 3 13 365 Conflicting Peds, # /hr 22 6 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None None None Storage Length 0 - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 1 490 3 15 424 Major /Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 968 513 0 0 515 0 Stage 1 513 - - - - - Stage 2 455 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - Follow -up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 282 561 1051 Stage 1 601 - - - Stage 2 639 - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 272 551 1051 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 272 - - - Stage 1 590 Stage 2 627 Approach WB NB SIB HCM Control Delay, s 11.5 0 0.3 HCM LOS B Minor Lane /Major Mvmt NBT NBR WBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (vehlh) 551 1051 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.002 0.014 - HCM Control Delay (s) 11.5 8.5 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 Arata Property 5:00 pm 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 150 Synchro 8 Report Fehr & Peers Page 3 HCM 2010 TWSC 4: San Mateo Avenue 12/1/2014 Intersection Int Delay, s /veh a Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Vol, veh /h 1 9 485 0 0 396 Conflicting Peds, # /hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None None None Storage Length 0 - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 10 527 0 0 430 Major /Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 957 527 0 0 527 0 Stage 1 527 - - - - - Stage 2 430 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - Follow -up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 286 551 1040 Stage 1 592 - - - Stage 2 656 - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 286 551 1040 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 286 - - - Stage 1 592 Stage 2 656 Approach WB NB SIB HCM Control Delay, s 12.3 0 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane /Major Mvmt NBT NBR WBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (vehlh) 504 1040 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.022 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 12.3 0 - HCM Lane LOS B A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - Arata Property 5:00 pm 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 150 Synchro 8 Report Fehr & Peers Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Produce Avenue & San Mateo Avenue & Airport Boulevard 12/3/2014 � � t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0 r 0 r tt r tt r Volume (vph) 99 151 129 362 189 203 196 36 309 157 665 78 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1610 3372 1533 1610 3309 1555 1770 3539 1557 1770 3539 1558 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1610 3372 1533 1610 3309 1555 1770 3539 1557 1770 3539 1558 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 114 174 148 421 220 236 213 39 336 164 693 81 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 130 0 0 187 0 0 270 0 0 53 Lane Group Flow (vph) 93 195 18 210 431 49 213 39 66 164 693 28 Confl. Peds. ( # /hr) 1 2 2 1 2 3 3 2 Confl. Bikes ( # /hr) 9 4 2 Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 8 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.0 12.0 12.0 20.9 20.9 20.9 15.7 19.5 19.5 30.5 34.3 34.3 Effective Green, g (s) 12.0 12.0 12.0 20.9 20.9 20.9 15.7 19.5 19.5 30.5 34.3 34.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.16 0.20 0.20 0.30 0.34 0.34 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 193 404 183 336 691 324 277 690 303 539 1213 534 vls Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.06 c0.13 0.13 c0.12 0.01 0.09 c0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.48 0.48 0.10 0.62 0.62 0.15 0.77 0.06 0.22 0.30 0.57 0.05 Uniform Delay, dl 41.1 41.1 39.2 36.0 36.0 32.3 40.4 32.8 33.8 26.6 26.8 22.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.9 0.9 0.2 3.6 1.8 0.2 12.1 0.0 0.4 0.3 2.0 0.2 Delay (s) 43.0 42.0 39.4 39.6 37.7 32.5 52.5 32.8 34.2 26.9 28.8 22.2 Level of Service D D D D D C D C C C C C Approach Delay (s) 41.3 36.8 40.7 27.9 Approach LOS D D D C Intersection Summa HCM 2000 Control Delay 35.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 17.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Arata Property 8:00 am 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 350 Synchro 8 Report Fehr & Peers Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 2: San Mateo Avenue & Lowrie Avenue 12/3/2014 Intersection Int Delay, s /veh Movement 0.8 EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Vol, veh /h 30 5 12 343 351 68 Conflicting Peds, # /hr 0 1 1 0 0 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None 2.218 None 370 None Storage Length 0 - - - Stage 2 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 Platoon blocked, % 0 0 Mov Cap -1 Maneuver Grade, % 0 - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 31 5 12 350 358 69 Major /Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 768 395 429 0 0 Stage 1 394 - - - - Stage 2 374 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - Follow -up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 370 654 1130 Stage 1 681 - - - Stage 2 696 - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 365 653 1129 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 365 - - - Stage 1 680 Stage 2 686 Approach EB NB SIB HCM Control Delay, s 15.2 0.3 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane /Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (vehlh) 1129 390 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.011 0.092 - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.2 0 15.2 HCM Lane LOS A A C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.3 Arata Property 8:00 am 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 350 Synchro 8 Report Fehr & Peers Page 2 HCM 2010 TWSC 3: San Mateo Avenue & Peninsula Autobody Driveway 12/3/2014 Intersection Int Delay, s /veh 0.3 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Vol, veh /h 1 0 352 3 21 335 Conflicting Peds, # /hr 9 8 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None None None Storage Length 0 - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 0 367 3 22 349 Major /Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 770 377 0 0 379 0 Stage 1 377 - - - - - Stage 2 393 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - Follow -up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 369 670 1179 Stage 1 694 - - - Stage 2 682 - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 358 665 1179 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 358 - - - Stage 1 689 Stage 2 666 Approach WB NB SIB HCM Control Delay, s 15.1 0 0.5 HCM LOS C Minor Lane /Major Mvmt NBT NBR WBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (vehlh) 358 1179 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.003 0.019 - HCM Control Delay (s) 15.1 8.1 0 HCM Lane LOS C A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0.1 Arata Property 8:00 am 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 350 Synchro 8 Report Fehr & Peers Page 3 HCM 2010 TWSC 4: San Mateo Avenue & Proposed Driveway 12/3/2014 Intersection Int Delay, s /veh I Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Vol, veh /h 1 2 373 0 0 418 Conflicting Peds, # /hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None None None Storage Length 0 - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 2 405 0 0 454 Major /Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 859 405 0 0 405 0 Stage 1 405 - - - - - Stage 2 454 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - Follow -up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 327 646 1154 Stage 1 673 - - - Stage 2 640 - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 327 646 1154 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 327 - - - Stage 1 673 Stage 2 640 Approach WB NB SIB HCM Control Delay, s 12.4 0 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane /Major Mvmt NBT NBR WBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (vehlh) 487 1154 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.007 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 12.4 0 - HCM Lane LOS B A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - Arata Property 8:00 am 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 350 Synchro 8 Report Fehr & Peers Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Produce Avenue & San Mateo Avenue & Airport Boulevard 12/3/2014 � � t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0 r 0 r tt r tt r Volume (vph) 150 172 229 827 218 450 126 22 205 123 1070 97 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1610 3355 1538 1610 3283 1538 1770 3539 1557 1770 3539 1543 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1610 3355 1538 1610 3283 1538 1770 3539 1557 1770 3539 1543 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow (vph) 152 174 231 835 220 455 127 22 207 124 1081 98 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 175 0 0 341 0 0 190 0 0 61 Lane Group Flow (vph) 106 220 56 417 638 114 127 22 17 124 1081 37 Confl. Peds. ( # /hr) 3 5 5 3 11 3 3 11 Confl. Bikes ( # /hr) 1 13 Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 8 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.7 9.7 9.7 25.0 25.0 25.0 10.5 8.2 8.2 40.0 37.7 37.7 Effective Green, g (s) 9.7 9.7 9.7 25.0 25.0 25.0 10.5 8.2 8.2 40.0 37.7 37.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.40 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 156 325 149 402 820 384 185 290 127 708 1334 581 vls Ratio Prot c0.07 0.07 c0.26 0.19 c0.07 0.01 0.07 c0.31 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.07 0.01 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.68 0.68 0.37 1.04 1.00dl 0.30 0.69 0.08 0.13 0.18 0.81 0.06 Uniform Delay, dl 43.6 43.6 42.3 37.5 34.9 30.4 43.2 42.4 42.6 19.4 27.9 19.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 11.2 5.5 1.6 54.9 4.7 0.4 10.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 5.4 0.2 Delay (s) 54.8 49.1 43.9 92.4 39.6 30.8 53.3 42.5 43.1 19.5 33.4 20.1 Level of Service D D D F D C D D D B C C Approach Delay (s) 48.0 51.5 46.7 31.0 Approach LOS D D D C Intersection Summa HCM 2000 Control Delay 43.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 17.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 dl Defacto Left Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a left lane. c Critical Lane Group Arata Property 5:00 pm 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 350 Synchro 8 Report Fehr & Peers Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 2: San Mateo Avenue & Lowrie Avenue 12/3/2014 Intersection Int Delay, s /veh Movement 2.5 EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Vol, veh /h 79 14 15 406 374 38 Conflicting Peds, # /hr 0 3 4 0 0 4 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None 2.218 None 282 None Storage Length 0 - - - Stage 2 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 Platoon blocked, % 0 0 Mov Cap -1 Maneuver Grade, % 0 - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 92 16 17 472 435 44 Major /Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 967 464 482 0 0 Stage 1 460 - - - - Stage 2 507 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - Follow -up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 282 598 1081 Stage 1 636 - - - Stage 2 605 - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 275 595 1077 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 275 - - - Stage 1 634 Stage 2 591 Approach EB NB SIB HCM Control Delay, s 23.7 0.3 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane /Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (vehlh) 1077 299 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.016 0.362 - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.4 0 23.7 HCM Lane LOS A A C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 1.6 Arata Property 5:00 pm 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 350 Synchro 8 Report Fehr & Peers Page 2 HCM 2010 TWSC 3: San Mateo Avenue & Peninsula Autobody Driveway 12/3/2014 Intersection Int Delay, s /veh 0.3 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Vol, veh /h 0 1 421 4 27 365 Conflicting Peds, # /hr 22 6 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None None None Storage Length 0 - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 1 490 5 31 424 Major /Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1001 514 0 0 516 0 Stage 1 514 - - - - - Stage 2 487 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - Follow -up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 269 560 1050 Stage 1 600 - - - Stage 2 618 - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 254 550 1050 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 254 - - - Stage 1 589 Stage 2 594 Approach WB NB SIB HCM Control Delay, s 11.6 0 0.6 HCM LOS B Minor Lane /Major Mvmt NBT NBR WBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (vehlh) 550 1050 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.002 0.03 - HCM Control Delay (s) 11.6 8.5 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0.1 Arata Property 5:00 pm 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 350 Synchro 8 Report Fehr & Peers Page 3 HCM 2010 TWSC 4: San Mateo Avenue 12/3/2014 Intersection Int Delay, s /veh 0.3 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Vol, veh /h 3 21 485 0 0 409 Conflicting Peds, # /hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None None None Storage Length 0 - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 3 23 527 0 0 445 Major /Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 972 527 0 0 527 0 Stage 1 527 - - - - - Stage 2 445 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - Follow -up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 280 551 1040 Stage 1 592 - - - Stage 2 646 - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 280 551 1040 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 280 - - - Stage 1 592 Stage 2 646 Approach WB NB SIB HCM Control Delay, s 12.7 0 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane /Major Mvmt NBT NBR WBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (vehlh) 492 1040 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.053 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 12.7 0 - HCM Lane LOS B A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0 - Arata Property 5:00 pm 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 350 Synchro 8 Report Fehr & Peers Page 4 FEHR PEERS ATTACHMENT C: DATA COLLECTION - PEAK PERIOD INTERSECTION COUNTS AND DRIVEWAY COUNTS CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MARKS TRAFFIC DATA mietekm @comcast.net 916.806.0250 Groups Printed- Vehicles Only File Name : airport -san mateo -a Site Code :7 Start Date : 9/10/2014 Page No :1 LStaTt AIRPORT BL Southbound S. AIRPORT BL Westbound AIRPORT BL SAN MATEO AV Eastbound Time RT I TH I LT I U -turn App. Total S. AIRPORT BL RT I TH I LT I App. Total RT I TH I LT I App. Total PRODUCE AV 15 43 SAN MATEO AV 32 32 22 86 647 Southbound 22 173 41 Westbound 237 46 Northbound 82 178 Eastbound 8 48 Start Tune RT TH LT U -turn App. Total RT TH I LT App. Total RT TH I LT App. Total RT T-1 F LT App. Total Int. Total 07:00 18 181 24 1 224 32 31 76 139 70 6 30 106 39 21 13 73 542 07:15 17 170 40 2 229 34 37 70 141 76 5 35 116 24 35 19 78 564 07:30 17 179 32 1 229 46 34 87 167 88 5 32 125 29 47 8 84 605 07:45 20 174 46 3 243 38 40 88 166 91 12 43 146 24 37 16 77 632 Total 72 704 142 7 925 150 142 321 613 325 28 140 493 116 140 56 312 2 343 08:00 19 170 48 5 242 40 39 96 175 86 15 43 144 32 32 22 86 647 08:15 22 173 41 1 237 46 50 82 178 78 8 48 134 23 36 20 79 628 08:30 17 169 33 1 220 45 44 86 175 69 5 36 110 37 47 24 108 613 08:45 18 153 28 0 199 72 47 98 217 76 8 59 143 36 35 32 103 662 Total 76 665 150 7 898 203 180 362 745 309 36 186 531 128 150 98 376 2550 Grand Total 148 1369 292 14 1823 353 322 683 1358 634 64 326 1024 244 290 154 688 4893 Apprch % 8.1 75.1 16 0.8 26 23.7 50.3 61.9 6.2 31.8 35.5 42.2 22.4 Total % 3 28 6 0.3 37.3 7.2 6.6 14 27.8 13 1.3 6.7 20.9 5 5.9 3.1 14.1 LStaTt AIRPORT BL Southbound S. AIRPORT BL Westbound PRODUCE AV Northbound SAN MATEO AV Eastbound Time RT I TH I LT I U -turn App. Total RT I TH I LT I App. Total RT I TH I LT I App. Total RT I TH I LT I App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 to 08:45 - Peak 1 of I Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 08:00 Int. Total 08:00 19 170 48 5 242 40 39 96 175 86 15 43 144 32 32 22 86 647 08:15 22 173 41 1 237 46 50 82 178 78 8 48 134 23 36 20 79 628 08:30 17 169 33 1 220 45 44 86 175 69 5 36 110 37 47 24 108 613 08:45 18 153 28 0 199 72 47 98 217 76 8 59 143 36 35 32 103 662 Total Volume 76 665 150 7 898 203 180 362 745 309 36 186 531 128 150 98 376 2550 % App. Total 8.5 74.1 16.7 0.8 27.2 24.2 48.6 58.2 6.8 35 34 39.9 26.1 PHF .864 .961 .781 .350 .928 .705 .900 .923 .858 .898 .600 .788 .922 .865 .798 .766 .870 .963 AIRPORT BL Out In Total 337 898 F 1235 761 6651 1501 7 RT TH LT U -turn +-] 1 4 Peak Hour Data � 00 D ~ 0) Cn j North to o O Q O D co c ' CD x F� Peak Hour Begins at 08:00 �_ 8 a p CD to ;0 1 Fc74 N Vehicles Only ao U) 0 V N �O A � T r LT TH RT 186 36 309 1155 531 F 1686 Out In Total CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MARKS TRAFFIC DATA mietekm @comcast.net 916.806.0250 Groups Printed- Vehicles Only File Name : airport -san mateo -p Site Code :7 Start Date : 9/10/2014 Page No :1 LStalt AIRPORT BL Southbound AIRPORT BL PRODUCE AV Northbound SAN MATEO AV Eastbound S. AIRPORT BL RT I TH I LT I App. Total RT I TH I LT I App. Total PRODUCE AV I RT I TH LT I App. Total 8 SAN MATEO AV 89 53 44 30 Southbound 901 17:00 Westbound 272 37 Northbound 99 45 Eastbound 338 39 Start Tune RT TH I LT A . Total RT TH LT App. Total RT TH LT A . Total RT TH LT App. Total Int. Total 16:00 19 222 22 263 69 51 185 305 45 13 27 85 50 32 30 112 765 16:15 14 249 30 293 94 42 192 328 64 8 35 107 39 35 21 95 823 16:30 47 223 21 291 95 53 176 324 49 7 32 88 47 38 25 110 813 16:45 24 256 31 311 97 44 233 374 50 8 31 89 53 44 30 127 901 Total 104 950 104 1158 355 190 786 1331 208 36 125 369 189 149 106 444 3302 17:00 26 272 37 335 99 45 194 338 39 6 34 79 75 48 41 164 916 17:15 29 264 29 322 127 65 198 390 50 5 23 78 46 35 30 111 901 17:30 16 278 26 320 127 53 202 382 66 3 25 94 46 40 40 126 922 17:45 29 235 20 284 117 57 214 388 41 4 17 62 45 33 39 117 851 Total 100 1049 112 1261 470 220 808 1498 196 18 99 313 212 156 150 518 3590 Grand Total 204 1999 216 2419 825 410 1594 2829 404 54 224 682 401 305 256 962 6892 Apprch % 8.4 82.6 8.9 29.2 14.5 56.3 59.2 7.9 32.8 41.7 31.7 26.6 Total % 3 29 3.1 35.1 12 5.9 23.1 41 5.9 0.8 3.3 9.9 5.8 4.4 3.7 14 LStalt AIRPORT BL Southbound S. AIRPORT BL Westbound PRODUCE AV Northbound SAN MATEO AV Eastbound Time RT I TH I LT I App. Total RT I TH I LT I App. Total RT I TH I LT I App. Total I RT I TH LT I App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 16:00 to 17:45 - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 16:45 Int. Total 16:45 24 256 31 311 97 44 233 374 50 8 31 89 53 44 30 127 901 17:00 26 272 37 335 99 45 194 338 39 6 34 79 75 48 41 164 916 17:15 29 264 29 322 127 65 198 390 50 5 23 78 46 35 30 111 901 17:30 16 278 26 320 127 53 202 382 66 3 25 94 46 40 40 126 922 Total Volume 95 1070 123 1288 450 207 827 1484 205 22 113 340 220 167 141 528 3640 % App. Total 7.4 83.1 9.5 30.3 13.9 55.7 60.3 6.5 33.2 41.7 31.6 26.7 PHF 1 .819 .962 .831 .961 .886 .796 .887 951 .777 .688 .831 .904 .733 .870 .860 .805 .987 AIRPORT BL Out In Total 613 1288 F 1901 95 1070 123 T L 4 1 4 Peak Hour Data T �o North LA -N 0 vn O ° D_ Lu �� m Peak Hour Begins at 16:45 4 M o :b O N Vehicles Only m U) O v 4�d m- Z LT TH RT 113 22 205 2117 340 F 2457 Out In Total MARKS TRAFFIC DATA mietekm @comcast.net 916.806.0250 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO File Name : san mateo -body shop -a Site Code : 2 Start Date : 9/10/2014 Page No :1 Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 to 08:45 - Peak 1 of 1 Pool T]..,.. Tnfo —.-;— Run:..c of ne•nn Int. Total 08:00 SAN MATEO AV Southbound SAN MATEO AV SAN MATEO AV Northbound PENINSULA AUTO BODY Start Time RT I TH I LT I App. Total SAN MATEO AV RT I TH I LT I App. Total RT I TH LT I App. Total JOHNSTON SUPPLY 0 88 0 0 Southbound 1 174 Westbound 1 88 Northbound 89 0 Eastbound 0 0 Start Time RT TH LT App. Total RT TH LT App. Total RT TH F LT App. Total RT I THT LT I App. Total Int. Total 07:00 0 64 1 65 0 0 0 0 0 74 0 74 0 0 0 0 139 07:15 0 67 0 67 0 0 0 0 0 70 2 72 1 0 0 1 140 07:30 0 73 0 73 0 0 0 0 1 78 2 81 0 0 1 1 155 07:45 1 87 0 88 0 0 0 0 0 68 0 68 0 0 2 2 158 Total 1 291 1 293 0 0 0 0 1 290 4 295 1 0 3 4 592 08:00 0 84 0 84 0 0 1 1 0 88 0 88 0 0 1 1 174 08:15 1 88 0 89 0 0 0 0 0 69 0 69 0 0 1 1 159 08:30 0 78 0 78 0 0 0 0 0 101 0 101 0 0 0 0 179 08:45 0 85 1 86 0 0 0 0 0 94 0 94 0 0 0 0 180 Total 1 335 1 337 0 0 1 1 0 352 0 352 0 0 2 2 692 Grand Total 2 526 2 630 0 0 1 1 1 642 4 647 1 0 5 6 1284 Apprch % 0.3 99.4 0.3 0 0 100 0.2 99.2 0.6 16.7 0 83.3 Total % 0.2 48.8 0.2 49.1 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 50 0.3 50.4 0.1 0 0.4 0.5 Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 to 08:45 - Peak 1 of 1 Pool T]..,.. Tnfo —.-;— Run:..c of ne•nn Int. Total 08:00 SAN MATEO AV Southbound PENINSULA AUTO BODY Westbound SAN MATEO AV Northbound JOHNSTON SUPPLY Eastbound Start Time RT I TH I LT I App. Total RT I TH I LT I App. Total RT I TH I LT I App. Total RT I TH LT I App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 to 08:45 - Peak 1 of 1 Pool T]..,.. Tnfo —.-;— Run:..c of ne•nn Int. Total 08:00 0 84 0 84 0 0 1 1 0 88 0 88 0 0 1 1 174 08:15 1 88 0 89 0 0 0 0 0 69 0 69 0 0 1 1 159 08:30 0 78 0 78 0 0 0 0 0 101 0 101 0 0 0 0 179 08:45 0 85 1 86 0 0 0 0 0 94 0 94 0 0 0 0 180 Total Volume 1 335 1 337 0 0 1 1 0 352 0 352 0 0 2 2 692 % App. Total 0.3 99.4 0.3 0 0 100 0 100 0 0 0 100 PHF .250 .952 .250 .947 .000 .000 .250 .250 .000 .871 .000 .871 .000 .000 .500 .500 .961 M R J N a J� Z S o z Z o 0 �O SAN MATEO AV Out In Total 3541 337 F 691 1 335 1 T L 4 1 L+ Peak Hour Data North Peak Hour Begins at 08:00 Vehicles Only LT TH RT 0 352 0 336 352 F 688 Out In Total SAN MATFQ AV n m O L�I � E Z N Z O U) n =1 I H 1= i W o_ 0 N 5 '� MARKS TRAFFIC DATA mietekm @comcast.net 916.806.0250 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO File Name : san mateo -body shop -p Site Code : 2 Start Date : 9/10/2014 Page No :1 Peak Hour Analysis From 16:00 to 17:45 - Peak 1 of 1 Pool T]..,.. £n. Rnfi�u Tnforcunf:n« Run:..c of 1 F 1 S Int. Total 16:15 SAN MATEO AV Southbound SAN MATEO AV SAN MATEO AV Northbound PENINSULA AUTO BODY Start Time RT I TH I LT I App. Total SAN MATEO AV RT I TH I LT I App. Total RT I TH LT I App. Total JOHNSTON SUPPLY 0 87 0 0 Southbound 0 170 Westbound 0 91 Northbound 92 0 Eastbound 0 0 Start Time RT TH LT App. Total RT TH LT App. Total RT TH F LT App. Total RT I THT LT I App. Total Int. Total 16:00 0 89 0 89 1 0 0 1 0 83 0 83 0 0 0 0 173 16:15 0 82 1 83 0 0 0 0 0 87 0 87 0 0 0 0 170 16:30 0 91 1 92 0 0 0 0 1 94 0 95 0 0 0 0 187 16:45 0 93 0 93 l 0 0 1 0 110 0 110 0 0 1 1 205 Total 0 355 2 357 2 0 0 2 1 374 0 375 0 0 1 1 735 17:00 0 99 0 99 0 0 0 0 0 130 0 130 0 0 1 1 230 17:15 0 81 0 81 1 0 0 1 1 83 0 84 1 0 0 1 167 17:30 0 90 0 90 0 0 1 1 0 95 0 95 0 0 0 0 186 17:45 0 89 0 89 0 0 0 0 0 99 0 99 0 0 0 0 188 Total 0 359 0 359 1 0 1 2 1 407 0 408 1 0 l 2 771 Grand Total 0 714 2 716 3 0 1 4 2 781 0 783 1 0 2 3 1506 Apprch % 0 99.7 0.3 75 0 25 0.3 99.7 0 33.3 0 66.7 Total % 0 47.4 0.1 47.5 0.2 0 0.1 0.3 0.1 51.9 0 52 0.1 0 0.1 0.2 Peak Hour Analysis From 16:00 to 17:45 - Peak 1 of 1 Pool T]..,.. £n. Rnfi�u Tnforcunf:n« Run:..c of 1 F 1 S Int. Total 16:15 SAN MATEO AV Southbound PENINSULA AUTO BODY Westbound SAN MATEO AV Northbound JOHNSTON SUPPLY Eastbound Start Time RT I TH I LT I App. Total RT I TH I LT I App. Total RT I TH I LT I App. Total RT I TH LT I App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 16:00 to 17:45 - Peak 1 of 1 Pool T]..,.. £n. Rnfi�u Tnforcunf:n« Run:..c of 1 F 1 S Int. Total 16:15 0 82 1 83 0 0 0 0 0 87 0 87 0 0 0 0 170 16:30 0 91 1 92 0 0 0 0 1 94 0 95 0 0 0 0 187 16:45 0 93 0 93 1 0 0 1 0 110 0 110 0 0 1 1 205 17:00 0 99 0 99 0 0 0 0 0 130 0 130 0 0 1 1 230 Total Volume 0 365 2 367 1 0 0 1 1 421 0 422 0 0 2 2 792 % App. Total 0 99.5 0.5 100 0 0 0.2 99.8 0 0 0 100 PHF 1 .000 .922 .500 .927 .250 .000 .000 .250 .250 .810 .000 .812 .000 .000 .500 .500 .861 N J H N a� W W N O Z S o z Z o 0 O� �O SAN MATEO AV Out In Total 4241 367 F 791 0 365 2 T L 4 1 L+ Peak Hour Data North Peak Hour Begins at 16:15 Vehicles Only T LT TH RT 0 421 1 365 422 787 Out In Total SAN MATFQ AV Om ZA� WI E Z Z rn n =1 I H 1= i co, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MARKS TRAFFIC DATA mietekm @comcast.net 916.806.0250 Groups Printed- Vehicles Onl File Name : san mateo - lowrie -a Site Code : 1 Start Date : 9/10/2014 Page No : 1 LStalt SAN MATEO AV Southbound SAN MATEO AV SAN MATEO AV Northbound LOWRIE AV (NORTH) Eastbound 0 RT I TH I LT I App. Total RT I TH I LT I App. Total RT I TH I LT I App. Total SAN MATEO AV 69 2 LOWRIE AV (NORTH) 0 0 6 6 Southbound 08:00 15 Westbound 0 100 Northbound 0 0 Eastbound 0 83 Start Time RT TH LT A . Total RT TH LT App. Total RT TH LT App. Total RT TH LT App. Total Int. Total 07:00 9 66 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 69 3 72 1 0 2 3 150 07:15 14 68 0 82 0 0 0 0 0 71 1 72 0 0 12 12 166 07:30 11 72 0 83 0 0 0 0 0 77 1 78 0 0 3 3 164 07:45 8 88 0 96 0 0 0 0 0 69 2 71 0 0 6 6 173 Total 42 294 0 336 0 0 0 0 0 286 7 293 1 0 23 24 653 08:00 15 85 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 83 5 88 0 0 8 8 196 08:15 27 85 0 112 0 0 0 0 0 70 2 72 2 0 9 11 195 08:30 14 77 0 91 0 0 0 0 0 99 3 102 2 0 7 9 202 08:45 12 84 0 96 0 0 0 0 0 91 2 93 1 0 6 7 196 Total 68 331 0 399 0 0 0 0 0 343 12 355 5 0 30 35 789 Grand Total 110 625 0 735 0 0 0 0 0 629 19 648 6 0 53 59 1442 Apprch % 15 85 0 0 0 0 0 97.1 2.9 10.2 0 89.8 Total % 7.6 43.3 0 51 0 0 0 0 0 43.6 1.3 44.9 0.4 0 3.7 4.1 LStalt SAN MATEO AV Southbound 0 Westbound SAN MATEO AV Northbound LOWRIE AV (NORTH) Eastbound Time RT I TH I LT I App. Total RT I TH I LT I App. Total RT I TH I LT I App. Total RT I TH LT I App, Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 to 08:30 - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 Int. Total 07:45 8 88 0 96 0 0 0 0 0 69 2 71 0 0 6 6 173 08:00 15 85 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 83 5 88 0 0 8 8 196 08:15 27 85 0 112 0 0 0 0 0 70 2 72 2 0 9 11 195 08:30 14 77 0 91 0 0 0 0 0 99 3 102 2 0 7 9 202 Total Volume 64 335 0 399 0 0 0 0 0 321 12 333 4 0 30 34 766 % App. Total 16 84 0 0 0 0 0 96.4 3.6 11.8 0 88.2 PHF .593 .952 .000 .891 .000 .000 .000 .000 1 .000 .811 .600 .816 .500 .000 .833 .773 .948 SAN MATEO AV Out In Total 3511 399 F 750 64 335 0 T L 4 1 L+ Peak Hour Data �° M North A O o �► Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 4—_ w o 0 iY o Vehicles Only r O�� �� J O �N LT TH RT 12 321 0 339 333 7 672 Out In Total SAN MATFQ AV CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MARKS TRAFFIC DATA mietekm @comcast.net 916.806.0250 Groups Printed- Vehicles Onl File Name : san mateo - lowrie -p Site Code : 1 Start Date : 9/10/2014 Page No : 1 LStalt SAN MATEO AV Southbound SAN MATEO AV SAN MATEO AV Northbound LOWRIE AV Eastbound 0 RT I TH I LT I App. Total RT I TH I LT I App. Total RT I TH I LT I App. Total SAN MATEO AV 107 4 LOWRIE AV 3 0 13 16 Southbound 17:00 5 Westbound 0 98 Northbound 0 0 Eastbound 0 127 Start Tune RT TH LT Ap,. Total RT TH LT App. Total RT I TH F LT A . Total RT I TH LT App. Total Int. Total 16:00 7 85 0 92 0 0 0 0 0 83 2 85 5 0 14 19 196 16:15 8 79 0 87 0 0 0 0 0 84 2 86 2 0 11 13 186 16:30 10 89 0 99 0 0 0 0 0 90 3 93 2 0 16 18 210 16:45 10 90 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 107 4 111 3 0 13 16 227 Total 35 343 0 378 0 0 0 0 0 364 11 375 12 0 54 66 819 17:00 5 93 0 98 0 0 0 0 0 127 4 131 6 0 25 31 260 17:15 10 78 0 88 0 0 0 0 0 83 2 85 2 0 17 19 192 17:30 13 86 0 99 0 0 0 0 0 89 5 94 3 0 24 27 220 17:45 6 85 0 91 0 0 0 0 0 96 2 98 3 0 9 12 201 Total 34 342 0 376 0 0 0 0 0 395 13 408 14 0 75 89 873 Grand Total 69 585 0 754 0 0 0 0 0 759 24 783 26 0 129 155 1692 Apprch % 9.2 90.8 0 0 0 0 0 96.9 3.1 16.8 0 83.2 Total % 4.1 40.5 0 44.6 0 0 0 0 0 44.9 1.4 46.3 1.5 0 7.6 9.2 LStalt SAN MATEO AV Southbound 0 Westbound SAN MATEO AV Northbound LOWRIE AV Eastbound Time RT I TH I LT I App. Total RT I TH I LT I App. Total RT I TH I LT I App. Total RT I TH LT I App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 16:00 to 17:45 - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 16:45 Int. Total 16:45 10 90 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 107 4 111 3 0 13 16 227 17:00 5 93 0 98 0 0 0 0 0 127 4 131 6 0 25 31 260 17:15 10 78 0 88 0 0 0 0 0 83 2 85 2 0 17 19 192 17:30 13 86 0 99 0 0 0 0 0 89 5 94 3 0 24 27 220 Total Volume 38 347 0 385 0 0 0 0 0 406 15 421 14 0 79 93 899 % App. Total 9.9 90.1 0 0 0 0 0 96.4 3.6 15.1 0 84.9 PHF .731 .933 .000 .963 .000 .000 .000 .000 1 .000 .799 .750 .803 .583 .000 .790 .750 .864 SAN MATEO AV Out In Total 4851 385 F 870 38 347 0 T L 4 1 L+ Peak Hour Data ca� �- T 0� j North A � o W c m o Peak Hour Begins 0 0 —j M * Vehicles Only Or �� �� o 0 �m LT TH RT 15 406 0 3611 421 7 782 Out In Total SAN MATFO AV MARKS TRAFFIC DATA Page 1 mietekm @comcast.net CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 916.806.0250 SAN MATEO AV. S/O LOWRIE AV. NORTHBOUND Site Code: 2 san mateo -n 10 -Sep- 11 -Sep- Start Wed Hourly Totals Thu Hourly Totals Total 14 14 Time A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. 12:00 19 131 * * 19 131 12:15 13 107 * * 13 107 12:30 17 103 * * 17 103 12:45 13 77 62 418 * * 0 0 13 77 01:00 14 117 * * 14 117 01:15 3 100 * * 3 100 01:30 13 115 * * 13 115 01:45 22 120 52 452 * * 0 0 22 120 02:00 8 122 * * 8 122 02:15 15 98 * * 15 98 02:30 16 92 * * 16 92 02:45 10 112 49 424 * * 0 0 10 112 03:00 4 128 * * 4 128 03:15 16 95 * * 16 95 03:30 10 101 * * 10 101 03:45 26 120 56 444 * * 0 0 26 120 04:00 16 89 * * 16 89 04:15 26 97 * * 26 97 04:30 23 105 * * 23 105 04:45 26 108 91 399 * * 0 0 26 108 05:00 23 130 * * 23 130 05:15 38 89 * * 38 89 05:30 41 105 * * 41 105 05:45 55 98 157 422 * * 0 0 55 98 06:00 58 73 * * 58 73 06:15 55 67 * * 55 67 06:30 93 67 * * 93 67 06:45 85 70 291 277 * * 0 0 85 70 07:00 104 73 * * 104 73 07:15 97 50 * * 97 50 07:30 98 63 * * 98 63 07:45 97 36 396 222 * * 0 0 97 36 08:00 98 73 * * 98 73 08:15 85 37 * * 85 37 08:30 114 47 * 114 47 08:45 119 44 416 201 * * 0 0 119 44 09:00 119 41 * * 119 41 09:15 93 36 93 36 09:30 94 59 * * 94 59 09:45 101 27 407 163 0 0 101 27 10:00 118 61 * * 118 61 10:15 91 28 91 28 10:30 81 30 * * 81 30 10:45 105 28 395 147 0 0 105 28 11:00 97 23 * * 97 23 11:15 109 15 109 15 11:30 113 24 * * 113 24 11:45 112 19 431 81 0 0 112 19 Total 2803 3650 0 0 2803 3650 Day Total 6453 0 6453 Percent 43.4% 56.6% 0.0% 0.0% 43.4% 56.6% Peak 08:30 01:15 08:30 01:15 Vol. 445 457 445 457 P.H.F. 0.935 0.936 0.935 0.936 MARKS TRAFFIC DATA mietekm @comcast.net CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 916.806.0250 SAN MATEO AV. S/O LOWRIE AV. SOUTHBOUND Page 1 Site Code: 4a san mateo -s 10 -Sep- 11 -Sep- Start Wed Hourly Totals Thu Hourly Totals Total 14 14 Time A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. 12:00 21 102 21 102 12:15 11 98 11 98 12:30 20 93 20 93 12:45 18 97 70 390 0 0 18 97 01:00 12 101 12 101 01:15 11 107 11 107 01:30 6 129 6 129 01:45 19 104 48 441 0 0 19 104 02:00 17 102 17 102 02:15 23 90 23 90 02:30 21 93 21 93 02:45 12 107 73 392 0 0 12 107 03:00 13 95 13 95 03:15 8 103 8 103 03:30 6 80 6 80 03:45 22 86 49 364 0 0 22 86 04:00 18 88 18 88 04:15 26 97 26 97 04:30 27 92 27 92 04:45 29 101 100 378 0 0 29 101 05:00 35 99 35 99 05:15 46 88 46 88 05:30 48 90 48 90 05:45 55 93 184 370 0 0 55 93 06:00 47 80 47 80 06:15 72 59 72 59 06:30 65 62 65 62 06:45 76 84 260 285 0 0 76 84 07:00 71 54 71 54 07:15 76 46 76 46 07:30 81 60 81 60 07:45 101 59 329 219 0 0 101 59 08:00 91 34 91 34 08:15 110 35 110 35 08:30 85 35 85 35 08:45 98 51 384 155 0 0 98 51 09:00 110 28 110 28 09:15 102 28 102 28 09:30 97 33 97 33 09:45 86 26 395 115 0 0 86 26 10:00 89 39 89 39 10:15 98 24 98 24 10:30 117 40 117 40 10:45 112 24 416 127 0 0 112 24 11:00 111 16 111 16 11:15 88 15 88 15 11:30 113 11 113 11 11:45 108 16 420 58 0 0 108 16 Total 2728 3294 0 0 2728 3294 Day Total 6022 0 6022 Percent 45.3% 54.7% 0.0% 0.0% 45.3% 54.7% Peak 10:15 01:15 10:15 01:15 Vol. 438 442 438 442 P.H.F. 0.936 0.857 0.936 0.857 MARKS TRAFFIC DATA Page 1 mietekm @comcast.net CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 916.806.0250 PAYLESS CAR RENTAL DRIVEWAY ON CAROLAN AV. Site Code: 3 carolan dwy Start 10- Sep -14 IN Hour Totals OUT Hour Totals Both Dir. Total 12:00 0 2 0 1 0 3 12:15 0 7 0 2 0 9 12:30 0 5 0 0 0 5 12:45 0 4 0 18 0 3 0 6 0 7 01:00 0 2 0 0 0 2 01:15 0 6 0 0 0 6 01:30 0 9 0 0 0 9 01:45 0 8 0 25 0 3 0 3 0 11 02:00 0 1 0 3 0 4 02:15 0 3 0 7 0 10 02:30 0 4 0 1 0 5 02:45 0 5 0 13 0 4 0 15 0 9 03:00 0 4 0 3 0 7 03:15 0 6 0 2 0 8 03:30 0 6 0 2 0 8 03:45 0 4 0 20 0 2 0 9 0 6 04:00 0 9 0 0 0 9 04:15 0 4 0 0 0 4 04:30 0 6 0 0 0 6 04:45 0 6 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 6 05:00 0 5 0 0 0 5 05:15 0 4 0 0 0 4 05:30 0 8 0 0 0 8 05:45 0 1 0 18 0 3 0 3 0 4 06:00 0 3 0 3 0 6 06:15 0 3 0 2 0 5 06:30 1 2 0 4 1 6 06:45 0 6 1 14 0 1 0 10 0 7 07:00 0 2 0 0 0 2 07:15 0 2 0 1 0 3 07:30 3 0 0 4 3 4 07:45 1 0 4 4 0 0 0 5 1 0 08:00 1 0 0 3 1 3 08:15 5 2 1 5 6 7 08:30 2 1 0 4 2 5 08:45 3 0 11 3 0 1 1 13 3 1 09:00 0 0 2 4 2 4 09:15 3 1 0 5 3 6 09:30 3 0 0 1 3 1 09:45 1 0 7 1 4 1 6 11 5 1 10:00 0 0 3 1 3 1 10:15 0 0 3 2 3 2 10:30 2 0 5 2 7 2 10:45 6 2 8 2 1 1 12 6 7 3 11:00 4 0 0 2 4 2 11:15 6 0 1 1 7 1 11:30 3 0 0 0 3 0 11:45 7 20 0 2 3 3 9 Total 51 143 22 84 73 227 Day Total 194 106 300 Percent 26.3% 73.7% 20.8% 79.2% 24.3% 75.7% Peak 11:00 01:00 09:45 02:00 10:30 01:30 Vol. 20 25 15 15 25 34 P.H.F. 0.714 0.694 0.750 0.536 0.893 0.773 MARKS TRAFFIC DATA Page 1 mietekm @comcast.net CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 916.806.0250 PAYLESS CAR RENTAL DRIVEWAY ON ROLLINS RD Site Code: 3 rollins dwy Start 10- Sep -14 OUT Hour Totals IN Hour Totals Both Dir. Total Time Wed A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. 12:00 0 4 0 0 0 4 12:15 0 9 0 0 0 9 12:30 0 4 0 0 0 4 12:45 0 7 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 7 01:00 0 2 0 0 0 2 01:15 0 8 0 0 0 8 01:30 0 6 0 0 0 6 01:45 0 6 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 6 02:00 0 9 0 0 0 9 02:15 0 2 0 4 0 6 02:30 0 0 0 5 0 5 02:45 0 1 0 12 0 1 0 10 0 2 03:00 0 6 0 0 0 6 03:15 0 3 0 0 0 3 03:30 0 12 0 0 0 12 03:45 0 7 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 7 04:00 0 5 0 0 0 5 04:15 0 6 0 0 0 6 04:30 0 8 0 0 0 8 04:45 0 3 0 22 0 1 0 1 0 4 05:00 0 0 0 5 0 5 05:15 0 0 0 6 0 6 05:30 1 0 1 5 2 5 05:45 3 0 4 0 1 7 2 23 4 7 06:00 0 0 2 3 2 3 06:15 0 0 1 6 1 6 06:30 0 0 1 6 1 6 06:45 0 0 0 0 1 2 5 17 1 2 07:00 0 0 2 1 2 1 07:15 0 0 3 3 3 3 07:30 0 0 2 2 2 2 07:45 0 0 0 0 2 2 9 8 2 2 08:00 0 0 3 2 3 2 08:15 0 0 1 4 1 4 08:30 0 1 1 1 1 2 08:45 0 1 0 2 5 3 10 10 5 4 09:00 0 0 9 3 9 3 09:15 0 0 0 2 0 2 09:30 0 0 5 0 5 0 09:45 0 0 0 0 6 1 20 6 6 1 10:00 0 0 5 1 5 1 10:15 2 0 5 2 7 2 10:30 0 0 13 0 13 0 10:45 0 1 2 1 6 3 29 6 6 4 11:00 0 2 6 1 6 3 11:15 0 3 7 2 7 5 11:30 0 0 4 1 4 1 11:45 2 0 2 5 0 0 17 4 2 0 Total 8 116 92 85 100 201 Day Total 124 177 301 Percent 6.5% 93.5% 52.0% 48.0% 33.2% 66.8% Peak 05:00 03:30 10:30 05:00 10:15 03:30 Vol. 4 30 32 23 32 30 P.H.F. 0.333 0.625 0.615 0.821 0.615 0.625 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program July 2016 The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines require Lead Agencies to adopt a program for monitoring the mitigation measures required to avoid the significant environmental impacts of a project. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) ensures that mitigation measures imposed by the City are completed at the appropriate time in the development process. The mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project are listed in the MMRP along with the party responsible for monitoring implementation of the mitigation measure, the milestones for implementation and monitoring, and a sign -off that the mitigation measure has been implemented. 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program July 2016 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 1440 SAN MATEO AVENUE PROJECT Compliance Mitigation Monitoring Implementation Verification Number Mitigation Measure Agency Schedule (Date / Initials) Biological Resources IV -1 Within 14 days prior to commencing construction work during the City of South Within 14 days prior to avian nesting season (March 1 to September 1), a qualified San Francisco commencing biologist shall conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey within Planning construction work the site boundaries and the vegetated area between the site's Division during the avian nesting northerly boundary and Colma Creek (If construction work would season (March 1 to not occur during the nesting season, a nesting survey is not September 1) required). If special- status birds are not identified nesting within the area of effect, further mitigation is not required. If special- status birds are identified nesting within the area of effect, a 75 -foot no- disturbance buffer around the nest(s) shall be staked with orange construction fencing. Construction or earth- moving activities shall be restricted within the identified buffer until the determination is made by a qualified biologist that the young have fledged (i.e., left the nest) and have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid project construction zones. This typically occurs by June 15 'h ; however, the date may be later and would have to be determined by a qualified ornithologist. The preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be submitted for review and approval by the City of South San Francisco Planning Division. Cultural Resources V -1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, project City of South Prior to the issuance of plans shall include a requirement (via notation) indicating that if San Francisco a grading permit or historic and /or cultural resources, or human remains are Planning building permit encountered during site grading or other site work, all such work Division shall be halted immediately within 100 feet of the area of discovery and the contractor shall immediately notify the City of the discovery. In such case, the applicant shall retain the services of a qualified archaeologist for the purpose of recording, protecting, or curating the discovery as appropriate. The archaeologist shall be required to submit to the City for review and approval a report of the findings and method of curation or protection of the resources. Further grading or site work within the vicinity of the discovery, as identified by the qualified archaeologist, shall not be allowed until the 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project 2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program July 2016 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 1440 SAN MATEO AVENUE PROJECT Compliance Mitigation Monitoring Implementation Verification Number Mitigation Measure Agency Schedule (Date / Initials) preceding steps have been taken. All fees associated with the services of the qualified archaeologist shall be paid by the project applicant. V -2 Pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5 (c) State Public City of South During construction if Resources Code §5097.98, if human bone or bone of unknown San Francisco human bone or bone of origin is found during construction, all work shall stop in the vicinity Planning unknown origin is found of the find and the San Mateo County Coroner shall be contacted Division immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission San Mateo who shall notify the person believed to be the most likely County descendant. The most likely descendant shall work with the Coroner (if contractor to develop a program for re- internment of the human bone remains and any associated artifacts. Additional work is not to take detected) place in the immediate vicinity of the find, which shall be identified by the qualified archaeologist, until the identified appropriate actions have been implemented. All fees associated with the services of the qualified archaeologist shall be paid by the project applicant. 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project 3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program July 2016 P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 • City of South San Francisco Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA Legislation Text File #: 16 -714, Version: 1 An Ordinance amending the South San Francisco Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance to rezone three vacant parcels (APN 015 - 114 -420, APN 015- 114 -480, and APN 015- 114 -490) from the Freeway Commercial to the Mixed Industrial zoning district to allow the expansion of a vehicle rental facility at 1440 San Mateo Avenue. WHEREAS, on June 19, 2015, the property identified as 1440 San Mateo Avenue received approval from the Zoning Administrator for a Minor Use Permit (MUP15 -0001) to operate a vehicle rental facility on two vacant parcels (APNs 015- 114 -470 and 015- 114 -460) in the Mixed Industrial zoning district; and WHEREAS, since that time the applicant has requested that the City consider rezoning three adjoining parcels (APNs 015- 114 -420, 015- 114 -480, and 015- 114 -490) from the Freeway Commercial to Mixed Industrial zoning district to permit the vehicle rental facility to expand ( "Project "); and WHEREAS, all of the parcels associated with the approved rental facility and the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance ( "Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment" or "Amendment ") are under common ownership; and WHEREAS, City staff has evaluated the request and determined that the proposed Project and associated Amendment would be consistent with the surrounding land uses and operation; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared the Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment to rezone the three adjoining parcels (APNs 015- 114 -420, 015- 114 -480, and 015- 114 -490) from the Freeway Commercial to the Mixed Industrial zoning district; and WHEREAS, the proposed Amendment is consistent with the General Plan, as certain industrial uses are permitted under the Community Commercial /Regional Commercial General Plan designation; and WHEREAS, cumulatively, the Amendment provides flexibility for the applicant and property owner to fully utilize their parcels, which are otherwise inaccessible to a separate user and are unlikely to redevelop with a use permitted under the Freeway Commercial zoning district, which prioritizes large format retail development; and WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS /MND) for the Project; and WHEREAS, the IS /MND was circulated for the required 30 -day public comment period which began on June 10, 2016, and ended on July 11, 2016, at 5:00 p.m.; and WHEREAS, no comments were received on the document; and City of South San Francisco Page 1 of 4 Printed on 10/14/2016 powered by Legistarl" File #: 16 -714, Version: 1 WHEREAS, on July 21, 2016, the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the IS/MND (ND16- 0001), Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment (RZ15 -0001, ZA15- 0011), and modifications to Minor Use Permit (MUP15- 0001); and WHEREAS, on July 21, 2016, the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco reviewed and carefully considered the information and recommended that the City Council approve the IS/MND, adopt an Ordinance amending the Zoning Map and Ordinance, and approve the modification to the existing Minor Use Permit; and WHEREAS, on September 28, 2016, the City Council for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the IS/MND (ND16- 0001), Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment (RZ15 -0001, ZA15- 0011), and modifications to Minor Use Permit (MUP15- 0001). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that based on the entirety of the Record before it, as described below, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ORDAIN as follows: SECTION I. FINDINGS. Based on the entirety of the record as described above, the City Council for the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the following findings: I. General Findines 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Ordinance. 2. The Record for these proceedings, and upon which this Ordinance is based, includes without limitation, Federal and State law; the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. ( "CEQA ")) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations § 15000, et seq.); the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR, including all amendments and updates thereto; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the draft Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment, the IS /MND and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared by Raney Planning & Management, Inc., the proposed modification to Minor Use Permit (MUP 15-000 1), and all appendices thereto; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's duly noticed July 21, 2016 meeting; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council's duly noticed September 28, 2016 meeting; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2) 3. The Revised Zoning Map attached as Exhibit A to this Ordinance is incorporated by reference and made a part of this Ordinance, as if set forth fully herein. 4. By separate Resolution, the City Council, exercising its independent judgment and analysis, has found that an IS /MND was prepared for the Project in accordance with CEQA, which analyzes the proposed City of South San Francisco Page 2 of 4 Printed on 10/14/2016 powered by LegistarTM File #: 16 -714, Version: 1 Project, and which IS/MND adequately discloses and analyzes the proposed Project's potentially significant environmental impacts and its cumulative impacts; accordingly, the City Council certifies the IS /MND for the Project in accordance with CEQA. 5. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of the Planning Manager, Sailesh Mehra. II. Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment Findings 1. The adoption of the proposed Project will include an amendment to the South San Francisco Zoning Map and Ordinance, maintained by the Planning Division. The Zoning Map and Ordinance will be amended to revise the zoning district designation from Freeway Commercial (FC) to Mixed Industrial (MI) for Assessor's Parcel Numbers 015- 114 -420, 015- 114 -480, and 015 -114 -490. 2. The proposed Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment meets the purposes of Chapter 20.550 and is consistent with the General Plan because the Amendment will reinforce many of the General Plan's Community Commercial policies, which recommend regional serving commercial uses including service stations, automobile sales and repair services. This area of the City, identified as the Lindenville Planning Sub -area in the General Plan, is the only industrial area west of U.S. 101 and thus, provides important light industrial uses, such as vehicle rental, within proximity to the residents of the City. Further the change in zoning designation does not conflict with any specific plans, and will remain consistent with the surrounding land uses, which include industrial and commercial development, such as automobile services and long -term parking lot uses. The proposed Amendment will not conflict with or impede achievement of any of the goals, policies, or land use designations established in the General Plan. 3. The subject property (designated parcels) is suitable for the uses permitted in the Mixed Industrial zoning district in terms of access, size of parcel, relationship to similar or related uses, and other considerations deemed relevant by the Planning Commission and City Council because the introduction of the Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment will activate three otherwise vacant parcels and allow the Mixed Industrial zoning district designation across all five properties under common ownership and operated by Payless Vehicle Rental. Although specific parcels would be affected as part of the Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment, the impact would be beneficial since property owners would have a wider range of uses to improve or develop upon their property and the uses permitted under the Mixed Industrial zoning district would not preclude surrounding development on the adjacent Freeway Commercial (FC) zoning district. The Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment is consistent with General Plan policies, specifically those policies related to regional serving uses. 4. The proposed Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment is not detrimental to the use of land in any adjacent zone because the Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment would support the existing development, land use, and performance standards defined by the Mixed Industrial zoning district which already govern the adjacent properties. Finally, the proposed Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, convenience, or welfare of the City or land within the City; instead, the Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment will bolster the public interest by utilizing vacant parcels for a permitted and regulated land use (vehicle rental), which is a regional serving use, consistent with surrounding uses, and recommended by the General Plan's land use element City of South San Francisco Page 3 of 4 Printed on 10/14/2016 powered by LegistarTM File #: 16 -714, Version: 1 and Lindenville planning sub -area. SECTION II. AMENDMENTS. The City Council hereby amends the South San Francisco Zoning Map, as shown in Exhibit A to reflect the proposed Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment. All other areas of the Zoning Map and Ordinance that are not amended by this Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment are not included in Exhibit A, and shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of this Ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable. SECTION IV. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE. Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance shall be prepared by the City Attorney. At least five (5) days prior to the Council meeting at which this Ordinance is scheduled to be adopted, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the Summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk's Office a certified copy of this Ordinance. Within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk's Office a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this Ordinance or otherwise voting. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption. City of South San Francisco Page 4 of 4 Printed on 10/14/2016 powered by LegistarTM Exhibit A — Rezone Map with Proposed Changes Rezone three (3) parcels from Freeway Commercial (FC) to Mixed Industrial (MI) FP 15.114- 42(j'. ra ' 015-114-48(): D15,114 4�j �: Rezone Map with Proposed Changes — Aerial View expanded Rezone three (3) parcels from Freeway Commercial (FC) to Mixed Industrial (MI) P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 • City of South San Francisco Grand Avenue) - South San Francisco, CA Legislation Text File #: 16 -718, Version: 1 Resolution modifying the existing Minor Use Permit (MUP15 -0001) to allow an expanded vehicle rental operation at 1440 San Mateo Avenue subject to the draft revised conditions of approval. WHEREAS, on June 19, 2015, the property identified as 1440 San Mateo Avenue received approval from the Zoning Administrator for a Minor Use Permit (MUP15 -0001) to operate a vehicle rental facility on two vacant parcels (APNs 015- 114 -470 and 015- 114 -460) in the Mixed Industrial zoning district; and WHEREAS, since that time the applicant has requested that the City consider rezoning three adjoining parcels (APNs 015- 114 -420, 015- 114 -480, and 015- 114 -490) from the Freeway Commercial to the Mixed Industrial zoning district to permit the vehicle rental facility to expand ( "Project "); and WHEREAS, all of the parcels associated with the approved vehicle rental facility and the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance ( "Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment" or "Amendment ") are under common ownership; and WHEREAS, City staff has evaluated the request and determined that the proposed Project and associated Amendment would be consistent with the surrounding land uses and operation; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared the Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance Amendment to rezone the three adjoining parcels (APNs 015- 114 -420, 015 -114 -480, and 015- 114 -490) from the Freeway Commercial to the Mixed Industrial; and WHEREAS, the proposed Amendment is consistent with the General Plan, as certain industrial uses are permitted under the Community Commercial/Regional Commercial General Plan designation; and WHEREAS, cumulatively, the Amendment provides flexibility for the applicant and property owner to fully utilize the parcels, which are otherwise inaccessible to a separate user and are unlikely to redevelop with a use permitted under the Freeway Commercial zoning district, which prioritizes large format retail development; and WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS /MND) for the Project; and WHEREAS, on July 21, 2016, the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the IS/MND (ND16- 0001), Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment (RZ15 -0001, ZA15- 0011), and modifications to Minor Use Permit (MUP15- 0001); and City of South San Francisco Page 1 of 4 Printed on 10/14/2016 powered by Legistarl" File #: 16 -718, Version: 1 WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of South San Francisco, by separate resolution, adopted the IS/MND. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq. (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations § 15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR, including all amendments and updates thereto; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the draft Zoning Map Amendment, the IS MND and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared by Raney Planning & Management, Inc., and all appendices thereto; revised Conditions of Approval for Minor Use Permit MUP15 -0001; Applicant statement letter and submitted plans, dated November 18, 2015; Zoning Administrator Staff Report dated June 19, 2015; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's duly noticed July 21, 2016 meeting; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council's duly noticed September 28, 2016 meeting and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: SECTION 1 FINDINGS I. General Findings 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2. The Exhibits attached to this Resolution, including the draft revised Conditions of Approval for Minor Use Permit (MUP15 -0001) (Exhibit A), and applicant letter and submitted plans (Exhibit B) are each incorporated by reference and made a part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein. 3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Planning Manager, Sailesh Mehra. 4. By separate Resolution, the City Council, exercising its independent judgment and analysis, has found that an IS/MND was prepared for the Project in accordance with CEQA, which adequately discloses, analyzes and mitigates the proposed Project's potentially significant environmental impacts; accordingly, the City Council has adopted the IS /MND for the Project in accordance with CEQA. II. Minor Use Permit Modification Findings 1. The proposed Project to expand automobile /vehicle rental use is allowed within the Mixed Industrial (MI) zoning district, as proposed for rezoning from the current Freeway Commercial (FC) zoning City of South San Francisco Page 2 of 4 Printed on 10/14/2016 powered by LegistarTM File #: 16 -718, Version: 1 district, with approval of a Minor Use Permit, and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and all other titles of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. 2. The proposed use, with approval of the Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment to rezone to MI from the current FC Zoning District, is consistent with the General Plan in that the Project site would be designated Community Commercial, which allows for a wide range of uses, including service commercial uses. Further, the proposed use is well suited to the vacant parcels, which have adequate storage area for rental vehicles. The proposed use would complement the previously approved vehicle rental operation, and would not preclude the site from other conforming uses in the future. Further, the proposed use does not conflict with any specific plans. 3. The proposed use will not be adverse to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the community, nor detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements, because the proposal involves reuse of vacant parcels for a vehicle rental use. The site is surrounded by other similar vehicle rental uses and based on staff analysis and the IS/MND, the use would not produce any adverse effects on the surrounding area. 4. The proposed use complies with design or development standards applicable to the zoning district, as proposed for rezoning to MI from the current FC zoning district, and the existing parking configuration meets applicable standards. 5. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed activity would be compatible with the existing and reasonably foreseeable future land uses in the vicinity because the proposed use will support a previously approved vehicle rental use; and the parcels will not be altered in a way as to preclude future compatible uses. 6. The site is physically suitable for the type, density, and intensity of use being proposed, including access, utilities, and the absence of physical constraints. 7. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Council, exercising its independent judgment and analysis, has found that an IS MND was prepared for the Project, which adequately discloses, analyzes and mitigates the proposed Project's potentially significant environmental impacts; accordingly, the City Council has adopted the IS/MND for the project in accordance with CEQA. SECTION 2 APPROVAL NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and takes the following actions: 1. Approves the modification of the existing Minor Use Permit (MUP15 -0001) to allow an expanded vehicle rental operation subject to the draft Revised Conditions of Approval for the Minor Use Permit attached as Exhibit A and applicant statement and submitted plans attached as Exhibit B. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and City of South San Francisco Page 3 of 4 Printed on 10/14/2016 powered by Legistarl" File M 16 -718, Version: 1 adoption. City of South San Francisco Page 4 of 4 Printed on 10/14/2016 powered by LegistarTM DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL P15 -0025: MUP15 -0001, DR15 -0024 1440 SAN MATEO AVENUE (As recommended for revision in double underline or stri-leth reug-h by City Staff on September 28, 2016) A) Planning Division requirements shall be as follows: 1. The applicant shall comply with the Planning Divisions standard Conditions and Limitations for Commercial Industrial Projects. 2. The business shall be operated substantially as outlined in the submitted plans, as part of the Planning Application dated April 7, 2015 and November 18, 2015. Consistent with the City's Use Classification definitions (SSFMC Chapter 20.620), the business shall be operated as an AutomobileNehicle Rental use and not as a Rental Car Storage use. A failure to operate as an AutomobileNehicle Rental use will be grounds for revocation of the Minor Use Permit. Based on the reporting schedules of the City's third party vendor for sales tax collection, the Zoning Administrator will confirm that point -of -sale transactions and related sales tax contribution occurs at APNs 015- 114 -420. 015- 114- 480.015- 114-490.015- 114 -470 and 015- 114 -460 consistent with the operation of an AutomobileNehicle Rental use. 4. No rental vehicles associated with the operation of the proposed facility or related businesses under the same company Avis Budget Group shall be stored on surrounding streets or public right -of -way. No major maintenance or repair of rental vehicles on site is allowed; these actions will require a modification to this Minor Use Permit and compliance with other applicable regulations. 7. Provide way - finding signs in the lot, directing drivers to vehicle return stalls, exit driveway, and major destinations (e.g. US -101) per Fehr + Peers transportation assessment, dated February 3, 2015. 8. Maintain landscaping along San Mateo Avenue, adjacent to the Project driveways, to avoid sight distance conflicts (shrubs should not be higher than approximately 30 inches and tree canopies should be approximately six feet from the ground), per Fehr + Peers transportation assessment, dated February 3, 2015. 9. On- street parking should be restricted on San Mateo Avenue on either side of the egress Project driveway to limit sight distance issues; approximately 60 feet to the north and 20 feet to the south, per Fehr + Peers transportation assessment, dated February 3, 2015. T 91M jz .. STAN. 7. Provide way - finding signs in the lot, directing drivers to vehicle return stalls, exit driveway, and major destinations (e.g. US -101) per Fehr + Peers transportation assessment, dated February 3, 2015. 8. Maintain landscaping along San Mateo Avenue, adjacent to the Project driveways, to avoid sight distance conflicts (shrubs should not be higher than approximately 30 inches and tree canopies should be approximately six feet from the ground), per Fehr + Peers transportation assessment, dated February 3, 2015. 9. On- street parking should be restricted on San Mateo Avenue on either side of the egress Project driveway to limit sight distance issues; approximately 60 feet to the north and 20 feet to the south, per Fehr + Peers transportation assessment, dated February 3, 2015. Revised Conditions of Approval — Payless Vehicle Rental Facility Page 2 of 3 10. Conformance with the adopted Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program associated with the completed Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ND16 -0001 shall be required prior to Building Division permit issuance. (Planning Division contact: Tony Rozzi, 650- 877 -8535) B) Building Division requirements shall be as follows: (Building Division at 650- 829 -6670) C) Water Quality requirements shall be as follows: 1. If new fire sprinklers are installed, fire sprinkler test drain must be connected to the sanitary sewer. 2. No vehicle washing/rinsing is permitted to discharge water to the storm drain system. If vehicles are to be washed on -site, an appropriate wash pad/area must be installed and plumbed through a sand /oil interceptor and into the sanitary sewer system. (Water Quality contact: Andrew Wemmer at 650- 829 -3883) D) Fire Department requirements shall be as follows: 1. Show all existing and proposed hydrants. 2. All buildings shall provide premise identification in accordance with SSF Municipal Code Section 15.24.100. 3. The South San Francisco Fire Department reserves the right to make additional comments in the future. (Fire Department contact: Luis Da Silva at 650- 829 -6645) E) Engineering Division requirements shall be as follows: 1. The building permit application plans shall conform to the standards of the Engineering Division's "Building Permit Typical Plan Check Submittals" requirements, copies of which are available from the Engineering Division. 2. The owner shall, at his/her expense, replace any broken sidewalk, curb, and gutter fronting the property. The City of SSF shall be the sole judge of whether any such replacement is necessary. 3. For any work performed in the City's right -of -way, the Owner shall apply for and obtain an encroachment permit, and shall be responsible for all fees and deposits for the permit. Revised Conditions of Approval — Payless Vehicle Rental Facility Page 3 of 3 4. Pay sewer lateral connection fee and show sewer lateral from building to existing City main line. 5. Prepare Traffic study including sight distance for exit driveway from the facility. May require some parallel parking be removed along San Mateo Ave to enhance safety of vehicles leaving the facility. 6. Fee Calculations a. Oyster Point Interchange Impact Fee: Not applicable. b. East of 101 Sewer Impact Fee: Not applicable. C. East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee (TIF): Not applicable F) Police Department requirements shall be as follows: 1. Municipal Code Compliance The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.48 of the Municipal Code, "Minimum Building Security Standards" Ordinance revised May 1995. The Police Department reserves the right to make additional security and safety conditions, if necessary, upon receipt of detailed/revised building plans. (Police Department contact: Sgt. Adam Plank, 650- 877 -8927) Stantec November 20, 2015 RE: Letter of Justification Zoning Amendment and MUP Modification and General Plan Amendment Proposed Payless Rental Car Facility San Mateo Ave. South San Francisco, CA 94080 The subject site currently consists of two legal parcels /lots. Each of these two lots has the unusual condition of being located in two different City zones. The western portion of each lot is zoned Mixed Industrial (MI); while the eastern portion of each lot is zoned Freeway Commercial (FC). Avis Budget Group (ABG) recently received our Minor Use Permit (MUP 15- 0001)and Design Review (DR 15 -0024) approvals for the Rental Car Facilty with sales building and car wash located on the western portion of the parcels in mid -2015. The eastern FC -zoned sections do not permit automobile /vehicle rental uses. To be able to fully utilitze these lots, ABG requests to rezone the eastern portions of these lots to match the western MI zone. Upon approval of the rezoning to MI, ABG also requests to modify our recently approved MUP to encompass the eastern portions of these lots. The entire project was designed as one facility to incorporate the landscaping, lighting and fencing zoning requirments. We have included the previously approved exhibit drawings as reference. The scope of work associated with the proposed MUP modification includes: 1. Restripe the vacant parking lot. 2. Install additional landscaping on the south portion of the site. 3. Install additional yard lights to meet 3 -5 Foot Candle level on the site. If you have any additional questions concerning our submittal, please feel free to contac me. Resepctfully, STANTEC ARCHITECTURE INC. Gary M. Semling, Architect, NCA B, AIA Managing Associate Phone: (707) 658 -4717 Fax: (707) 765 -9908 Gary.Semling @stantec.com Design with community in mind 3 U) U N O O 0 O N O O c 0 N aD o- 0 /Y U U 7 � U Y -20 o 0 0 N CD O Lm C111:2 n Q 00 0 N 1O O� N LO > N C RENTAL 0 0 0° 0 6 m £ � `0 I CAR 'n7" NTAL FACILITY SAN MATEO AVE. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PRIOR APPROVED PROJECT: SHEET PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ABBREVIATIONS GENERAL NOTES BUILDING CODE INFORMATION PROJECT TEAM ® AT db DECIBEL H. B. HOSE BIBB 0/ OVER, ON T & B TOP AND BOTTOM 1. IN THE EVENT OF DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS, I I AGENCY CONTACT NAME PHONE NUMBER A AMP DBL DOUBLE H. C. HANDICAPPED, HOLLOW CORE, 0. C.; 0/C ON CENTER T & G TONGUE AND GROOVE IN THIS PACKAGE, NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY. APPLICABLE CODES: A/C AIR CONDITIONING D.C. DIRECT CURRENT HD HEAD 0. D. OUTSIDE DIAMETER, OVERFLOW DRAIN T.C. TOP OF CURB 2, THE ARCHITECT SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE OR HAVE CONTROL OR CHARGE OVER A.B. ANCHOR BOLT, AGGREGATE BASE DEG DEGREE HDR HEADER 0. F. OUTSIDE FACE TEMP TEMPORARY, TEMPERATURE IBC, 2012 EDITION, W/ 2013 CALIFORNIA AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE: ANDREW JAKSICH A.B.M. ALUMINIUM BREAK METAL HDW HARDWARE O.H. OPPOSITE HAND THRU THROUGH ACTS OR OMISSIONS, CONSTRUCTION MEANS, METHODS, TECHNIQUES, SEQUENCES OR AVIS RENT A CAR SYSTEM, LLC. DEMO DEMOLITION PROCEDURES, OR FOR THE SAFETY PRECAUTIONS & PROGRAMS OF THE UPC, 2012 EDITON W/ 2013 CALIFORNIA AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS A.B.S. ACRYLONITRILE BUTAPIENE STYRENE DET DETAIL HDWD HARDWOOD OPNG OPENING T.I. TOP OF ISLAND 513 ECCLES AVENUE A. C. ALT. CURRENT, ASPHALTIC CONCRETE H.M. HOLLOW METAL OPP OPPOSITE T.M. TOP OF MASONRY CONTRACTOR, SUBCONTRACTOR, OR ANY OTHER PERSONS PERFORMING WORK ON UMC, 2012 EDITION, W/ 2013 CALIFORNIA AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS D.I. DROP INLET THE PROJECT. NEC, 2011 EDITION, WITH 2013 CALIFORNIA AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 A.C.I. AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE DIA DIAMETER H. P. HIGH POINT ORIG ORIGINAL T.N. TOENAIL A.C.M. ALUMINUM COMPOSITE MATERIAL DEPT. DEPARTMENT HR HOUR OVHD OVERHEAD T.O.C. TOP OF CONCRETE 3. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO SEE THAT WORK IN FIELD IS DONE IN IFC, 2012 EDITION, WITH 2013 CALIFORNIA AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS (650) 616 -0145 A.C.T. ACOUSTICAL CEILING TILE DIAG DIAGONAL HT HEIGHT T.O.S. TOP OF STEEL ACCORDANCE WITH ALL CURRENT APPLICABLE NATIONAL, STATE & LOCAL CODES, CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE, 2010 EDITION A. D. AREA DRAIN DIM DIMENSION HTR HEATER d d PENNY (NAILS) T.O.W. TOP OF WALL ORDINANCES & REQUIREMENTS BY GOVERNING AGENCIES, WHETHER OR NOT SAID CAL GREEN CODE, 2013 EDITION ARCHITECTS REPRESENTATIVE: GARY SEMLING A.D.D. ADDENDUM DISP DISPENSER HVY HEAVY LB POUND T.P. TOP OF PAVEMENT CODES, ORDINANCES, REQUIREMENTS, ETC. ARE SPECIFICALLY SHOWN ON STANTEC ARCHITECTURE INC. ADD'L. ADDITIONAL DIV DIVISION, DIVIDE H. W. HOT WATER P. & S POLE AND SHELF T.S. TUBE STEEL, TOP OF SLAB DRAWINGS AND /OR CALLED FOR IN SPECIFICATIONS. 1383 NORTH MC DOWELL BLVD. ADJ. ADJUSTABLE D.G. DOUBLE GLAZE HWY HIGHWAY P. PHASE TSTAT TSTAT THERMOSTAT THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DESIGNED IN SUBSTANTIAL A.F.F. ABOVE FINISH FLOOR D.L. DEAD LOAD PAR'L PARALLEL T.T.B. TELEPHONE TERMINAL BACKBOARD CONFORMANCE WITH THE ACCESSIBILITY PROVISIONS SUITE 250 I.C.B.O INTERNATIONAL CONFERNCE 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL EXISTING ITEMS & FACILITIES TO REMAIN OF CHAPTER 11 OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE PETALUMA. CA 94954 (707) 765 -1660 AGG AGGREGATE DR DOOR P.B. PULL BOX T.V. TELEVISION REPLACE, A.I.C. AMPS INTERRUPTING CURRENT D.S. DOWNSPOUT OF BUILDING OFFICIALS P. B. M. L. PAPER BACKED METAL LATH T.W. TOP OF WALL THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR AND/OR AND THE AMERICAN'S WITH DISABILITIES ACT. A. 1. S. C. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF DWG DRAWING 1. D. INSIDE DIAMETER /DIMENSION TYP TYPICAL AT CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE, ANY EXISTING ITEMS AND FACILITIES TO REMAIN THAT P.C.C. PRECAST CONCRETE, POINT OF CIVIL ENGINEER: ANDREW YANG STEEL CONSTRUCTION DWR DWR DRAWER LE INVERT ELEVATION ARE DAMAGED BY THE CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS, TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CONCENTRIC CURVATURE, PORTLAND PRINCIPAL ENGINEER AL ALUMINUM D.F. D.F. DOUGLAS FIR, 1. F. INSIDE FACE CEMENT CONCRETE U.B.C. UNIFORM BUILDING CODE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. YANG CONSULTING GROUP INC. ALLOW ALLOWABLE DRINKING FOUNTAIN ILLUM ILLUMINATED U.G. UNDERGROUND IN INCHES P.C.F. POUNDS PER CUBIC FOOT U. L. UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES, INC. 5. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE THE DELIVERY OF ALL OWNER SUITE POST STREET, ALT ALTERNATE (E DN DOWN INCL INCLUDE P.C.G. POUNDS PER CUBIC FOOT U.N.O. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE SUPPLIED EQUIPMENT. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INSPECTION OF SUITE AN AMP AMPERAGE EA EXISTING, EAST INFO INFORMATION P.C.P. PORTLAND CEMENT PLASTER EQUIPMENT AT TIME OF DELIVERY AND SHALL NOTIFY EQUIPMENT SUPPLIER OF ANY SCOPE OF WORK SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94102 (415) 580 -0075 ANOD ANODIZE EA EACH, EXTRUDED ALUMINUM P. D. POWDER DRIVEN INSUL INSULATION VAC VACUUM DEFICIENCIES OR DAMAGED EQUIPMENT AND ARRANGE FOR REPLACEMENT. A.N.S.I AMERICAN NATIONAL EE EACH END P.D.F. POWDER DRIVEN FASTENER STANDARDS INSTITUTE INT INTERIOR VAR VARIABLE, VARIANCE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MAISHA RUTH E.F. EACH FACE, ENAMEL FINISH, PERF PERF PERFORATED IMPROVEMENTS TO INCLUDE: INV INVERT V.B. VAPOR BARRIER 6. PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, DETERMINE AND VERIFY LOCATION OF UTILITY SERVICES IN ASSOCIATE A. P. ACOUSTICAL PANEL EXHAUST FAN P. F. PAINTESHED V.C. VINYL COVE ALL AREAS TO BE DEMOLISHED AND COORDINATE WITH OWNER OR AVIS /PAYLESS STANTEC ARCHITECTURE INC. A.P.A. AMERICAN PLYWOOD ASSOCIATION EIFS EXTERIOR INSULATION FINISH SYSTEM PL PAINTED GOP.BD. 1. REPLACE THE CURRENTLY VACANT LOT WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW RETAIL 1383 NORTH MC DOWELL BLVD. JAN JANITOR V.C.T. VINYL COMPOSITION TILE REPRESENTATIVE. APPROX APPROXIMATE E.J. EXPANSION JOINT PL PLATE, PROPERTY LINE J. B. JUNCTION BOX VENT VENTILATE, VENTILATOR APVD APPROVED EL ELEVATION (GRADE) JCT JUNCTION PL PROPERTY LINE VERT VERTICAL 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL PERTINENT LAWS, CODES, RENTAL CAR FACILITY CONSISTING OF THE FOLLOWING: SUITE 250 ARCH ARCHITECTURAL ELEC ELECTRICAL, ELECTRIC, ELECTRICIAN J. H. JOIST HANGER PLAM PLASTIC LAMINATE VEST VESTIBULE REGULATIONS, GOVERNING AGENCIES & MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS, UNLESS A. NEW INGRESS/EGRESS DRIVEWAYS LOCATED ON SAN MATEO AVE. PETALUMA. CA 94954 (707) 765 -1660 A.S.B. AGGREGATE SUB -BASE ELEV ELEVATION (BLDG.) JST JOIST PLUS PLASTER V.I.F. VERIFY IN FIELD GREATER REQUIREMENTS ARE INDICATED, OR ARE NECESSARY FOR SAFE WORKING A.S.H.R.A.E. AMERICAN SOCIETY OF HEATING, EMBED EMBEDMENT PLUMB PLUMBING JT JOINT VOL VOLUME CONDITIONS. B. LOT STRIPPING TO ACCOMMODATE APPROX. 150 RENTAL CARS ON THE WESTERN REFRIGERATING AND AIR CONDITIONING EMERG EMERGENCY PLYWD PLYWOOD ENGINEERS E.N. EDGE NAIL P.O.C. POINT OF CONNECTION, POINT OF CURVE V.P. VENT PIPE 8_ THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR NOTIFYING JURISDICTIONS LOTS, (ZONED M -1) UPON RE- ZONING OF THE EASTERN LOTS, (ZONED FC) THE KG KILOGRAM V.R. VENT RISER, VAPOR RETURN A. S. T. M. AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING ENCL. ENCLOSURE KW KILOWATT P•0.S. POINT OF SALE V.S. VENT STACK AS REQUIRED FOR INSPECTIONS AND SHALL PAY INSPECTION FEES ASSOCIATED WITH PROJECT WILL CONTAIN ADDITIONAL VEHICLE STALLS FOR TEMPORARY STAGING KWH KILOWATT HOUR V. S. A. T. VERY SMALL APERTURE TRANSCEIVER MATERIALS ENGR ENGINEER PR PAIR THE WORK. OF APPROX. 170 VEHICLES. AUTO AUTOMATIC ENTR ENTRANCE PREFAB PREFABRICATED V.T.R. VENT THRU ROOF E.P. ELECTRICAL PANEL LAB LABORATORY P.S.F. POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT 9. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL APPLY, PAY FOR, AND OBTAIN ELECTRICAL C. INSTALL NEW ±1,850 SQ. FT. DOUBLE WIDE TRAILER RETAIL RENTAL CAR OFFICE. AVG AVERAGE EQ EQUAL LAM LAMINATED P.S.I. POUNDS /SQUARE INCH W/ WITH AND ALL TRADE PERMITS REQUIRED. A/W AIR & WATER A.W.G. AMERICAN WIRE GAUGE EQUIP EQUIPMENT LAV LAVATORY / PT POINT, PRESSURE TREATED W O WITHOUT 10 THE ARCHITECT SHALL APPLY FOR THE BUILDING PERMITS. D. CONSTRUCT NEW ±1,300 SQ. FT. CANOPY COVER FOR VEHICLE HAND WASHING E.S. EACH SIDE L. F. LINEAR P. T. D. F. PRESSURE - TREATED DOUGLAS FIR EST ESTIMATE, ESTIMATED P.V.C. POLYVINYL CHLORIDE W.C. WATER COOLER, WATER CLOSET WITH WATER COLLECTION & RECLAIM SYSTEM. BD BOARD E.W. EACH WAY LIN LINEAR FEET WD WOOD 11. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE OWNER WITH A CONSTRUCTION B. L. BUILDING LINE L.H. LEFT HAND EXH EXHAUST QT QUART W.F. WIDE FLANGE SCHEDULE PRIOR TO STARTING THE WORK AND SHALL PROVIDE A QUALIFIED JOB E. INSTALL NEW 5,000 GALLON TANK W TWO DISPENSERS. BLDG BUILDING EXIST EXISTING LL LIVE LOAD W.H. WATER HEATER SUPERINTENDENT THROUGHOUT THE WORK. BLK BLOCK EXP EXPOSED, EXPANSION LOC LOCATION R/W RIGHT OF WAY W.M. WATER METER BLKG BLOCKING EXT EXTERIOR L.P. LOW POINT R. A. RETURN AIR W.S. WEATHERSTRIPPING, WELDED STUD 12. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE BARRICADES AND SAFETY SIGNS F. CONSTRUCT LANDSCAPE, LIGHTING, SECURITY FENCES, GATES, AND ASSOCIATED B. M. BENCH MARK L. S. LAG SCREW R.C.P. REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE WT WEIGHT PER OSHA REQUIREMENTS AND AIRPORT STANDARDS. SITE WORKS. PROJECT DATA BOT BOTTOM FAB FABRICATE LT LIGHT RCPT RECEPTACLE W.W.F. WELDED WIRE FABRIC F.C. FOOT CANDLE RCVD RECEIVED 13. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OVERALL CONSTRUCTION SITE BP BASE PLATE BR BEARING, BULLET RESISTANT F.C.O. FLOOR CLEANOUT MAS MASONRY R. D. ROOF DRAIN XFMR TRANSFORMER CLEANLINESS, INCLUDING PROVISION OF A DEBRIS BOX WITH REGULAR SERVICING, B. W. BACK OF WALK FDTN FOUNDATION MAX MAXL MAXIMUM L REDBADR REINFORCING BAR YD YARD SWEEPING OF THE CON ENTIRE CYAORD AREA AT TRACTOR REFUSE AND OF DTHERIWORK.D VICINITY MAP PROJECT NAME PAYLESS CAR RENTAL F.E. FIRE EXTINGUISHER M. B. MACHINE BOLT REF REFERENCE YR YEAR SAN MATEO AVE. C TO C CENTER TO CENTER PROJECT ADDRESS C. A. CLEAR ANODIZED F.F. FINISH FLOOR MECH MECHANICAL REINF REINFORCE 14. ALL PROCEDURES, TESTING, MATERIALS, LABOR & EQUIPMENT SHOWN ON THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 CAB CABINET F.G. FINISH GRADE MED MEDIUM REQD REQUIRED PLANS SHALL BE FURNISHED & INSTALLED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. UNLESS F.H. FIRE HYDRANT MFG MANUFACTURING REQMTS REQUIREMENTS NOTED OTHERWISE IN THESE PLANS. EQUIPMENT OR MATERIALS NOTED ONLY AS 'r�° E'er ^�<: ANDREW JAKSICH CAP CAPACITY FACILITY OWNER REP. FIN FINISH MFR MANUFACTURER R.I. RIGID INSULATION "FURNISHED BY OWNER" SHALL BE INSTALLED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. "' r z (650) 616 -0145 C. B. CATCH BASIN CEM CEMENT FIXT FIXTURE M.G.D. MULTI -GRADE DISPENSER RM ROOM _ FL FLOW LINE 513 ECCLES AVENUE J r W (A Q ul�_ W LL] O J � U) W z c) 0- U � MGR MANAGER R.O. ROUGH OPENING CER CERAMIC OWNER'S ADDRESS FLASH FLASH FLASHING M H MANHOLE R 0 W RIGHT OF WAY a - SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 Permit -Seal O O O O l g X M M -, - Im w z 0 N W 0 L, 0 w D V) L V, C) 0 z 0 c� z_ w 0 z Z z g 0 0 W CD 00 O 07 U O uj U U Q Z O� Lu L- Z Q Q 2 z:D U) O z U z z g � W c 0 '-` z z o M � W J J D W W 0 of a) N N_o OCV LO O O �rr L2 � r CD Q � �Im c� Z 0 L m 0 z w 0 U z w J U w m H LU W 2 W a� O � U C. 1. CAST IRON FLEX FLEXIBLE M.I. MALLEABLE IRON R. R. ROOF RAFTER, RESTROOM, RAILROAD Vr. CI.P. CAST IRON PIPE; CAST -IN -PLACE FLUOR FLUORESCENT CIR CIRCLE MIN MINIMUM R.V. ROOF VENT \� EMLING #C g i C�C� y/T F.O.C. FACE OF CONCRETE, FACE OF CURB MISC MISCELLANEOUS R.W.L. RAIN WATER LEADER " - I� r C. J. CEILING JOIST, CONSTRUCTION JOINT F.O.F. FACE OF FOUNDATION / VENEER M. L. METAL LATH �a 2 4 ;. „a �S A CL CENTERLINE F.O.M. FACE OF MASONRY MM MILLIMETER S.A.D. SEE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS PROJECT DIRECTORY .� �y CLG CEILING 0. CLR CLEAR F.O.S. FACE OF STUD M. 0. MASONRY OPENING SAN SANITARY � '' F.R.P. FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC M.P.D. MULTI - PRODUCT DISPENSER S. C. SOLID CORE, SEALED CONCRETE SITE�y " "'� "" PLANNING /ZONING DATA SIGNATURE C.M.P. CORRUGATED METAL PIPE F.S. FLOOR SINK 11 30 17 C.M.U. CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT MU MOISTURE RESISTANT S.D. SCHEDULE RENEWAL �TE FT FOOT, FEET MULT MULTIPLE S.D. STORM DRAIN �Z C. 0. CLEANOUT, CONDUIT ONLY FTG FOOTING COL COLUMN FURN FURNISH SECT SECTION AGENCY CONTACT NAME PHONE NUMBER �"" CONC CONCRETE (N) NEW SELF CL SELF CLOSIGN ' y irk z 015- 114 -460 015 - 114 -470 11/18/15 R` �r.�y w� ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO: spgTF °A� COND CONDITION N.A. NOT APPLICABLE S. F. SQUARE FOOT PLANNING TONY ROZZI GA GAGE CONN CONNECTION GAL GALLON N.E.C. NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE SHT SHEET CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO �' j 2 A PARCEL SIZE: ±116,408 SQ. FT. OF CA CONST CONSTRUCTION GALV GALVANIZED NEG NEGATIVE SIM SIMILAR PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONT CONTINUOUS GAS GASOLINE N. E. M. A. NATIONAL ELECTRICAL S.M.D. SEE MECHANICAL DRAWINGS 400 GRAND AVE. Q i P` 2007125002 q I MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION SPEC SPECIFICATION ,p ZONING DISTRICT M -1 (MIXED INDUSTRIAL) Project Number: CONTR CONTR CONTRACTOR G.B. GRAB BAR, GRADE BREAK SPKR SPEAKER SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 (650)- 877 -8535 ,' �, `� N. F. P. A. NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION c CORG CORG CORRUGATED G.C. GENERAL CONTRACTOR �. � � �` File Name: 2007124002 C. T. C.T. CERAMIC TILE G.F.I. GROUND FAULT INTERRUPTER AGENCY SQ SQUARE BUILDING CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TENFORAN ? !NDENVILL CONSTRUCTION TYPE: VB N.I.C. NOT IN CONTRACT SQ.FT. SQUARE FEET C.T.G. C.T.G. CLEANOUT TO GRADE G.I. GALVANIZED IRON S.S. SANITARY SEWER, STEEL STUD BUILDING DEPARTMENT CTR CTR CENTER GL GLASS NO., # NUMBER y ,', S.S.D. SUBSOIL DRAIN, SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS 315 MAPLE AVE. OCCUPANCY TYPE CU.FT. CU.FT. CUBIC FOOT G.L.B GLU -LAM BEAM NOM NOMINAL S.S.T. STAINLESS STEEL SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 (650)-829-6670 ©flue SOUTH DEV JIM JIM 14.12.10 CU.IN. CU.IN. CUBIC INCH G.P. GUARD POST N. S. NONSHRINK _�� dtfitPf7�?i NTS NOT TO SCALE STA STATION ""�� - I own. Chkd. Dspn. YY.MM.DD C. V. C.V. CHECK VALVE GR GRADE NATURE OF BUSINESS CAR RENTAL FACILITY C. W. C.W. COLD WATER G.S.M. GALVANIZED SHEET METAL S.T.C. SOUND TRANSMISSION CLASS FIRE DEPARTMENT CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO G.T. GREASE TRAP STD STANDARD FIRE DEPARTMENT Drawing No. CS STL STL STEEL G.W.B. G.W.B. GYPSUM WALLBOARD 480 N. CANAL STREET LANDSCAPE REQUIRED 10% LOT AREA GYP GYP GYPSUM S.T.W. STORM WATER GYP. GYP. BD. GYPSUM BOARD SUSP SUSPENDED SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 (650)- 829 -6645 R2VISIOn Sheet S. W. SHEAR WALL, SIDEWALK LANDSCAPE AREA PROVIDED ±11,661 SQ. FT. NORTH — 1 of 8 ORIGINAL SHEET - ARCH D c 0 a� DRAWING INDEX CS COVER SHEET SHEET 1 TOPOGRAPHIC & BOUNDARY SURVEY C1 GRADING PLAN SP1 SITE PLAN OF NEW SCOPE SP1.1 SITE PLAN OF PRIOR APPROVED PROJECT Al FLOOR PLAN U O O A2 ELEVATIONS L1 LANDSCAPE PLAN C RENTAL 0 0 0° 0 6 m £ � `0 I CAR 'n7" NTAL FACILITY SAN MATEO AVE. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PRIOR APPROVED PROJECT: SHEET PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ABBREVIATIONS GENERAL NOTES BUILDING CODE INFORMATION PROJECT TEAM ® AT db DECIBEL H. B. HOSE BIBB 0/ OVER, ON T & B TOP AND BOTTOM 1. IN THE EVENT OF DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS, I I AGENCY CONTACT NAME PHONE NUMBER A AMP DBL DOUBLE H. C. HANDICAPPED, HOLLOW CORE, 0. C.; 0/C ON CENTER T & G TONGUE AND GROOVE IN THIS PACKAGE, NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY. APPLICABLE CODES: A/C AIR CONDITIONING D.C. DIRECT CURRENT HD HEAD 0. D. OUTSIDE DIAMETER, OVERFLOW DRAIN T.C. TOP OF CURB 2, THE ARCHITECT SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE OR HAVE CONTROL OR CHARGE OVER A.B. ANCHOR BOLT, AGGREGATE BASE DEG DEGREE HDR HEADER 0. F. OUTSIDE FACE TEMP TEMPORARY, TEMPERATURE IBC, 2012 EDITION, W/ 2013 CALIFORNIA AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE: ANDREW JAKSICH A.B.M. ALUMINIUM BREAK METAL HDW HARDWARE O.H. OPPOSITE HAND THRU THROUGH ACTS OR OMISSIONS, CONSTRUCTION MEANS, METHODS, TECHNIQUES, SEQUENCES OR AVIS RENT A CAR SYSTEM, LLC. DEMO DEMOLITION PROCEDURES, OR FOR THE SAFETY PRECAUTIONS & PROGRAMS OF THE UPC, 2012 EDITON W/ 2013 CALIFORNIA AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS A.B.S. ACRYLONITRILE BUTAPIENE STYRENE DET DETAIL HDWD HARDWOOD OPNG OPENING T.I. TOP OF ISLAND 513 ECCLES AVENUE A. C. ALT. CURRENT, ASPHALTIC CONCRETE H.M. HOLLOW METAL OPP OPPOSITE T.M. TOP OF MASONRY CONTRACTOR, SUBCONTRACTOR, OR ANY OTHER PERSONS PERFORMING WORK ON UMC, 2012 EDITION, W/ 2013 CALIFORNIA AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS D.I. DROP INLET THE PROJECT. NEC, 2011 EDITION, WITH 2013 CALIFORNIA AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 A.C.I. AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE DIA DIAMETER H. P. HIGH POINT ORIG ORIGINAL T.N. TOENAIL A.C.M. ALUMINUM COMPOSITE MATERIAL DEPT. DEPARTMENT HR HOUR OVHD OVERHEAD T.O.C. TOP OF CONCRETE 3. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO SEE THAT WORK IN FIELD IS DONE IN IFC, 2012 EDITION, WITH 2013 CALIFORNIA AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS (650) 616 -0145 A.C.T. ACOUSTICAL CEILING TILE DIAG DIAGONAL HT HEIGHT T.O.S. TOP OF STEEL ACCORDANCE WITH ALL CURRENT APPLICABLE NATIONAL, STATE & LOCAL CODES, CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE, 2010 EDITION A. D. AREA DRAIN DIM DIMENSION HTR HEATER d d PENNY (NAILS) T.O.W. TOP OF WALL ORDINANCES & REQUIREMENTS BY GOVERNING AGENCIES, WHETHER OR NOT SAID CAL GREEN CODE, 2013 EDITION ARCHITECTS REPRESENTATIVE: GARY SEMLING A.D.D. ADDENDUM DISP DISPENSER HVY HEAVY LB POUND T.P. TOP OF PAVEMENT CODES, ORDINANCES, REQUIREMENTS, ETC. ARE SPECIFICALLY SHOWN ON STANTEC ARCHITECTURE INC. ADD'L. ADDITIONAL DIV DIVISION, DIVIDE H. W. HOT WATER P. & S POLE AND SHELF T.S. TUBE STEEL, TOP OF SLAB DRAWINGS AND /OR CALLED FOR IN SPECIFICATIONS. 1383 NORTH MC DOWELL BLVD. ADJ. ADJUSTABLE D.G. DOUBLE GLAZE HWY HIGHWAY P. PHASE TSTAT TSTAT THERMOSTAT THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DESIGNED IN SUBSTANTIAL A.F.F. ABOVE FINISH FLOOR D.L. DEAD LOAD PAR'L PARALLEL T.T.B. TELEPHONE TERMINAL BACKBOARD CONFORMANCE WITH THE ACCESSIBILITY PROVISIONS SUITE 250 I.C.B.O INTERNATIONAL CONFERNCE 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL EXISTING ITEMS & FACILITIES TO REMAIN OF CHAPTER 11 OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE PETALUMA. CA 94954 (707) 765 -1660 AGG AGGREGATE DR DOOR P.B. PULL BOX T.V. TELEVISION REPLACE, A.I.C. AMPS INTERRUPTING CURRENT D.S. DOWNSPOUT OF BUILDING OFFICIALS P. B. M. L. PAPER BACKED METAL LATH T.W. TOP OF WALL THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR AND/OR AND THE AMERICAN'S WITH DISABILITIES ACT. A. 1. S. C. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF DWG DRAWING 1. D. INSIDE DIAMETER /DIMENSION TYP TYPICAL AT CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE, ANY EXISTING ITEMS AND FACILITIES TO REMAIN THAT P.C.C. PRECAST CONCRETE, POINT OF CIVIL ENGINEER: ANDREW YANG STEEL CONSTRUCTION DWR DWR DRAWER LE INVERT ELEVATION ARE DAMAGED BY THE CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS, TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CONCENTRIC CURVATURE, PORTLAND PRINCIPAL ENGINEER AL ALUMINUM D.F. D.F. DOUGLAS FIR, 1. F. INSIDE FACE CEMENT CONCRETE U.B.C. UNIFORM BUILDING CODE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. YANG CONSULTING GROUP INC. ALLOW ALLOWABLE DRINKING FOUNTAIN ILLUM ILLUMINATED U.G. UNDERGROUND IN INCHES P.C.F. POUNDS PER CUBIC FOOT U. L. UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES, INC. 5. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE THE DELIVERY OF ALL OWNER SUITE POST STREET, ALT ALTERNATE (E DN DOWN INCL INCLUDE P.C.G. POUNDS PER CUBIC FOOT U.N.O. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE SUPPLIED EQUIPMENT. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INSPECTION OF SUITE AN AMP AMPERAGE EA EXISTING, EAST INFO INFORMATION P.C.P. PORTLAND CEMENT PLASTER EQUIPMENT AT TIME OF DELIVERY AND SHALL NOTIFY EQUIPMENT SUPPLIER OF ANY SCOPE OF WORK SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94102 (415) 580 -0075 ANOD ANODIZE EA EACH, EXTRUDED ALUMINUM P. D. POWDER DRIVEN INSUL INSULATION VAC VACUUM DEFICIENCIES OR DAMAGED EQUIPMENT AND ARRANGE FOR REPLACEMENT. A.N.S.I AMERICAN NATIONAL EE EACH END P.D.F. POWDER DRIVEN FASTENER STANDARDS INSTITUTE INT INTERIOR VAR VARIABLE, VARIANCE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MAISHA RUTH E.F. EACH FACE, ENAMEL FINISH, PERF PERF PERFORATED IMPROVEMENTS TO INCLUDE: INV INVERT V.B. VAPOR BARRIER 6. PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, DETERMINE AND VERIFY LOCATION OF UTILITY SERVICES IN ASSOCIATE A. P. ACOUSTICAL PANEL EXHAUST FAN P. F. PAINTESHED V.C. VINYL COVE ALL AREAS TO BE DEMOLISHED AND COORDINATE WITH OWNER OR AVIS /PAYLESS STANTEC ARCHITECTURE INC. A.P.A. AMERICAN PLYWOOD ASSOCIATION EIFS EXTERIOR INSULATION FINISH SYSTEM PL PAINTED GOP.BD. 1. REPLACE THE CURRENTLY VACANT LOT WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW RETAIL 1383 NORTH MC DOWELL BLVD. JAN JANITOR V.C.T. VINYL COMPOSITION TILE REPRESENTATIVE. APPROX APPROXIMATE E.J. EXPANSION JOINT PL PLATE, PROPERTY LINE J. B. JUNCTION BOX VENT VENTILATE, VENTILATOR APVD APPROVED EL ELEVATION (GRADE) JCT JUNCTION PL PROPERTY LINE VERT VERTICAL 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL PERTINENT LAWS, CODES, RENTAL CAR FACILITY CONSISTING OF THE FOLLOWING: SUITE 250 ARCH ARCHITECTURAL ELEC ELECTRICAL, ELECTRIC, ELECTRICIAN J. H. JOIST HANGER PLAM PLASTIC LAMINATE VEST VESTIBULE REGULATIONS, GOVERNING AGENCIES & MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS, UNLESS A. NEW INGRESS/EGRESS DRIVEWAYS LOCATED ON SAN MATEO AVE. PETALUMA. CA 94954 (707) 765 -1660 A.S.B. AGGREGATE SUB -BASE ELEV ELEVATION (BLDG.) JST JOIST PLUS PLASTER V.I.F. VERIFY IN FIELD GREATER REQUIREMENTS ARE INDICATED, OR ARE NECESSARY FOR SAFE WORKING A.S.H.R.A.E. AMERICAN SOCIETY OF HEATING, EMBED EMBEDMENT PLUMB PLUMBING JT JOINT VOL VOLUME CONDITIONS. B. LOT STRIPPING TO ACCOMMODATE APPROX. 150 RENTAL CARS ON THE WESTERN REFRIGERATING AND AIR CONDITIONING EMERG EMERGENCY PLYWD PLYWOOD ENGINEERS E.N. EDGE NAIL P.O.C. POINT OF CONNECTION, POINT OF CURVE V.P. VENT PIPE 8_ THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR NOTIFYING JURISDICTIONS LOTS, (ZONED M -1) UPON RE- ZONING OF THE EASTERN LOTS, (ZONED FC) THE KG KILOGRAM V.R. VENT RISER, VAPOR RETURN A. S. T. M. AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING ENCL. ENCLOSURE KW KILOWATT P•0.S. POINT OF SALE V.S. VENT STACK AS REQUIRED FOR INSPECTIONS AND SHALL PAY INSPECTION FEES ASSOCIATED WITH PROJECT WILL CONTAIN ADDITIONAL VEHICLE STALLS FOR TEMPORARY STAGING KWH KILOWATT HOUR V. S. A. T. VERY SMALL APERTURE TRANSCEIVER MATERIALS ENGR ENGINEER PR PAIR THE WORK. OF APPROX. 170 VEHICLES. AUTO AUTOMATIC ENTR ENTRANCE PREFAB PREFABRICATED V.T.R. VENT THRU ROOF E.P. ELECTRICAL PANEL LAB LABORATORY P.S.F. POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT 9. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL APPLY, PAY FOR, AND OBTAIN ELECTRICAL C. INSTALL NEW ±1,850 SQ. FT. DOUBLE WIDE TRAILER RETAIL RENTAL CAR OFFICE. AVG AVERAGE EQ EQUAL LAM LAMINATED P.S.I. POUNDS /SQUARE INCH W/ WITH AND ALL TRADE PERMITS REQUIRED. A/W AIR & WATER A.W.G. AMERICAN WIRE GAUGE EQUIP EQUIPMENT LAV LAVATORY / PT POINT, PRESSURE TREATED W O WITHOUT 10 THE ARCHITECT SHALL APPLY FOR THE BUILDING PERMITS. D. CONSTRUCT NEW ±1,300 SQ. FT. CANOPY COVER FOR VEHICLE HAND WASHING E.S. EACH SIDE L. F. LINEAR P. T. D. F. PRESSURE - TREATED DOUGLAS FIR EST ESTIMATE, ESTIMATED P.V.C. POLYVINYL CHLORIDE W.C. WATER COOLER, WATER CLOSET WITH WATER COLLECTION & RECLAIM SYSTEM. BD BOARD E.W. EACH WAY LIN LINEAR FEET WD WOOD 11. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE OWNER WITH A CONSTRUCTION B. L. BUILDING LINE L.H. LEFT HAND EXH EXHAUST QT QUART W.F. WIDE FLANGE SCHEDULE PRIOR TO STARTING THE WORK AND SHALL PROVIDE A QUALIFIED JOB E. INSTALL NEW 5,000 GALLON TANK W TWO DISPENSERS. BLDG BUILDING EXIST EXISTING LL LIVE LOAD W.H. WATER HEATER SUPERINTENDENT THROUGHOUT THE WORK. BLK BLOCK EXP EXPOSED, EXPANSION LOC LOCATION R/W RIGHT OF WAY W.M. WATER METER BLKG BLOCKING EXT EXTERIOR L.P. LOW POINT R. A. RETURN AIR W.S. WEATHERSTRIPPING, WELDED STUD 12. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE BARRICADES AND SAFETY SIGNS F. CONSTRUCT LANDSCAPE, LIGHTING, SECURITY FENCES, GATES, AND ASSOCIATED B. M. BENCH MARK L. S. LAG SCREW R.C.P. REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE WT WEIGHT PER OSHA REQUIREMENTS AND AIRPORT STANDARDS. SITE WORKS. PROJECT DATA BOT BOTTOM FAB FABRICATE LT LIGHT RCPT RECEPTACLE W.W.F. WELDED WIRE FABRIC F.C. FOOT CANDLE RCVD RECEIVED 13. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OVERALL CONSTRUCTION SITE BP BASE PLATE BR BEARING, BULLET RESISTANT F.C.O. FLOOR CLEANOUT MAS MASONRY R. D. ROOF DRAIN XFMR TRANSFORMER CLEANLINESS, INCLUDING PROVISION OF A DEBRIS BOX WITH REGULAR SERVICING, B. W. BACK OF WALK FDTN FOUNDATION MAX MAXL MAXIMUM L REDBADR REINFORCING BAR YD YARD SWEEPING OF THE CON ENTIRE CYAORD AREA AT TRACTOR REFUSE AND OF DTHERIWORK.D VICINITY MAP PROJECT NAME PAYLESS CAR RENTAL F.E. FIRE EXTINGUISHER M. B. MACHINE BOLT REF REFERENCE YR YEAR SAN MATEO AVE. C TO C CENTER TO CENTER PROJECT ADDRESS C. A. CLEAR ANODIZED F.F. FINISH FLOOR MECH MECHANICAL REINF REINFORCE 14. ALL PROCEDURES, TESTING, MATERIALS, LABOR & EQUIPMENT SHOWN ON THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 CAB CABINET F.G. FINISH GRADE MED MEDIUM REQD REQUIRED PLANS SHALL BE FURNISHED & INSTALLED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. UNLESS F.H. FIRE HYDRANT MFG MANUFACTURING REQMTS REQUIREMENTS NOTED OTHERWISE IN THESE PLANS. EQUIPMENT OR MATERIALS NOTED ONLY AS 'r�° E'er ^�<: ANDREW JAKSICH CAP CAPACITY FACILITY OWNER REP. FIN FINISH MFR MANUFACTURER R.I. RIGID INSULATION "FURNISHED BY OWNER" SHALL BE INSTALLED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. "' r z (650) 616 -0145 C. B. CATCH BASIN CEM CEMENT FIXT FIXTURE M.G.D. MULTI -GRADE DISPENSER RM ROOM _ FL FLOW LINE 513 ECCLES AVENUE J r W (A Q ul�_ W LL] O J � U) W z c) 0- U � MGR MANAGER R.O. ROUGH OPENING CER CERAMIC OWNER'S ADDRESS FLASH FLASH FLASHING M H MANHOLE R 0 W RIGHT OF WAY a - SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 Permit -Seal O O O O l g X M M -, - Im w z 0 N W 0 L, 0 w D V) L V, C) 0 z 0 c� z_ w 0 z Z z g 0 0 W CD 00 O 07 U O uj U U Q Z O� Lu L- Z Q Q 2 z:D U) O z U z z g � W c 0 '-` z z o M � W J J D W W 0 of a) N N_o OCV LO O O �rr L2 � r CD Q � �Im c� Z 0 L m 0 z w 0 U z w J U w m H LU W 2 W a� O � U C. 1. CAST IRON FLEX FLEXIBLE M.I. MALLEABLE IRON R. R. ROOF RAFTER, RESTROOM, RAILROAD Vr. CI.P. CAST IRON PIPE; CAST -IN -PLACE FLUOR FLUORESCENT CIR CIRCLE MIN MINIMUM R.V. ROOF VENT \� EMLING #C g i C�C� y/T F.O.C. FACE OF CONCRETE, FACE OF CURB MISC MISCELLANEOUS R.W.L. RAIN WATER LEADER " - I� r C. J. CEILING JOIST, CONSTRUCTION JOINT F.O.F. FACE OF FOUNDATION / VENEER M. L. METAL LATH �a 2 4 ;. „a �S A CL CENTERLINE F.O.M. FACE OF MASONRY MM MILLIMETER S.A.D. SEE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS PROJECT DIRECTORY .� �y CLG CEILING 0. CLR CLEAR F.O.S. FACE OF STUD M. 0. MASONRY OPENING SAN SANITARY � '' F.R.P. FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC M.P.D. MULTI - PRODUCT DISPENSER S. C. SOLID CORE, SEALED CONCRETE SITE�y " "'� "" PLANNING /ZONING DATA SIGNATURE C.M.P. CORRUGATED METAL PIPE F.S. FLOOR SINK 11 30 17 C.M.U. CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT MU MOISTURE RESISTANT S.D. SCHEDULE RENEWAL �TE FT FOOT, FEET MULT MULTIPLE S.D. STORM DRAIN �Z C. 0. CLEANOUT, CONDUIT ONLY FTG FOOTING COL COLUMN FURN FURNISH SECT SECTION AGENCY CONTACT NAME PHONE NUMBER �"" CONC CONCRETE (N) NEW SELF CL SELF CLOSIGN ' y irk z 015- 114 -460 015 - 114 -470 11/18/15 R` �r.�y w� ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO: spgTF °A� COND CONDITION N.A. NOT APPLICABLE S. F. SQUARE FOOT PLANNING TONY ROZZI GA GAGE CONN CONNECTION GAL GALLON N.E.C. NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE SHT SHEET CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO �' j 2 A PARCEL SIZE: ±116,408 SQ. FT. OF CA CONST CONSTRUCTION GALV GALVANIZED NEG NEGATIVE SIM SIMILAR PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONT CONTINUOUS GAS GASOLINE N. E. M. A. NATIONAL ELECTRICAL S.M.D. SEE MECHANICAL DRAWINGS 400 GRAND AVE. Q i P` 2007125002 q I MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION SPEC SPECIFICATION ,p ZONING DISTRICT M -1 (MIXED INDUSTRIAL) Project Number: CONTR CONTR CONTRACTOR G.B. GRAB BAR, GRADE BREAK SPKR SPEAKER SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 (650)- 877 -8535 ,' �, `� N. F. P. A. NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION c CORG CORG CORRUGATED G.C. GENERAL CONTRACTOR �. � � �` File Name: 2007124002 C. T. C.T. CERAMIC TILE G.F.I. GROUND FAULT INTERRUPTER AGENCY SQ SQUARE BUILDING CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TENFORAN ? !NDENVILL CONSTRUCTION TYPE: VB N.I.C. NOT IN CONTRACT SQ.FT. SQUARE FEET C.T.G. C.T.G. CLEANOUT TO GRADE G.I. GALVANIZED IRON S.S. SANITARY SEWER, STEEL STUD BUILDING DEPARTMENT CTR CTR CENTER GL GLASS NO., # NUMBER y ,', S.S.D. SUBSOIL DRAIN, SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS 315 MAPLE AVE. OCCUPANCY TYPE CU.FT. CU.FT. CUBIC FOOT G.L.B GLU -LAM BEAM NOM NOMINAL S.S.T. STAINLESS STEEL SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 (650)-829-6670 ©flue SOUTH DEV JIM JIM 14.12.10 CU.IN. CU.IN. CUBIC INCH G.P. GUARD POST N. S. NONSHRINK _�� dtfitPf7�?i NTS NOT TO SCALE STA STATION ""�� - I own. Chkd. Dspn. YY.MM.DD C. V. C.V. CHECK VALVE GR GRADE NATURE OF BUSINESS CAR RENTAL FACILITY C. W. C.W. COLD WATER G.S.M. GALVANIZED SHEET METAL S.T.C. SOUND TRANSMISSION CLASS FIRE DEPARTMENT CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO G.T. GREASE TRAP STD STANDARD FIRE DEPARTMENT Drawing No. CS STL STL STEEL G.W.B. G.W.B. GYPSUM WALLBOARD 480 N. CANAL STREET LANDSCAPE REQUIRED 10% LOT AREA GYP GYP GYPSUM S.T.W. STORM WATER GYP. GYP. BD. GYPSUM BOARD SUSP SUSPENDED SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 (650)- 829 -6645 R2VISIOn Sheet S. W. SHEAR WALL, SIDEWALK LANDSCAPE AREA PROVIDED ±11,661 SQ. FT. NORTH — 1 of 8 ORIGINAL SHEET - ARCH D c 0 a� 0 U O O N Q 0 O � o O Z��� o` T9 3 V cN 0 ° O N � � N U � ° ° U O -°> O Q O 00 � ° a T A� Um c0 O oa�� a> O Q o `o o Ln co ° F c 8) (�' o Q Q00 o Q ° Q U U N N 6 O U 20 o -0- U E O O a +� � ° 0 CB 00 X 3 O u� 3 a- 0) Li o a° C RENTAL 0 0 0° 0 6 m £ � `0 I CAR 'n7" NTAL FACILITY SAN MATEO AVE. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PRIOR APPROVED PROJECT: SHEET PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ABBREVIATIONS GENERAL NOTES BUILDING CODE INFORMATION PROJECT TEAM ® AT db DECIBEL H. B. HOSE BIBB 0/ OVER, ON T & B TOP AND BOTTOM 1. IN THE EVENT OF DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS, I I AGENCY CONTACT NAME PHONE NUMBER A AMP DBL DOUBLE H. C. HANDICAPPED, HOLLOW CORE, 0. C.; 0/C ON CENTER T & G TONGUE AND GROOVE IN THIS PACKAGE, NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY. APPLICABLE CODES: A/C AIR CONDITIONING D.C. DIRECT CURRENT HD HEAD 0. D. OUTSIDE DIAMETER, OVERFLOW DRAIN T.C. TOP OF CURB 2, THE ARCHITECT SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE OR HAVE CONTROL OR CHARGE OVER A.B. ANCHOR BOLT, AGGREGATE BASE DEG DEGREE HDR HEADER 0. F. OUTSIDE FACE TEMP TEMPORARY, TEMPERATURE IBC, 2012 EDITION, W/ 2013 CALIFORNIA AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE: ANDREW JAKSICH A.B.M. ALUMINIUM BREAK METAL HDW HARDWARE O.H. OPPOSITE HAND THRU THROUGH ACTS OR OMISSIONS, CONSTRUCTION MEANS, METHODS, TECHNIQUES, SEQUENCES OR AVIS RENT A CAR SYSTEM, LLC. DEMO DEMOLITION PROCEDURES, OR FOR THE SAFETY PRECAUTIONS & PROGRAMS OF THE UPC, 2012 EDITON W/ 2013 CALIFORNIA AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS A.B.S. ACRYLONITRILE BUTAPIENE STYRENE DET DETAIL HDWD HARDWOOD OPNG OPENING T.I. TOP OF ISLAND 513 ECCLES AVENUE A. C. ALT. CURRENT, ASPHALTIC CONCRETE H.M. HOLLOW METAL OPP OPPOSITE T.M. TOP OF MASONRY CONTRACTOR, SUBCONTRACTOR, OR ANY OTHER PERSONS PERFORMING WORK ON UMC, 2012 EDITION, W/ 2013 CALIFORNIA AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS D.I. DROP INLET THE PROJECT. NEC, 2011 EDITION, WITH 2013 CALIFORNIA AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 A.C.I. AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE DIA DIAMETER H. P. HIGH POINT ORIG ORIGINAL T.N. TOENAIL A.C.M. ALUMINUM COMPOSITE MATERIAL DEPT. DEPARTMENT HR HOUR OVHD OVERHEAD T.O.C. TOP OF CONCRETE 3. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO SEE THAT WORK IN FIELD IS DONE IN IFC, 2012 EDITION, WITH 2013 CALIFORNIA AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS (650) 616 -0145 A.C.T. ACOUSTICAL CEILING TILE DIAG DIAGONAL HT HEIGHT T.O.S. TOP OF STEEL ACCORDANCE WITH ALL CURRENT APPLICABLE NATIONAL, STATE & LOCAL CODES, CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE, 2010 EDITION A. D. AREA DRAIN DIM DIMENSION HTR HEATER d d PENNY (NAILS) T.O.W. TOP OF WALL ORDINANCES & REQUIREMENTS BY GOVERNING AGENCIES, WHETHER OR NOT SAID CAL GREEN CODE, 2013 EDITION ARCHITECTS REPRESENTATIVE: GARY SEMLING A.D.D. ADDENDUM DISP DISPENSER HVY HEAVY LB POUND T.P. TOP OF PAVEMENT CODES, ORDINANCES, REQUIREMENTS, ETC. ARE SPECIFICALLY SHOWN ON STANTEC ARCHITECTURE INC. ADD'L. ADDITIONAL DIV DIVISION, DIVIDE H. W. HOT WATER P. & S POLE AND SHELF T.S. TUBE STEEL, TOP OF SLAB DRAWINGS AND /OR CALLED FOR IN SPECIFICATIONS. 1383 NORTH MC DOWELL BLVD. ADJ. ADJUSTABLE D.G. DOUBLE GLAZE HWY HIGHWAY P. PHASE TSTAT TSTAT THERMOSTAT THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DESIGNED IN SUBSTANTIAL A.F.F. ABOVE FINISH FLOOR D.L. DEAD LOAD PAR'L PARALLEL T.T.B. TELEPHONE TERMINAL BACKBOARD CONFORMANCE WITH THE ACCESSIBILITY PROVISIONS SUITE 250 I.C.B.O INTERNATIONAL CONFERNCE 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL EXISTING ITEMS & FACILITIES TO REMAIN OF CHAPTER 11 OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE PETALUMA. CA 94954 (707) 765 -1660 AGG AGGREGATE DR DOOR P.B. PULL BOX T.V. TELEVISION REPLACE, A.I.C. AMPS INTERRUPTING CURRENT D.S. DOWNSPOUT OF BUILDING OFFICIALS P. B. M. L. PAPER BACKED METAL LATH T.W. TOP OF WALL THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR AND/OR AND THE AMERICAN'S WITH DISABILITIES ACT. A. 1. S. C. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF DWG DRAWING 1. D. INSIDE DIAMETER /DIMENSION TYP TYPICAL AT CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE, ANY EXISTING ITEMS AND FACILITIES TO REMAIN THAT P.C.C. PRECAST CONCRETE, POINT OF CIVIL ENGINEER: ANDREW YANG STEEL CONSTRUCTION DWR DWR DRAWER LE INVERT ELEVATION ARE DAMAGED BY THE CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS, TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CONCENTRIC CURVATURE, PORTLAND PRINCIPAL ENGINEER AL ALUMINUM D.F. D.F. DOUGLAS FIR, 1. F. INSIDE FACE CEMENT CONCRETE U.B.C. UNIFORM BUILDING CODE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. YANG CONSULTING GROUP INC. ALLOW ALLOWABLE DRINKING FOUNTAIN ILLUM ILLUMINATED U.G. UNDERGROUND IN INCHES P.C.F. POUNDS PER CUBIC FOOT U. L. UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES, INC. 5. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE THE DELIVERY OF ALL OWNER SUITE POST STREET, ALT ALTERNATE (E DN DOWN INCL INCLUDE P.C.G. POUNDS PER CUBIC FOOT U.N.O. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE SUPPLIED EQUIPMENT. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INSPECTION OF SUITE AN AMP AMPERAGE EA EXISTING, EAST INFO INFORMATION P.C.P. PORTLAND CEMENT PLASTER EQUIPMENT AT TIME OF DELIVERY AND SHALL NOTIFY EQUIPMENT SUPPLIER OF ANY SCOPE OF WORK SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94102 (415) 580 -0075 ANOD ANODIZE EA EACH, EXTRUDED ALUMINUM P. D. POWDER DRIVEN INSUL INSULATION VAC VACUUM DEFICIENCIES OR DAMAGED EQUIPMENT AND ARRANGE FOR REPLACEMENT. A.N.S.I AMERICAN NATIONAL EE EACH END P.D.F. POWDER DRIVEN FASTENER STANDARDS INSTITUTE INT INTERIOR VAR VARIABLE, VARIANCE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MAISHA RUTH E.F. EACH FACE, ENAMEL FINISH, PERF PERF PERFORATED IMPROVEMENTS TO INCLUDE: INV INVERT V.B. VAPOR BARRIER 6. PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, DETERMINE AND VERIFY LOCATION OF UTILITY SERVICES IN ASSOCIATE A. P. ACOUSTICAL PANEL EXHAUST FAN P. F. PAINTESHED V.C. VINYL COVE ALL AREAS TO BE DEMOLISHED AND COORDINATE WITH OWNER OR AVIS /PAYLESS STANTEC ARCHITECTURE INC. A.P.A. AMERICAN PLYWOOD ASSOCIATION EIFS EXTERIOR INSULATION FINISH SYSTEM PL PAINTED GOP.BD. 1. REPLACE THE CURRENTLY VACANT LOT WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW RETAIL 1383 NORTH MC DOWELL BLVD. JAN JANITOR V.C.T. VINYL COMPOSITION TILE REPRESENTATIVE. APPROX APPROXIMATE E.J. EXPANSION JOINT PL PLATE, PROPERTY LINE J. B. JUNCTION BOX VENT VENTILATE, VENTILATOR APVD APPROVED EL ELEVATION (GRADE) JCT JUNCTION PL PROPERTY LINE VERT VERTICAL 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL PERTINENT LAWS, CODES, RENTAL CAR FACILITY CONSISTING OF THE FOLLOWING: SUITE 250 ARCH ARCHITECTURAL ELEC ELECTRICAL, ELECTRIC, ELECTRICIAN J. H. JOIST HANGER PLAM PLASTIC LAMINATE VEST VESTIBULE REGULATIONS, GOVERNING AGENCIES & MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS, UNLESS A. NEW INGRESS/EGRESS DRIVEWAYS LOCATED ON SAN MATEO AVE. PETALUMA. CA 94954 (707) 765 -1660 A.S.B. AGGREGATE SUB -BASE ELEV ELEVATION (BLDG.) JST JOIST PLUS PLASTER V.I.F. VERIFY IN FIELD GREATER REQUIREMENTS ARE INDICATED, OR ARE NECESSARY FOR SAFE WORKING A.S.H.R.A.E. AMERICAN SOCIETY OF HEATING, EMBED EMBEDMENT PLUMB PLUMBING JT JOINT VOL VOLUME CONDITIONS. B. LOT STRIPPING TO ACCOMMODATE APPROX. 150 RENTAL CARS ON THE WESTERN REFRIGERATING AND AIR CONDITIONING EMERG EMERGENCY PLYWD PLYWOOD ENGINEERS E.N. EDGE NAIL P.O.C. POINT OF CONNECTION, POINT OF CURVE V.P. VENT PIPE 8_ THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR NOTIFYING JURISDICTIONS LOTS, (ZONED M -1) UPON RE- ZONING OF THE EASTERN LOTS, (ZONED FC) THE KG KILOGRAM V.R. VENT RISER, VAPOR RETURN A. S. T. M. AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING ENCL. ENCLOSURE KW KILOWATT P•0.S. POINT OF SALE V.S. VENT STACK AS REQUIRED FOR INSPECTIONS AND SHALL PAY INSPECTION FEES ASSOCIATED WITH PROJECT WILL CONTAIN ADDITIONAL VEHICLE STALLS FOR TEMPORARY STAGING KWH KILOWATT HOUR V. S. A. T. VERY SMALL APERTURE TRANSCEIVER MATERIALS ENGR ENGINEER PR PAIR THE WORK. OF APPROX. 170 VEHICLES. AUTO AUTOMATIC ENTR ENTRANCE PREFAB PREFABRICATED V.T.R. VENT THRU ROOF E.P. ELECTRICAL PANEL LAB LABORATORY P.S.F. POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT 9. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL APPLY, PAY FOR, AND OBTAIN ELECTRICAL C. INSTALL NEW ±1,850 SQ. FT. DOUBLE WIDE TRAILER RETAIL RENTAL CAR OFFICE. AVG AVERAGE EQ EQUAL LAM LAMINATED P.S.I. POUNDS /SQUARE INCH W/ WITH AND ALL TRADE PERMITS REQUIRED. A/W AIR & WATER A.W.G. AMERICAN WIRE GAUGE EQUIP EQUIPMENT LAV LAVATORY / PT POINT, PRESSURE TREATED W O WITHOUT 10 THE ARCHITECT SHALL APPLY FOR THE BUILDING PERMITS. D. CONSTRUCT NEW ±1,300 SQ. FT. CANOPY COVER FOR VEHICLE HAND WASHING E.S. EACH SIDE L. F. LINEAR P. T. D. F. PRESSURE - TREATED DOUGLAS FIR EST ESTIMATE, ESTIMATED P.V.C. POLYVINYL CHLORIDE W.C. WATER COOLER, WATER CLOSET WITH WATER COLLECTION & RECLAIM SYSTEM. BD BOARD E.W. EACH WAY LIN LINEAR FEET WD WOOD 11. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE OWNER WITH A CONSTRUCTION B. L. BUILDING LINE L.H. LEFT HAND EXH EXHAUST QT QUART W.F. WIDE FLANGE SCHEDULE PRIOR TO STARTING THE WORK AND SHALL PROVIDE A QUALIFIED JOB E. INSTALL NEW 5,000 GALLON TANK W TWO DISPENSERS. BLDG BUILDING EXIST EXISTING LL LIVE LOAD W.H. WATER HEATER SUPERINTENDENT THROUGHOUT THE WORK. BLK BLOCK EXP EXPOSED, EXPANSION LOC LOCATION R/W RIGHT OF WAY W.M. WATER METER BLKG BLOCKING EXT EXTERIOR L.P. LOW POINT R. A. RETURN AIR W.S. WEATHERSTRIPPING, WELDED STUD 12. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE BARRICADES AND SAFETY SIGNS F. CONSTRUCT LANDSCAPE, LIGHTING, SECURITY FENCES, GATES, AND ASSOCIATED B. M. BENCH MARK L. S. LAG SCREW R.C.P. REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE WT WEIGHT PER OSHA REQUIREMENTS AND AIRPORT STANDARDS. SITE WORKS. PROJECT DATA BOT BOTTOM FAB FABRICATE LT LIGHT RCPT RECEPTACLE W.W.F. WELDED WIRE FABRIC F.C. FOOT CANDLE RCVD RECEIVED 13. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OVERALL CONSTRUCTION SITE BP BASE PLATE BR BEARING, BULLET RESISTANT F.C.O. FLOOR CLEANOUT MAS MASONRY R. D. ROOF DRAIN XFMR TRANSFORMER CLEANLINESS, INCLUDING PROVISION OF A DEBRIS BOX WITH REGULAR SERVICING, B. W. BACK OF WALK FDTN FOUNDATION MAX MAXL MAXIMUM L REDBADR REINFORCING BAR YD YARD SWEEPING OF THE CON ENTIRE CYAORD AREA AT TRACTOR REFUSE AND OF DTHERIWORK.D VICINITY MAP PROJECT NAME PAYLESS CAR RENTAL F.E. FIRE EXTINGUISHER M. B. MACHINE BOLT REF REFERENCE YR YEAR SAN MATEO AVE. C TO C CENTER TO CENTER PROJECT ADDRESS C. A. CLEAR ANODIZED F.F. FINISH FLOOR MECH MECHANICAL REINF REINFORCE 14. ALL PROCEDURES, TESTING, MATERIALS, LABOR & EQUIPMENT SHOWN ON THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 CAB CABINET F.G. FINISH GRADE MED MEDIUM REQD REQUIRED PLANS SHALL BE FURNISHED & INSTALLED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. UNLESS F.H. FIRE HYDRANT MFG MANUFACTURING REQMTS REQUIREMENTS NOTED OTHERWISE IN THESE PLANS. EQUIPMENT OR MATERIALS NOTED ONLY AS 'r�° E'er ^�<: ANDREW JAKSICH CAP CAPACITY FACILITY OWNER REP. FIN FINISH MFR MANUFACTURER R.I. RIGID INSULATION "FURNISHED BY OWNER" SHALL BE INSTALLED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. "' r z (650) 616 -0145 C. B. CATCH BASIN CEM CEMENT FIXT FIXTURE M.G.D. MULTI -GRADE DISPENSER RM ROOM _ FL FLOW LINE 513 ECCLES AVENUE J r W (A Q ul�_ W LL] O J � U) W z c) 0- U � MGR MANAGER R.O. ROUGH OPENING CER CERAMIC OWNER'S ADDRESS FLASH FLASH FLASHING M H MANHOLE R 0 W RIGHT OF WAY a - SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 Permit -Seal O O O O l g X M M -, - Im w z 0 N W 0 L, 0 w D V) L V, C) 0 z 0 c� z_ w 0 z Z z g 0 0 W CD 00 O 07 U O uj U U Q Z O� Lu L- Z Q Q 2 z:D U) O z U z z g � W c 0 '-` z z o M � W J J D W W 0 of a) N N_o OCV LO O O �rr L2 � r CD Q � �Im c� Z 0 L m 0 z w 0 U z w J U w m H LU W 2 W a� O � U C. 1. CAST IRON FLEX FLEXIBLE M.I. MALLEABLE IRON R. R. ROOF RAFTER, RESTROOM, RAILROAD Vr. CI.P. CAST IRON PIPE; CAST -IN -PLACE FLUOR FLUORESCENT CIR CIRCLE MIN MINIMUM R.V. ROOF VENT \� EMLING #C g i C�C� y/T F.O.C. FACE OF CONCRETE, FACE OF CURB MISC MISCELLANEOUS R.W.L. RAIN WATER LEADER " - I� r C. J. CEILING JOIST, CONSTRUCTION JOINT F.O.F. FACE OF FOUNDATION / VENEER M. L. METAL LATH �a 2 4 ;. „a �S A CL CENTERLINE F.O.M. FACE OF MASONRY MM MILLIMETER S.A.D. SEE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS PROJECT DIRECTORY .� �y CLG CEILING 0. CLR CLEAR F.O.S. FACE OF STUD M. 0. MASONRY OPENING SAN SANITARY � '' F.R.P. FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC M.P.D. MULTI - PRODUCT DISPENSER S. C. SOLID CORE, SEALED CONCRETE SITE�y " "'� "" PLANNING /ZONING DATA SIGNATURE C.M.P. CORRUGATED METAL PIPE F.S. FLOOR SINK 11 30 17 C.M.U. CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT MU MOISTURE RESISTANT S.D. SCHEDULE RENEWAL �TE FT FOOT, FEET MULT MULTIPLE S.D. STORM DRAIN �Z C. 0. CLEANOUT, CONDUIT ONLY FTG FOOTING COL COLUMN FURN FURNISH SECT SECTION AGENCY CONTACT NAME PHONE NUMBER �"" CONC CONCRETE (N) NEW SELF CL SELF CLOSIGN ' y irk z 015- 114 -460 015 - 114 -470 11/18/15 R` �r.�y w� ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO: spgTF °A� COND CONDITION N.A. NOT APPLICABLE S. F. SQUARE FOOT PLANNING TONY ROZZI GA GAGE CONN CONNECTION GAL GALLON N.E.C. NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE SHT SHEET CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO �' j 2 A PARCEL SIZE: ±116,408 SQ. FT. OF CA CONST CONSTRUCTION GALV GALVANIZED NEG NEGATIVE SIM SIMILAR PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONT CONTINUOUS GAS GASOLINE N. E. M. A. NATIONAL ELECTRICAL S.M.D. SEE MECHANICAL DRAWINGS 400 GRAND AVE. Q i P` 2007125002 q I MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION SPEC SPECIFICATION ,p ZONING DISTRICT M -1 (MIXED INDUSTRIAL) Project Number: CONTR CONTR CONTRACTOR G.B. GRAB BAR, GRADE BREAK SPKR SPEAKER SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 (650)- 877 -8535 ,' �, `� N. F. P. A. NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION c CORG CORG CORRUGATED G.C. GENERAL CONTRACTOR �. � � �` File Name: 2007124002 C. T. C.T. CERAMIC TILE G.F.I. GROUND FAULT INTERRUPTER AGENCY SQ SQUARE BUILDING CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TENFORAN ? !NDENVILL CONSTRUCTION TYPE: VB N.I.C. NOT IN CONTRACT SQ.FT. SQUARE FEET C.T.G. C.T.G. CLEANOUT TO GRADE G.I. GALVANIZED IRON S.S. SANITARY SEWER, STEEL STUD BUILDING DEPARTMENT CTR CTR CENTER GL GLASS NO., # NUMBER y ,', S.S.D. SUBSOIL DRAIN, SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS 315 MAPLE AVE. OCCUPANCY TYPE CU.FT. CU.FT. CUBIC FOOT G.L.B GLU -LAM BEAM NOM NOMINAL S.S.T. STAINLESS STEEL SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 (650)-829-6670 ©flue SOUTH DEV JIM JIM 14.12.10 CU.IN. CU.IN. CUBIC INCH G.P. GUARD POST N. S. NONSHRINK _�� dtfitPf7�?i NTS NOT TO SCALE STA STATION ""�� - I own. Chkd. Dspn. YY.MM.DD C. V. C.V. CHECK VALVE GR GRADE NATURE OF BUSINESS CAR RENTAL FACILITY C. W. C.W. COLD WATER G.S.M. GALVANIZED SHEET METAL S.T.C. SOUND TRANSMISSION CLASS FIRE DEPARTMENT CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO G.T. GREASE TRAP STD STANDARD FIRE DEPARTMENT Drawing No. CS STL STL STEEL G.W.B. G.W.B. GYPSUM WALLBOARD 480 N. CANAL STREET LANDSCAPE REQUIRED 10% LOT AREA GYP GYP GYPSUM S.T.W. STORM WATER GYP. GYP. BD. GYPSUM BOARD SUSP SUSPENDED SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 (650)- 829 -6645 R2VISIOn Sheet S. W. SHEAR WALL, SIDEWALK LANDSCAPE AREA PROVIDED ±11,661 SQ. FT. NORTH — 1 of 8 ORIGINAL SHEET - ARCH D c 0 a�