HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 190-2018 (18-886)City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 (City Hall,
400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
City council
Resolution: RES 190 -2018
File Number: 18 -886 Enactment Number: RES 190 -2018
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND A DETERMINATION
THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED
MULTI - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AT 405 CYPRESS
AVENUE, 204, 208, 212/214, AND 216 MILLER AVENUE
(COLLECTIVELY REFERRED TO AS "CADENCE PHASE 2 ", OR
"PROJECT ") WERE SUFFICIENTLY ANALYZED UNDER THE
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (DSASP)
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR)
PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
(CEQA) GUIDELINES SECTION 15168, AND THAT THE
PROPOSED PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM CEQA UNDER CEQA
GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15183 AND 15332, AND GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 65457, AND PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE
SECTION 21155.4
WHEREAS, the applicant has proposed construction of a high- density residential development,
consisting of 195 residential units, 225 parking spaces, and residential amenities at 405 Cypress Avenue,
204, 208, 212/214, and 216 Miller Avenue, APNs 012 - 314 -220, 012- 314 -190, 012 - 314 -180,
012 - 314 -110, and 011- 014 -100 (collectively referred to as "Project Site ") in the City; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Project is located within the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
( "DSASP ") area; and
WHEREAS, the applicant seeks approval of a Conditional Use Permit (UP17- 0019), Design Review
(DR17- 0067), and Development Agreement Amendment (DAA18 -0002) for the Project; and
WHEREAS, approval of the applicant's proposal is considered a "project" for purposes of the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code § §21000, et seq.) ( "CEQA "); and
WHEREAS, the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR ") on January 28, 2015
(State Clearinghouse number 2013102001) in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA
Guidelines, which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the development of the DSASP; and
WHEREAS, the City Council also adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations ( "SOC ") on
January 28, 2015 in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, which carefully
considered each significant and unavoidable impact identified in the EIR and found that the significant
City of South San Francisco Page 1
File Number: 18 -886
Enactment Number: RES 190 -2018
environmental impacts are acceptable in light of the project's economic, legal, social, technological and
other benefits; and
WHEREAS, the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 as a
qualified in -fill development project; and
WHEREAS, the Project is also exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, as it is
consistent with the General Plan and the DSASP and would have no environmental impacts that would
be peculiar to the Project or Project Site; and
WHEREAS, the Project is also exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21155.4
as a multi - family residential development project that meets specific criteria, has no new or more
significant impacts than disclosed in the EIR, and is statutorily exempt from CEQA review; and
WHEREAS, the City and applicant prepared an Environmental Consistency Analysis for the Project
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 and an Environmental Checklist pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15168(c)(4) that concluded that even if the Project was not exempt from CEQA
pursuant to the above - listed exemptions, in accordance with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines
Section 15168, the Project is within the scope of the DSASP and would not result in any new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond
those disclosed and analyzed in the DSASP EIR certified by City Council nor would new mitigation be
required; and
WHEREAS, on September 6, 2018, the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a
lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the proposed entitlements and
environmental effects of the Project and take public testimony; and
WHEREAS, on November 28, 2018, the City Council for the City of South San Francisco held a
lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the proposed entitlements and
environmental effects of the Project and take public testimony; and
WHEREAS, the City Council exercised its independent judgment and analysis, and considered all
reports, recommendations, and testimony before making a determination 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; the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
City of South San Francisco Page 2
File Number: 18 -886
Enactment Number: RES 190 -2018
Program EIR and Statement of Overriding Considerations; the Environmental Consistency Analysis,
including all appendices thereto; all site plans, and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted
as part of the City Council's duly noticed November 28, 2018 meeting; and any other evidence (within
the meaning of Public Resources Code Sections 21080(e) and 21082.2), the City Council of the City of
South San Francisco hereby finds as follows:
SECTION 1 FINDINGS
A. 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 Environmental Consistency Analysis (Exhibit
A), and Environmental Consistency Analysis Supporting Documents (Exhibits B to J) 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 the Planning Manager, Sailesh Mehra.
B. CEOA Findings
1. For the reasons stated in this Resolution, the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15332: Class 32 as an infill development project because:
a. As described in the record, the Project is consistent with the City's General Plan, all applicable
General Plan policies, and zoning designations and regulations.
b. The Project will be located within the City's limits, on a site of less than five acres and will be
surrounded by urban uses in a built -out environment.
c. The Project Site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species as it is located in
a built -out environment and is currently disturbed as the site of an existing carwash and parking areas.
d. As supported by the findings of the ECA, approval of the Project would not result in any significant
effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
e. The Project can be adequately serviced by all required utilities and public services.
2. For the reasons stated in this Resolution, the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15183 as the Project is consistent with a community plan, general plan or zoning
policies because as supported by the findings of the ECA:
a. The Project is consistent with the development density established by existing DSASP zoning,
Specific Plan, and General Plan policies for which the DSASP Program EIR was certified.
City of South San Francisco Page 3
File Number: 18 -886
Enactment Number: RES 190 -2018
b. There are no project- specific effects which are peculiar to the Project or the Project Site.
c. There are no project - specific impacts, which the DSASP Program EIR failed to analyze as
significant effects.
d. There are no potentially significant off -site and/or cumulative impacts which the DSASP Program
EIR failed to evaluate.
e. There is no substantial new information which results in more severe impacts than anticipated by the
DSASP Program EIR.
3. For the reasons stated in this Resolution, there is not substantial evidence in the record to support a
fair argument that approval of the Project will result in significant environmental effects beyond those
adequately evaluated and addressed by the DSASP Program EIR, nor would the Project require any new
mitigation measures; therefore, the Project is within the scope of the DSASP Program EIR pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 because:
a. The Project does not propose substantial changes to the DSASP Project, which will require major
revisions of the DSASP Program EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or
a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
b. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the DSASP
Project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the DSASP Program EIR due to the
involvement of new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects;
c. No new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the DSASP Program EIR was certified as
complete, shows any of the following:
i. The Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the DSASP Program EIR;
ii. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous
EIR;
iii. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and
would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project, but the Project proponents
decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
iv. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the
DSASP Program EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but
the Project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
4. For reasons stated in this Resolution, the project is statutorily exempt from CEQA under Public
Resources Code Section 21155.4 as it is a mixed -use transit priority project as defined by SB 375 (2008),
and meets the following criteria:
a. The project is proposed within a transit priority area, as it is located within one -half mile of
City of South San Francisco Page 4
File Number: 18 -886
Enactment Number: RES 190 -2018
South San Francisco Caltrain station which is an existing major transit stop; and
b. The project implements and is consistent with the DSASP, which was approved pursuant to a
certified Program EIR; and
c. The project is consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable
policies for the DSASP area in Plan Bay Area 2040, which is the Bay Area Sustainable Communities
Strategy.
5. The City Council finds that the Project is statutorily and categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332: Class 32, CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, and Public Resources
Code Section 21155.4. The City Council also finds that the Project falls within the environmental
parameters analyzed in the DSASP EIRs. The City Council further finds that the Project is within the
scope of the DSASP pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 because the Project would not result
in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously
identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the DSASP Program EIR certified by City
Council nor would new mitigation be required by the Project. The Planning Commission fmds that the
Project implements the policies of the DSASP, and all the reports prepared for the Project (Historic
Resources Analysis, Archaeological Report, Geotechnical Investigation, Solar Study, Noise Assessment,
Traffic and Circulation Analysis, Sewer Analysis) determined that the Project would not result in any
new impacts not adequately evaluated and were addressed by the DSASP Program EIR and Statement of
Overriding Considerations.
SECTION 2 DETERMINATION
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 a determination that the
environmental effects of the proposed Project were sufficiently analyzed under the Downtown Station
Area Specific Plan (DSASP) Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15168, and that the proposed project is exempt
from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15183 and 15332, Government Code Section 65457, and
Public Resources Code Section 21155.4.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the resolution shall become effective immediately upon its
passage and adoption.
At a meeting of the City Council on 11/28/2018, a motion was made by Richard Garbarino, seconded by
Pradeep Gupta, that this Resolution be approved. The motion passed.
City of South San Francisco Page 5
File Number: 18 -886
Enactment Number: RES 190 -2018
Yes: 5 Mayor Normandy, Mayor Pro Tern Matsumoto, Councilmember Garbarino,
Councilmember Gupta, and Councilmember Addiego
Attest by
Krista Aarti iU
City of South San Francisco Page 6
Cadence Phase 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis
Page 1
Cadence Phase 2 (405 Cypress, 204, 208, 212/214, 216 Miller) Project Information –
Environmental Consistency Analysis
I. Purpose
On January 28, 2015, a programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified by the City
Council (Final Environmental Impact Report for the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area
Specific Plan (DSASP), State Clearinghouse #2013102001.) The program EIR assessed the
potential environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the DSASP, which established
new land use, development, and urban design regulations for the area over a 20-year planning
period. Since the certification of the program EIR, the City Council has certified 1) an
Environmental Consistency Analysis for Cadence Phase 1 by Resolution No. 16-2016 on February
10, 2016 and 2) an Addendum to the program EIR for the Downtown Transit Core (DTC) Zoning
Amendments by Resolution No. 31-2018 on February 28, 2018, which are incorporated herein by
reference.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides for limited environmental review of
subsequent projects under a program EIR. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168.) Components of a
subsequent project must be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether any
additional environmental analysis must be conducted. The CEQA Guidelines require lead agencies
to use checklists or similar mechanisms to conduct this evaluation. This Environmental
Consistency Analysis (ECA) has been prepared to evaluate the 195-unit Cadence Phase 2 (Vacant
Miller Avenue Parking Lots) (Project) that is a subsequent project within the DSASP. (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15168(c)(4).) This ECA also examines consistency of the Project with the
Downtown Station Area Plan for the purposes of CEQA Guidelines 15183, which allows
streamlined environmental review for projects consistent with existing zoning, community plan or
general plan policies for which an EIR was certified, as well as CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.3,
which allows streamlined environmental review for eligible infill projects.
The City concludes that, based on the substantial evidence discussed herein, that all the Project’s
environmental effects were previously analyzed in the DSASP program EIR and no event pursuant
to Public Resources Code Section 21166 has occurred since preparation and certification of the
DSASP program EIR. Therefore, no additional environmental review is required.
Other Available CEQA Exemptions
The City has chosen to analyze the Project under CEQA Guidelines 15168, 15183 and 15183.3, but
based on the nature and location of the Project, and the analysis provided herein, the proposed
Project also qualifies for several other CEQA exemptions.
• The Project is exempt under Government Code Section 65457, as a residential development
project being undertaken pursuant to a Specific Plan for which an EIR was prepared and
certified and no event specified in Public Resources Code Section 21166 has occurred.
• The Project is exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 as a qualified in-fill
development project, as it meets the following conditions:
o As described in Section X (Land Use and Planning), below, the project is
consistent with the applicable general plan designation, applicable general plan
policies and applicable zoning designations and regulations,
o As described in Section 8 (Description of the Project) and Section 9 (Existing
Setting), the project occurs within the City limits on a site less than five acres, and
Cadence Phase 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis
Page 2
surrounded by urban uses,
o As described in Section IV (Biological Resources) below, the Project site has no
value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species,
o As described in Sections XVI (Traffic/Transportation), XII (Noise), III (Air
Quality), and IX (Hydrology), approval of the project would not result in any
significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality; and
o As described in Section XIV (Public Services), the site can be adequately served
by all required utilities and public services.
• The Project is exempt under Public Resources Code Section 21155.4 (SB 743 (2013)), as a
residential project, located in a transit priority area (Downtown Transit Core), consistent
with the DSASP, for which an EIR was certified, and is located within/consistent with the
Downtown (South San Francisco) Priority Development Area under Plan Bay Area 2040, the
adopted Sustainable Communities Strategy for the Bay Area.
II. Project Description
1. Project Title
Cadence Phase 2 (aka Vacant Miller Ave Parking Lots)
405 Cypress Ave, 204 to 216 Miller Ave
South San Francisco, CA 94080
2. Lead Agency Name and Address
City of South San Francisco
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
3. Contact Person and Phone Number
Ken Busch, Senior Vice President
Sares Regis Group of Northern California
(650) 377-5805
kbusch@srgnc.com
4. Project Location
405 Cypress Ave and 204, 208, 212, 214, and 216 Miller Ave
South San Francisco, CA 94080
APNs: 012-314-100, 012-314-110, 012-314-180, 012-314-190, 012-314-220
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address
Owner: BIT SSF Miller Cypress, LLC
Attn: Ken Busch
c/o Sares Regis Group of Northern California
901 Mariners Island Blvd, Suite 700
San Mateo, CA 94404
6. General Plan Designation
Downtown Transit Core (DTC)
Cadence Phase 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis
Page 3
7. Zoning
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP) – Downtown Transit Core (DTC) Zoning
District
8. Description of Project
The Project is the second phase of Cadence. Cadence Phase 1 is a 260-unit apartment community
currently under construction at 405 Cypress, 398 Cypress Ave and 400 Cypress Ave. Cadence Phase 2 is
located within one-half mile of the relocated Caltrain and one block from the historic retail cores of Grand
Avenue and Linden Street.
The Project site consists of 1.08 acres, bounded by Miller Avenue to the south, Cypress Avenue to the
east, Tamarak Lane to the north, and existing commercial buildings to the west. The Project site is an
infill, redevelopment site that is currently developed with two vacant surface parking lots, three one- and
two-story commercial structures, entirely surrounded by urban uses, and located entirely in the DSASP
DTC Zoning District.
Cadence Phase 2 includes the full demolition of three existing buildings located at 204, 208, and 212/214
Miller Avenue and the removal of two vacant Former Ford parking lots located at 405 Cypress Ave and
216 Miller Ave that were both included in the Cadence Phase 1 Project site. The Project will consist of
195 apartment homes in one building and accompanying ancillary uses (i.e. parking, amenities, offsite
utility improvements, streetscape improvements). The building is seven to eight stories tall and consists
of five levels of “Type III” wood construction over two or three levels of “Type I” concrete construction.
Due to grade change across the site, the total number of stories varies between seven and eight in order to
maintain consistent ground plane access and activation from west to east. The building height is
consistent with the DSASP Downtown Transit Core (DTC) height limit of 85 feet.
The five upper floors of the building consist of studios, Urban-1, 1-, 2-, and 3-bedroom apartments, and
these floors step back along portions of the Miller Avenue in order to create landscaped podium
courtyards on top of the concrete podium and to provide visual/physical articulation along Miller Avenue.
The lower level concrete portion of the building contains parking for the residents, as well as guest spaces
for those visiting the property. This parking is partially lined with additional residential units, lobbies,
and amenity spaces so the parking is shielded from view to those walking adjacent to the Project along
Miller Avenue and Cypress Avenue. These uses provide interest and activation along Miller and Cypress
Avenues. A large roof deck, landscaped courtyard, barbeque, dining areas, along with furnished lobbies
will be provided for the residents, along with shared access for residents to the fitness center and
community room in Cadence Phase 1. Storage units will be provided within units, in close proximity to
units, and in a common area for residents.
The residential portion of the building will also be directly accessed from the internal parking spaces.
The building is elevator served. Access to the first level of the parking garage will be from Miller
Avenue and the second level of the parking garage will be accessed from Tamarack Lane.
The Project’s single building will potentially be constructed in two phases, with the first phase (Phase 2A)
consisting of 101 units on the two parcels addressed as 216 and 212/214 Miller Avenue and the second
phase (Phase 2B consisting) of the remaining 94 units will be constructed on 405 Cypress, 204 Miller and
208 Miller. The single building is designed with necessary circulation, ingress, egress, utility
connections, and parking to function as a Phase 2A only or a Phase 2A+2B build-out.
Cadence Phase 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis
Page 4
The parking garage will contain 225 parking spaces as well as 64 bicycle parking spaces shown on the
site plan. The table below shows the number of units, vehicle parking stalls, and bicycle parking that will
be included in the Project. The 25 surface parking spaces for Phase 1 currently located on Parcel B will
be demolished for the Project, and parking for Phase 1 and Phase 2 are proposed to be shared and
managed across both Phases.
+
Cadence Phase 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis
Page 5
Cadence Phase 2: Project Summary
Number of Units 195
Lot Area 1.08 ac
Building Gross Floor Area 288,000 SF
Parking Spaces 225 (48 are compact)
Amenities
As a new high density development within a one-half mile radius of the Caltrain Station, the Project will
promote ridership and reduce emissions, provide high-quality residential opportunities for younger
employees and older retirees who desire a convenient downtown location, and increase the population
close to Grand Avenue to support nearby businesses, per the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan’s
(DSASP) goals. In addition, the Project will include a robust Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) plan for the purpose of reducing the reliance on single-occupancy vehicles, thus reducing vehicle
trips as well as the need for on-site parking. The TDM Program is proposed to include the following (or
similar/equivalent) features:
Site Location and Design-Related Measures
The site is located near the relocated South San Francisco Caltrain BART station. The site has been
designed with upgraded sidewalks to encourage walking to the Caltrain station and is also located
within one quarter mile of five SamTrans bus routes. The Project received a score of 89 (“Very
Walkable – Most errands can be accomplished on foot”) by Greentrip.
Access to building amenities, such as outdoor courtyard, rooftop deck, shared access to the Cadence
Phase 1 fitness center and community space, and free Wi-Fi in community areas for telecommuting
will be included to allow residents to stay onsite and reduce commute trips.
Ample bicycle support facilities will be provided including secure and protected bicycle parking for
residents, bike racks for visitors, and on-site bicycle repair stations to encourage bicycling as a travel
mode. The project will provide electric bicycle charging stations, bike share pods and/or
accommodations for dock less bike share (e.g., bike-share parking facilities).
Programmatic Measures
Transportation Coordinator: Identify a Transportation Coordinator (could be an existing on-site staff
person) for the community who will be responsible for developing, marketing, implementing, and
evaluating TDM programs. Providing dedicated personnel to help make the TDM program more
robust, consistent and reliable. Include internal communication tools such as the SRG Living portal
that distributes information to our residents via the web and community computers in our leasing and
lounge areas on topics ranging from restaurant and recreational amenities to package pick up to transit
options and schedules.
Unbundled/Separately Priced Parking: Unbundling parking as part of the rental price of a residential
unit requires the tenant to consider the cost of driving which includes parking and will encourage
people to use an alternative mode to driving alone.
Free Transit Passes: Provide $100 introductory Clipper cards for all residents in the initial lease-up of
the project, and after initial lease-up we will continue to provide educate for all future residents where
Cadence Phase 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis
Page 6
monthly passes can be purchased at a discounted price. Including a free transit pass will encourage
residents to use public transit before their drive-alone commute habits are established.
New Resident Orientation Packet: Provide a move-in packet to all new residents explaining public
transportation options and the TDM program creates an awareness and culture of drive-alone
alternatives.
Ridesharing Programs: Ridesharing programs help carpool form by matching drivers and passengers,
such as internal bulletins/message boards, 511.org carpool matching / Lyft partnership technology, or
peer-to-peer matching apps.
Car Share: Work with car sharing companies to assess the feasibility of providing car share on-site.
The decision to install a car share is ultimately up to the car sharing service providers. A car share
provider located on-site would allow residents to use a car share vehicle for errands which helps to
reduce concerns and inconveniences of not owning a vehicle.
Fleet of On-Site Bicycles: Provide community bicycles to residents for infrequent trips or to try a
bicycle before deciding to purchase one.
The applicant is also requesting a density bonus from 100 dwelling units per acre (DUA) to 180 DUA in
exchange for community benefits as allowed in the DSASP. The Project is consistent with the City’s goal
of increasing the quantity and density of residential units in the Downtown, to promote increased Caltrain
ridership and to promote a healthy ecosystem that supports downtown businesses. In the public realm
around the site, the Project will include public art and streetscape improvements such as undergrounding
overhead utility lines along all frontages of the property, widening and installing new sidewalks along the
Project frontage on Miller Avenue and Cypress, and providing street furnishings and vegetation such as
benches and street trees along the project frontage of Miller Avenue and Cypress Avenue. Street trees will
be installed in bulb outs along Miller Ave. and within the sidewalk along Cypress Ave. Improved public
utilities such as storm drains will be completed within Miller Avenue. The Project will be LEED certified,
and exceed by 5% the standards established by the 2016 California Building Standards Code (Cal. Code.
Regs. Rule 24) Title 24, Part 6 California Energy Code. The Project will also address environmental
clean-up concerns associated with some of the empty parking lots that have existed for a long time. This
includes mitigating the presence of lead to allow the construction of the Project.
Additional details about the Project can be found in the Cadence Phase 2 application plan set dated
June 8, 2018.
9. Existing Setting
The subject site is located one block north of Grand Ave on the east side of side of downtown South
San Francisco. The existing properties contain vacant parking lots, vacant buildings, or
underutilized buildings in need of repair. There is approximately ten feet of grade change between
Cypress Avenue and the western edge of the site with four feet of grade change between Miller Ave
and Tamarack Lane. 216 Miller Avenue and 405 Cypress contain lead in the soil which must be
addressed to develop the properties.
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
The subject site is located at the northwest corner of Cypress and Miller Avenues. The area
connects the downtown to the Old Town neighborhood. Recent development in the immediate area
replaced the vacant parking lots and the vacant buildings of the former Ford dealership with the
Cadence Phase 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis
Page 7
construction of the Cadence community of 260 apartments. To the south across Miller Avenue are a
parking lot and two 2-story office buildings containing a dental office and a social club. To the west
are one-story retail and office buildings including a pawn shop. To the north across Tamarack Lane
are one- and two-story residences and a restaurant.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement):
Development will be subject to:
• Entitlements from the City of South San Francisco.
• Voluntary Clean Up Program, or equivalent program, approved by the applicable regulatory
agency (e.g., County of San Mateo Health System, San Francisco Regional Water Quality
Control Board, or California Department of Toxic Substances Control) to ensure
environmental actions protect future site users from exposure to elevated concentrations of
constituents, such as the use of personal protective equipment in construction work,
separation of future residents users from impacted soil, and use of ongoing institutional
controls.
III. Determination
The Project is within the scope of the DSASP program EIR and no new environmental document is
required. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c).) All of the following statements are found to be true:
1. This subsequent Project is within the scope of the project covered by the Final EIR for the
City’s DSASP.
2. This subsequent Project will have no additional significant environmental effects not
discussed or identified in the DSASP program EIR;
3. No substantial changes to the DSASP are proposed as part of this Project. Further, no substantial
changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the DSASP program EIR was
certified, and no new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time that
the DSASP program EIR was certified as complete has become available.
4. No new or additional mitigation measures or alternatives are required.
5. All applicable policies, regulations, and mitigation measures identified in the DSASP program
EIR will be applied to this subsequent Project or otherwise made conditions of approval of this
subsequent Project.
Issue Areas/Documentation:
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees,
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Cadence Phase 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis
Page 8
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area? ("Glare" is defined in the DSASP program
EIR as the reflection of harsh bright light sufficient to cause physical
discomfort or loss in visual performance and visibility.)
Documentation:
a. The DSASP program EIR (p. 4.1-9) concluded that no scenic vistas or view corridors existed within the
DSASP area but that there are prominent visual landmarks in South San Francisco outside of the
DSASP area, including San Bruno Mountain, Sign Hill Park, the “Wind Harp Tower” at San Bruno
Point Hill and the San Francisco Bay. There are no designated scenic outlooks within the DSASP area
and no designated places where people would gather in order to gain a view of San Bruno Mountain or
Sign Hill Park. Additionally, all new development under the DSASP would have building heights
consistent with the land use designations of the development sites, except for those granted a Waiver
and Modification. The height of the Project would be 85 feet to the top of the parapet which is
allowable under the DSASP and Downtown Transit Core (DTC) Zoning District development
standards. Since the land use designations are approved by the General Plan, views from new
development would be consistent with the City’s regulations. Therefore, the Project would not have a
substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, consistent with the DSASP program EIR.
b. While the DSASP area is not located within a state scenic highway, it does contain historic buildings
that could be considered scenic resources. The integrity of such resources would be maintained,
however, with adherence to DSASP policies and objectives as described in (c) below. A main objective
of the DSASP is to revitalize the Downtown to be a vibrant and successful community resource, while
protecting the historic building fabric of the area. Grand Avenue is the historic heart of the City, with
City Hall at one end of the street and a diverse array of one-, two-, and three-story buildings with
examples of interesting architectural periods, dispersed along the street. While Grand Avenue would
experience new development and improvements, the scale and character of the street would be
maintained under the DSASP. The Project site is located one-block north of Grand Avenue and would
respect the historic fabric of the Downtown area while providing an updated, refreshed feel to attract
more pedestrian and commercial activity within the DSASP area.
Adopted DSASP policies, guidelines, and zoning regulations protect historic buildings and their visual
character within the DSASP area. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not substantially
damage scenic resources, as it would be in conformance with these policies and subject to conditions of
approval. The Project is in compliance with all applicable DSASP standards, guidelines, and
regulations, as proposed with the entitlements request. As a result, the Project is consistent with the
aesthetic considerations of the DSASP program EIR.
Archaeological Resource Management completed an evaluation on December 13, 2017 of the buildings
to be demolished and determined that these buildings are not historic (attached to this ECA).
c. The existing Downtown area is currently comprised of inconsistent building heights and aesthetic
quality and lacks a cohesive grid street network. There is little to no streetscaping and the area is
deteriorated in certain locations and generally not designed for optimal pedestrian and commercial
activity. Implementation of the DSASP has established design guidelines and standards to improve the
Cadence Phase 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis
Page 9
overall aesthetic quality of the DSASP area as a whole. The existing low- and medium-rise buildings
within the study area presently create limited shade and shadow patterns that are contained within
proximity to each building. Additionally, the few taller buildings within the study area create more
extensive shade and shadow patterns on other buildings in their immediate vicinity and not on open
space.
Design Standard 20 of the DSASP requires projects in the specific plan area to "consider the impacts of
shade and wind on open spaces, pedestrian corridors and retail streets in the massing and articulation of
building facades; locate outdoor spaces where there will be good protection from wind." A solar
shadow analysis was prepared to analyze whether the Project would create substantial shade impacts on
open spaces, pedestrian corridors, and retail streets and whether the Project would create shadows that
"substantially degrade" the quality of the site and its surroundings.
North of the Project Site is Tamarack Lane, a narrow alley. On the north side of Tamarack Lane across
from the Project site are two single-story multifamily residential building. There are no schools, parks,
or other public open spaces in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. There are also no shade-
sensitive commercial uses, which would include pedestrian-oriented outdoor spaces or dining areas,
nurseries, and solar collectors, in the vicinity of the Project site.
The study indicates that the proposed Project would cast new shadows on Tamarack Lane and portions
of the residential properties in the vicinity of the Project site. No new shadows would be cast upon
open public spaces, pedestrian corridors, and retail streets; therefore, the Project would not have an
impact on these categories of shade-sensitive uses.
The study also indicates that the Project would also cast some new shadows on commercial properties
west of the Project site during portions of the morning; however, these shadows would be transitory in
nature and leave the western properties unshaded by noon. To the north and east, the Project would
result in incrementally new shadows on the non-shade-sensitive portions of residential and commercial
properties, such as parking areas, roofs, and driveways.
Overall, the proposed project’s shadows are most impactful during the winter months for brief periods
during the fall and spring seasons. However, the degree and length of shadowing do not appear to cause
negative affects to character-defining features or indirectly cause any material impairment to historic
resources such that there would be a CEQA impact according to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5
for Impacts to Historical Resources.
Implementation of the Project would be beneficial to the DSASP area, as it will eliminate vacant
parking lots and replace older unmaintained building with 195 new residential units within a seven to
eight story, high-quality, modern building. The Project also includes the construction of significant
pedestrian and streetscape enhancements along Miller Avenue, Cypress Avenue and Tamarack Lane,
including wider sidewalks, landscaping and bulb outs, undergrounding overhead utility lines, and
installing needed public utilities.
Because the Project does not have the potential to increase shadows on public open spaces, pedestrian
corridors and retail streets it would not substantially degrade the quality of the Project site and its
surroundings, and the Project would result in less than significant impacts. The overall Project will
enhance the visual quality of the site and its surroundings consistent with the DSASP program EIR.
Therefore, the Project would not result in a negative aesthetic impact to the surrounding area.
d. The land uses accommodated under the DSASP have the potential to include sources of light and glare,
such as security lighting or new glass panels buildings. However, the DSASP area is currently
Cadence Phase 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis
Page 10
developed with similar land uses. Redevelopment would not result in a substantial net increase in
nighttime lighting or daytime glare sources. The South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC)
includes multiple building and construction regulations and zoning requirements that are intended to
minimize localized light and glare impacts. Additionally, the DSASP Performance Standards and
adopted zoning regulations state that all new pedestrian light fixtures shall be designed to focus light
onto sidewalks and to minimize light spillover into adjacent upper level building windows or into the
night sky. The Project has been designed to adhere to these requirements and, therefore, no new
sources of substantial light or glare not evaluated by the DSASP program EIR would result from
implementation of the Project.
No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigations are required for the Project.
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES --Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland,
or timberland zoned Timberland Production?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Documentation:
a-c,d,e. No agricultural uses are located in the DSASP area, and the area does not contain any Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, forest land, timberland, timberland production,
or forest land. The Project is located in a built-out, urban environment and, therefore, would not convert
farmland to a non-agricultural use. Consistent with the DSASP program EIR, no impact would occur as
a result of the Project.
b. The Project would not conflict with any agricultural zoning use or a Williamson Act contract. There
are no such zoned land uses or Williamson Act contracts in the Project vicinity. Consistent with the
DSASP program EIR, no impact would occur as a result of the Project.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard, including releasing emissions that exceed
quantitative threshold for ozone precursors?
III. AIR QUALITY -- Would the project:
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Cadence Phase 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis
Page 11
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations,
including, but not limited to, substantial levels of toxic air contaminants?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Documentation:
a-c. The DSASP program EIR (pp. 4.2-10 through 4.2-28) identified significant and unavoidable impacts
related to air quality for construction and operational activities of new development if mitigation
measures were not implemented for all future projects. Mitigations were included in the EIR, but the
City Council determined that such impacts could not be avoided even with the incorporation of these
measures and that no other feasible mitigations or alternatives would avoid or lessen the impacts.
Consequently, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the DSASP program EIR
on January 28, 2015 that determined that the new development benefits outweigh the potential air
quality impacts.
The Project would implement the applicable control measures of the 2010 Clean Air Plan and would
not hinder implementation of any control measure. The Project is in compliance with all applicable
DSASP regulations and, as a result, would not create any additional construction or operational
emission impacts in excess of those addressed by the DSASP program EIR and the Statement of
Overriding Considerations.
An Air Quality Assessment prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. dated December 6, 2017 (attached
to this ECA) determined the Project is consistent with the development planned to occur under the
DSASP EIR. Construction period emissions were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator
Model, Version 2016.3.2 (CalEEMod). These emissions include both on-site construction activity and
off-site truck and worker travel. Construction activity is anticipated to include demolition, grading and
site preparation, trenching, building construction, and paving, and potentially soil excavation and
disposal, as may be required to abate environmental conditions. The proposed project land uses and
construction information inputted into the CalEEMod were as follows:
• 195 “Dwelling Unit Apartments Mid Rise” Acreage = 1.1 acres
• Import fill = 1,000 cy Export fill = 3,000 cy
• Demolition = 21,500 sf and 480 tons pavement Cement truck trip = 300 trips
• Asphalt truck trips = 80 trips
The Project is subject to the air quality mitigation measures in the DSASP EIR, specifically:
• Mitigation Measure MM4.2-1 requires the emissions modeling of construction activities to
identify appropriate mitigation measures to reduce emissions below significance criteria;
• Mitigation Measure MM4.2-2 requires quantification of operational emissions to demonstrate
that adequate measures have been identified to reduce emissions; and
• Mitigation Measure MM4.2-3 requires a health risk assessment that assesses the impacts of air
pollution sources that could affect the project’s residents and, if necessary, identify appropriate
measures to reduce the potential health risk to below significant level.
To address these mitigation measures, the Air Quality Assessment performed the following analyses
for the Project, reproduced in italics below:
Cadence Phase 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis
Page 12
Evaluate Construction Activities (MM4.2-1)
Construction air quality impacts were addressed by predicting construction period emissions
and health risk impacts to nearby sensitive receptors and identifying measures to control
emissions. These projects are near existing residences and residences that are under
construction and will be occupied soon, so a health risk assessment was conducted. This
involved emissions modeling using CalEEMod and dispersion modeling using the EPA’s
AERMOD model and hourly. Meteorological data collected at the San Francisco
International Airport and obtained from the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The
excess cancer risks, associated with modeled construction period diesel particulate matter
concentrations were computed following Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) risk management policy guidance. In addition, non-cancer hazards and fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) concentrations were also predicted. Note that excess cancer risk is
associated with diesel particulate matter (DPM) emitted from construction equipment and
trucks. DPM is categorized as a toxic air contaminant (TAC) by the CARB.
This analysis was conducted for the Project and the maximum impact from construction
activity at a sensitive receptor was identified. Project-specific mitigation measures would be
required if emissions exceed the significance thresholds or health risk thresholds identified in
Table 1.
Operational Emissions (MM4.2-2)
CalEEMod runs to predict construction emissions were used to predict operational air
pollutant emissions from the Project. The emissions were compared against significance
thresholds, and where necessary, emissions reduction measures were identified. Project-
specific mitigation measures were required if emissions exceed the significance thresholds.
Exposure to Sources of Toxic Air Contaminants (MM4.2-3)
The Project site is located near several sources of toxic air contaminants that include U.S.
Highway 101, the Caltrain rail line, Airport Boulevard, and several stationary sources
permitted by BAAQMD. The effect of these sources was evaluated in the 2015 Air Quality
Study and those findings are applied to this analysis. The following analysis was conducted in
the 2015 Air Quality Study to address these sources:
• The EMFAC2011 emission factor model and the CAL3QHCR dispersion model along
with hourly meteorological data from San Francisco International Airport and obtained from
BAAQMD was used to model impacts associated with traffic on U.S. Highway 101. The
BAAQMD Roadway Screening Analysis Calculator was used to assess impacts from the local
busy roadways, which are Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue.
• EPA emissions factors for diesel train locomotives and the AERMOD dispersion model
along with hourly meteorological data from the San Francisco International Airport and
obtained from CARB was used to model impacts associated with nearby train activity.
• The BAAQMD Stationary Source Screening Analysis Tool, along with BAAQMD’s
appropriate Distance Multipliers were used to address impacts from nearby stationary sources
affecting any of the sites.
Cadence Phase 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis
Page 13
• The maximum single-source and cumulative source health risk impacts were computed
at the location where the maximum impacts occur; otherwise known as the maximum effected
individual or MEI.
Project-specific mitigation measures would be required if the health risk thresholds are
exceeded.
Table 1. Air Quality Significance Thresholds
Pollutant
Construction
Operational Thresholds
Average Daily
Emissions (lbs./day)
Average
Daily
Emissions
(lbs./day)
Annual
Average
Emissions
(tons/year)
Criteria Air Pollutants
ROG 54 54 10
NOx 54 54 10
PM10 82 82 15
PM2.5 54 54 10
CO Not Applicable 9.0 ppm (8-hr avg.) or 20.0 ppm
(1-hr avg.)
Fugitive Dust
Construction Dust
Ordinance or other
Best Management
Not Applicable
Health Risks and Hazards for New Sources (e.g., Construction)
Excess Cancer
>10 per one million
Chronic or Acute
Hazard Index
>1.0
Incremental
annual average
>0.3 µg/m3
Health Risks and Hazards for Sensitive Receptors (Cumulative from all sources within 1,000-
foot zone of influence) and Cumulative Thresholds for New Sources
Excess Cancer
>100 per one million
Chronic Hazard
>10.0
Annual Average
>0.8 µg/m3
Note: ROG = reactive organic gases, NOx = nitrogen oxides, PM10 = course particulate
matter or particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers (µm) or less, PM2.5 =
fine particulate matter or particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5µm or less; and
GHG = greenhouse gas.
Summary of Findings
Project-specific measures were identified to meet the mitigation requirements. These measures are as
follows:
Cadence Phase 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis
Page 14
In response to Mitigation Measure MM4.2-1, a measure to reduce construction exhaust emissions was
developed to ensure localized construction emissions do not lead to significant health risk impacts:
No additional project measures were identified to meet Mitigation Measures MM4.2-2 or MM4.2-3.
The BAAQMD’s recommended Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would be required are listed
under DSASP Mitigation Measure 1. The Air Quality Assessment determined that the Project would
have emissions less than the BAAQMD significance thresholds for evaluating impacts related to ozone
and particulate matter. Therefore, the Project would not contribute substantially to existing or
projected exceedances of those standards. The following BAAQMD best management practices shall
be implemented by the construction contractor, and shall be included as conditions of approval for the
project:
BAAQMD Required Fugitive Dust Control Measures: The construction contractor shall reduce
construction-related air pollutant emissions by implementing BAAQMD’s basic fugitive dust control
measures, including:
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved
access roads) shall be watered two times per day. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or
other loose material off site shall be covered.
• All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power
vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour.
• All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are
used.
• A publically visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the
Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action
with 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with
applicable regulations.
BAAQMD Required Basic Exhaust Emissions Reduction Measures. The construction contractor
shall implement the following measures during construction to reduce construction-related exhaust
emissions:
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing
the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control
measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be
provided for construction workers at all access points.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with
Implement the following measures to minimize emissions from diesel equipment:
1. All diesel-powered off-road equipment larger than 50 horsepower and operating at the site for more than
two days continuously shall meet U.S. EPA particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 2 engines or
equivalent and
2. All portable pieces of construction equipment (i.e., air compressors, cement mixers, concrete/industrial
saws, generators, and welders) meet U.S. EPA particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 4 engines
or equivalent.
3. Avoid staging equipment adjacent residences.
Cadence Phase 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis
Page 15
manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and
determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
BAAQMD Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) Requirements. The construction contractor shall
implement the following measures during demolition and construction to reduce TAC emissions:
• Notify BAAQMD at least ten business days before any demolition activities. The purpose of the
notification process is to assure that buildings are demolished in compliance with procedures
that assure asbestos is not released into the environment.
• Require surveys and removal of lead-based paints by licensed contractors certified in the
handling methods requisite to protect the environment, public health, and safety.
BAAQMD Architectural Coating Requirement. The construction contractor shall implement the
following measures to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs):
• Use paints and solvents with a VOC content of 100 grams per liter or less for interior surfaces
and 150 grams per liter or less for exterior surfaces.
BAAQMD Hearth Emissions. If fireplaces or wood burning stoves are installed in new residential
units, require cleaner-burning (e.g., natural gas or propane) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) certified stoves and inserts.
Exhaust Emissions Reduction. The construction contractor shall implement the following measures
during construction to further reduce construction-related exhaust emissions:
• All off-road equipment greater than 25 horsepower (hp) and operating for more than 20 total
hours over the entire duration of construction activities shall meet the following requirements:
1. Where access to alternative sources of power are available, portable diesel engines shall be
prohibited; and
2. All off-road equipment shall have:
a. Engines that meet or exceed either USEPA or California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Tier 2 off-road emission standards, and
b. Engines that are retrofitted with a CARB Level 3 Verified Diesel Emissions Control
Strategy (VDECS). Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of newer late
model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology,
after-treatment products, add-on devices such as particulate filters, and/or other options as
such are available.
Cadence Phase 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis
Page 16
d. The DSASP program EIR (pp. 4.2-22 through 4.2-27) concluded that development within the specific
plan area in accordance with the DSASP regulations had the potential to expose sensitive receptors (e.g.
proposed residential uses) to toxic air contaminants (TACs) and particulates (PM2.5) if located within
500 feet of a freeway, urban road with 100,000 vehicles/day, or the Caltrain railroad. The Air Quality
Assessment (Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.; December 6, 2017) concluded that operation of the Project is
not considered a source of TAC or fine particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions. As a result, the Project
operation would not cause emissions that expose sensitive receptors to unhealthy air pollutant levels.
Because the Project would not be a source of TACs, it would not contribute cumulatively to unhealthy
exposure to TACs. In addition, because the Project site is located within 500 feet of the Caltrain railroad
and the US-101, the DSASP EIR Mitigation Measure MM4.2-3 requires a Health Risk Assessment to be
prepared and approved by the City.1 As summarized in Table 5 of the Air Quality Assessment reproduced
below, the Project risk impacts from single and cumulative sources were below the BAAQMD thresholds
for single source and cumulative sources and concluded that there were no significant health impacts on
future residents locating within the Project.
Table 5. Community Risk Impacts from Single and Cumulative Sources
Source
Maximum
Cancer Risk
(per million)*
Maximum
Annual PM2.5 Concentration
(µg/m3)
Maximum
Hazard
Index
VMAP Local Roadways – Airport Blvd. at >200ft West 1.8 0.1 <0.04
Local Roadways – Grand Ave at >350 ft West 1.4 0.0 <0.04
U.S. 101 at >175 ft 7.7 0.3 <0.01
CalTrain at >500 feet 1.1 0.0 <0.01
Stationary Source G11137 at 200 ft 1.6 0.00 <0.01
Stationary Source G9214 at 800 ft 0.4 0.00 <0.01
Cumulative Total 14.0 0.4 <0.1
BAAQMD Threshold - Single Source 10.0 0.3 1.0
BAAQMD Threshold – Cumulative Sources 100 0.8 10.0
Significant No No No
*Cancer risk adjusted for 2015 OEHHA methods (see Attachment 2)
Accordingly, the Project is consistent with the analysis in the DSASP program EIR. As a condition of
approval, the applicant will be required to notify all prospective tenants in writing that the project is
within an urban downtown with regular and typical noise and emissions due to its location.
e. The Project will not contain any food service uses, or other uses that generate objectionable odors. As
part of standard project review the outdoor fireplace (courtyard) would be subject to City approval for
safety and odor control. Furthermore, the Project would accommodate refuse and recycling in enclosed
trash rooms on each residential floor and the lower/street level of the garage. Refuse and recycling pick-
1 Please note that to the extent this Consistency Checklist considers air-quality issues in relation to future residents of the
Project, it does so for informational purposes only pursuant to the judicial decisions in CBIA v. BAAQMD (2015) 62 Cal.4th
369, 386 and Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 455, 473, which confirm that the
impacts of the environment on a project are excluded from CEQA unless the project itself “exacerbates” the effect of existing
environmental hazards or conditions. As such, the impacts of any existing air quality conditions on the future residents of the
Project are not subject to CEQA analysis.
Cadence Phase 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis
Page 17
up would be provided by a local waste service provider (South San Francisco Scavenger) and would
occur on a regular basis. Consequently, no odor impacts are anticipated as a result of the Project.
No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigations are required for the Project.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or
by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined
by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory
fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
Documentation:
a-c. The DSASP area is currently developed with residential, commercial, and office uses. There are no large
open spaces in the Project area. Open space within the Downtown area consists of developed parkland,
mostly graded vacant lots, and a portion of the PG&E transmission corridor. The City’s General Plan
identifies the areas of the City that support biological resources, which generally consist of San Bruno
Mountain, Sign Hill, and wetland areas along Colma Creek (South San Francisco 1999, Open Space and
Conservation Element). The City requires assessment and protection of biological resources for
development in these areas. The DSASP area is not located in an area that supports biological resources.
The area is located south of Airport Boulevard and Highway 101, east of the railroad track and east of
San Mateo Avenue and this proposed project’s nearest open space is Colma Creek.
Riparian habitat in South San Francisco is limited to Colma Creek and the Bay fringe. However, the
DSASP does not propose any land use directly adjacent to the canal and the area directly adjacent to the
canal is currently in use for utility infrastructure and right-of-way. The Project is not proximate to this
location. Therefore, consistent with the DSASP program EIR, this Project would not result in any
substantial adverse impacts to sensitive plant or animal species.
d-e. Construction and development associated with implementation of the Project would not occur within an
area containing habitat that supports biological resources. Therefore, the Project would have no impact
on wildlife movement corridors. Landscaping vegetation within the DSASP area could provide potential
Cadence Phase 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis
Page 18
nesting habitat for migrating birds. If vegetation removal were to occur during the February 1 through
August 31 bird nesting period, construction would be required to comply with applicable regulations in
the California Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3513, or 3800), which would protect nesting birds
from construction disturbances and will be required as a condition of approval.
Landscaped areas in the Project area may contain trees defined as protected by the South San Francisco
Tree Preservation Ordinance contained in Title 13, Chapter 13.30 of the City’s Municipal Code.
Development activities could involve removal or pruning of protected trees. However, such activities
would be required to comply with the Tree Preservation Ordinance as part of the Project approval
process, including obtaining a permit for any tree removals or alterations of protected trees, and avoiding
tree roots during trenching for utilities. This will be required as a condition of approval.
The Conditions of Approval impose specific conditions on the Project to ensure that the Project
complies with applicable regulations and City-requirements and the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP) mitigation measures implement existing, not new, mitigation. Therefore,
the Project remains consistent with the analysis of the DSASP program EIR.
d. There is no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan that is applicable to the DSASP area or
Project.
No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required for the Project.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource
as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
Documentation:
The DSASP program EIR (pp. 4.3-11 through 4.3-13) identifies 12 historic resources within the DSASP
area and an additional 12 sites within a one-half mile radius of the area boundaries. Although the Grand
Avenue commercial corridor was suggested as a historic district, it was never formally designated. The
DSASP program EIR concluded that there were potential impacts to these resources only for project sites
located on or directly adjacent to a historic resource. Consistent with EIR Chapter 4, the DSASP specifies
standards, guidelines, and mitigations for historic resources identified in the DSASP. Implementation of
DSASP mitigation measure MM4.3-1 would require a qualified professional to conduct site-specific
historical resource evaluation for future development within the DSASP area that would demolish or
otherwise physically affect buildings or structures 45 years old or older or would otherwise affect their
historic setting. A report on the proposed project (Historic Evaluation of the Structures within the Cadence
II Project in South San Francisco Report prepared by Archaeological Resource Management, dated
December 13, 2107, attached to this ECA) was reviewed by City staff. The existing development on the
Cadence Phase 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis
Page 19
site consist of parking lots on 405 Cypress and 216 Miller Ave; a small building that is currently a
construction office at 204 Miller Ave, a union hall at 208 Miller Ave; and vacant office/retail space and
apartments at 212 Miller Ave. None of these buildings were identified as historic structures.
The Historic Evaluation of the Structures within the Cadence II Project in South San Francisco Report
investigation concluded that the existing buildings on the Project site are not listed, or eligible to be listed,
on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory, the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), or the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Consequently, the Project will have no impact on historic or
significant cultural resources, consistent with the DSASP program EIR.
a. The Project would not cause a potentially significant impact to any known archaeological resources in the
project vicinity. However, the DSASP program EIR (pp. 4.3-13 through 4.3-14) concluded that there is a
high potential for new development facilitated by the DSASP to disturb unrecorded archaeological
resources, which represented a potentially significant impact. DSASP Mitigation Measures MM4.3-2
through MM4.3-4 of the DSASP program EIR require that, prior to any earth-disturbing activities (e.g.,
excavation, trenching, grading) or in the event that any deposit of prehistoric or historic archaeological
materials are encountered during project construction activities, all work within 100 feet shall be stopped
and a qualified archaeologist be contacted to assess the deposit and make recommendations, possibly
including complete avoidance of the resources, in-place preservation, and/or data recovery. Additionally,
prior to start of construction, the supervisor will undergo worker environmental awareness training which
includes the ability to identify and protect significant cultural resources that may exist on site or provide
evidence of such training that is City-approved. These measures, which shall be required as conditions of
approval for the project, would reduce the potential impacts of the Project on archaeological resources to a
less-than-significant level. By imposing these conditions, the City is implementing existing, not new,
mitigation; therefore, the Project remains consistent with the analysis of the DSASP program EIR.
b. The Project would not cause a potentially significant impact to any known paleontological resources in the
project vicinity. However, the DSASP program EIR (p.4.3-14) concluded that earthmoving activity
associated with DSASP-facilitated development could potentially disrupt, alter, or eliminate as-yet
undiscovered paleontological resources, which represented a potentially significant impact. DSASP
Mitigation Measures MM4.3-5 through MM4.3-6 of the DSASP program EIR require that, prior to the
issuance of grading or demolition permits, the Community Development Department, in coordination with
a qualified paleontologist, assess individual development proposals for the potential to destroy unique
paleontological resources and to determine provisions to protect such resources when applicable, possibly
including complete avoidance of the resources, in-place preservation, and/or data recovery, as detailed in
MM4.3-5. Additionally, should paleontological resources or unique geologic features be identified at a
particular site during project construction, construction shall cease within 100 feet of the find and the City
shall be notified.
A City-approved paleontologist shall assess the significance of the find and impacts to any significant
resources shall be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through methods determined adequate by the
paleontologist and as approved by the City. These measures, which shall be required as conditions of
approval for the Project, would reduce the potential impacts of the Project on paleontological resources to a
less-than-significant level, consistent with the evaluation of the DSASP program EIR. By imposing these
conditions, the City is implementing existing, not new, mitigation; therefore, the Project remains consistent
with the analysis in the DSASP program EIR.
d. The Project would not cause a potentially significant impact to any known cemeteries or human remains in
the project vicinity (DSASP program EIR p. 4.3-15). However, should any human remains be found during
Cadence Phase 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis
Page 20
on- or off-site improvements associated with the Project, the DSASP program EIR identifies California
Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which requires that no further disturbances shall occur until the
County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition of the remains pursuant to
state law. Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 outlines the Native American Heritage Commission
notification process and the required procedures if the County Coroner determines the human remains to be
Native American. Compliance with this standard state regulation would protect unknown and previously
unidentified human remains, and impacts related to unknown human remains would be less than significant
and no mitigation would be required, consistent with the evaluation of the DSASP program EIR.
No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigations are required for the Project.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault (Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42)?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
Documentation:
a. (i.-iv.) The DSASP area is not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone as defined by the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1994 and no known active or potentially active faults traverse the study
area. Because ground rupture generally only occurs at the location of a fault, and no active faults are known
to traverse the DSASP area, the Project would not be subject to a substantial risk of surface fault
ruptures. The City and the larger San Francisco Bay Area are in a seismically active region. A rupture of
the Peninsula Segment of the San Andreas Fault could result in intensities registering 7.1 on the modified
Mercalli intensity scale in the South San Francisco area. Most of the City would experience an intensity
level of VII (Nonstructural Damage) or VIII (Moderate) from a rupture of the Peninsula Segment of the
San Andreas Fault during an earthquake with a 7.1 magnitude. According to the South San Francisco
General Plan, portions of the DSASP area are located in areas potentially subject to extremely high or
very high levels of ground shaking (see General Plan Health and Safety Element Figure 8-2 [General
Plan Policies for Seismically Sensitive Lands]).
Cadence Phase 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis
Page 21
The structural design of the proposed building must adhere to state and City building code standards,
such as the California Building Code, which define minimum acceptable levels of risk and safety.
Additionally, in accordance with the General Plan Policy 8.1-I-1, special occupancy land uses (hospitals,
schools, and other structures that are important to protecting health and safety in the community) would
not be located in the areas designated as seismically sensitive in General Plan Figure 8–2. Compliance
with existing state and City regulations would be consistent with the analysis of the DSASP program EIR,
which identified that existing regulations would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Because
the DSASP area is located in a seismically active region, the potential for seismic-related ground
failure exists, including liquefaction. Most of the DSASP area is located in an area with very low
susceptibility for liquefaction, except a portion of the DSASP area east of US 101 with a moderate to very
high risk for liquefaction (U.S. Geological Survey). However, proposed development must adhere to the
California Building Code and the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, which include requirements for
geotechnical investigations in areas with high risks for liquefaction, including mitigation to minimize
risks. SFFMC Section 15.56.140 (Grading Permit Requirements) also requires a soils engineering report
and an engineering geology report that would identify potential geotechnical hazards and make
recommendations to minimize hazards. Compliance with existing state and City regulations would be
consistent with the analysis of the DSASP program EIR, which identified that existing regulations would
reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.
A Preliminary Geotechnical Report, dated December 6, 2017 was prepared for the Project by Rockridge
Geotechnical (attached to this ECA). This report concluded that although portions of the site contain soil
conditions susceptible to liquefaction, the site can be developed as planned provided the recommendations
presented in the report are incorporated into the Project plans and specifications and are implemented to
address soil conditions specific to this site. To reduce the risk of damage to the buildings during an
earthquake due to liquefaction, ground improvements will be implemented per the geotechnical report
(included as a project Condition of Approval).
The parts of the San Francisco Bay region having the greatest susceptibility to landslides are hilly areas
underlain by weak bedrock units with slopes greater than 15 percent. In South San Francisco, this hazard is
primarily located on the southern flank of San Bruno Mountain in the Terrabay development and near
Skyline Boulevard. Because the DSASP area is located in an area with slopes less than 15 percent, natural
slope instability is not a concern. Excavation wall stability would be regulated by California Building Code
Chapter 33 and consistent with the DSASP program EIR analysis.
b-e. Earth-disturbing activities associated with construction would be temporary and erosion effects would
depend largely on the areas excavated, the quantity of excavation, and the length of time soils are subject to
conditions that would be affected by erosion processes. In addition, all construction activities would be
required to comply with California Building Code Chapter 18, which regulates excavation activities and the
construction of foundations and retaining walls, and California Building Code Chapter 33, which regulates
safeguarding activities, including drainage and erosion control. Additionally, development would continue
to be required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general
permit for construction activities. Pursuant to this permit, as part of an erosion control plan, construction
site erosion and sedimentation control best management practices (BMPs) would be implemented and
would include such measures as silt fences, watering for dust control, straw bale check dams, hydroseeding,
and other measures. Further, development under the DSASP will be required to comply with all applicable
provisions of the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP), and
requires runoff management programs that would include BMPs to control erosion and sedimentation.
Following construction, future development would consist almost entirely of impervious surfaces and
would not be subject to substantial erosion or topsoil loss.
Cadence Phase 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis
Page 22
The soil in South San Francisco is generally characterized as having a low expansion potential, with the
exception of areas at the base of the San Bruno Mountains or adjacent to San Francisco Bay. Development
in the DSASP area would not be located in an area at high risk for expansive soils. Additionally, future
development must comply with the California Building Code and SSFMC Section 15.56.140 (Grading
Permit Requirements), which require a soil engineering report and an engineering geology report that
would identify potential geotechnical hazards and make recommendations to minimize hazards.
The Project would not produce wastewater that requires support of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems. The City would continue to provide wastewater service to the entire DSASP area.
Therefore, this Project is consistent with the DSASP program EIR analysis and would have a less than
significant impact on geology and soils.
No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigations are required for the Project.
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS -- Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have
a significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
c) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding caused by sea level rise resulting from global climate
change?
Documentation:
a. As demonstrated in the Air Quality Assessment prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, dated December 6,
2017, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with development of the Project would occur during
short-term construction activities, consisting primarily of emissions from equipment exhaust and worker
vendor trips. There would also be long-term operational emissions associated with vehicular traffic within
the project vicinity, energy and water usage, and solid waste disposal.
Implementation of the General Plan and South San Francisco Climate Action Plan (CAP) policies along
with mitigation measure MM4.4-1 (requiring implementation of BAAQMD Best Management Practices to
reduce GHG emissions during construction) would reduce this impact to less than cumulatively significant.
Incorporation of the General Plan and CAP policies would reduce the generation of waste from
construction activities, thereby reducing the emission of GHGs associated with waste disposal and
decomposition. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM4.4-1 would reduce GHG emissions associated
with waste and would have the potential to reduce combustion-related GHG emission by reducing the
amount or type of fuel utilized at construction sites. In summary, construction emissions would be
temporary in nature and would not significantly contribute to regional GHG levels with implementation of
the appropriate prescribed mitigation measures.
b. The DSASP program EIR (pp. 4.4-21 through 4.4-26) determined that, while the occupancy and operation
of DSASP-facilitated projects would generate GHG emissions, these emissions would be subject to the
City’s adopted CAP policies. Moreover, Mitigation Measures MM4.4-2 through MM4.4-10, as applicable,
will be incorporated into the Project as conditions of approval. As such, the Project’s GHG emissions
Cadence Phase 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis
Page 23
would be a less-than-significant impact. This Project is consistent with the DSASP program EIR analysis
and would not result in new or unidentified impacts. By imposing these conditions, the City is
implementing existing, not new, mitigation; therefore, the Project remains consistent with the analysis of
the DSASP program EIR. As indicated above, with implementation of existing mitigation, the Project
within the DSASP would meet the goals identified in the City’s CAP, which is needed to reduce GHG
emissions within the City to meet statewide goals moving past 2020 established by AB 32 (2006).
Therefore, the emissions of GHGs from new development within the DSASP would be consistent with both
AB 32 and the City’s CAP. Accordingly, this Project is consistent with the DSASP program EIR analysis
and would not result in new or unidentified impacts.
c. The DSASP program EIR (pp. 4.4-5 through 4.4-9) determined that the DSASP area is unlikely to be
subject to flooding due to sea level rise associated with global climate change. Therefore, the Project within
the DSASP should not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding caused by sea level rise resulting from global climate change. This Project is consistent with the
DSASP program EIR analysis and would not result in new or unidentified impacts.
No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigations are required for the Project.
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Documentation:
a. The Project would include 195 residential units and associated parking, amenities and infrastructure. It
Cadence Phase 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis
Page 24
would not involve routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor would it result in
hazardous emissions. The DSASP program EIR (p. 5-4) concluded that, while some hazardous
substances may be generated, stored, transported, used, or disposed of in association with residential and
non-residential development projects Downtown (e.g., cleaning supplies), existing local, State, and
federal regulations and oversight would reduce the potential threat to a less-than-significant impact. This
Project is consistent with the DSASP program EIR analysis and would not result in new or unidentified
impacts.
b,c. The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment. The Project site does contain lead and other environmental constituents which will be
removed, as part of construction activities, or remain on the subject site. No manufacturing or industrial
processes that utilize or produce dangerous substances, other than those typical of construction activities
(e.g., use of fuels, welding equipment), are proposed with this Project. The DSASP program EIR (p. 5-4)
concluded that, with mandatory local, State, and federal regulations in place, the risk to the public or the
environment from upset and accident conditions would represent a less-than-significant impact. The
Project is farther than a one-quarter mile from the nearest school, Spruce Elementary School. As such,
this Project is consistent with the DSASP program EIR analysis and would not result in new or
unidentified impacts.
d. According to the State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker database, there are several open and
closed hazardous materials cases in the DSASP area. Cases are concentrated south of Grand Avenue and
along the US 101 corridor. The majority of cases involve leaking underground storage tanks (LUST).
Other cases involve solvents and dry cleaning chemicals. A Phase I Environmental Assessment (Phase
I) has been prepared for the Project site by West Environmental Services. The Phase I Executive
Summary is attached and also includes Phase II analysis of sampled environmental media (i.e., soil, soil
gas). Consistent with the DSASP, the Phase I identifies constituents that are above commonly used
environmental screening levels at locations within the Project site’s boundary. These constituents are
frequently associated with infill locations.
As detailed in the Phase I, the following summarizes known environmental conditions:
216 Miller Ave
The Miller Avenue parking lot parcel has been undeveloped and used as a parking lot since the
1900s. The lot was unpaved and vacant during the 1940s and 1950s. Areas of soil disturbance
were observed on historical aerial photographs from the 1940s and 1950s. Since the 1960s, the
lot appeared paved and used for vehicle storage and/or parking. In 2015, soil, soil gas and
groundwater samples were collected as part of a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. Lead
was detected in soil up to 11,700 mg/kg, which is above the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board- San Francisco Bay Region (Regional Board) non-regulatory Environmental
Screening Level (ESL) of 80 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) and its Total Threshold Limit
Concentration (TTLC) of 1,000 mg/kg. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were detected in soil
gas including tetrachloroethene up to 380 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3). VOCs and
petroleum hydrocarbons were not detected in groundwater samples collected at the Miller Avenue
parking lot. In July 2015, the San Mateo County Environmental Health System, Groundwater
Protection Program identified the City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency as a
potential responsible party due to the presence of lead in soil, and included the parking lot as an
area to be addressed under order or a voluntary cleanup program.
Cadence Phase 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis
Page 25
212-214 Miller Ave
212-214 Miller Avenue was an undeveloped lot in the 1940s and 1950s. Areas of soil
disturbance were observed on historical aerial photographs from the 1940s and 1950s. In the
1960s, the current building was constructed at 212-214 Miller Avenue. The building was
constructed along Miller Avenue with two commercial tenant spaces 212 and 214 Miller Avenue
on the ground floor and a paved parking lot along Tamarack Lane. The upper floors include
residential apartments.
Since the 1960s, commercial tenants at the site have included: Safeway Investments; Tape
Recorder Services; Redi Marine; The Pet Set; Bobby’s Grooming; EXP Graphics; Mikes Barber
Shop; DAV TC & Electronics; Montecino Maintenance; and Scardino & Associates Real Estate.
At the time of the Site visit, 212 Miller Avenue was vacant; Montecinos Cleaning and Janitorial
Services occupied 214 Miller Avenue. Montecinos Cleaning and Janitorial Services stores
janitorial supplies and chemicals (paint thinner, small gasoline cans, carpet cleaner); paints; and
equipment. The 212 Miller Avenue commercial tenant space is currently vacant.
In 2016, soil and soil gas samples were collected at the site as part of a Phase II Environmental
ESA. Laboratory analysis of the soil samples revealed arsenic up to 6 milligrams per kilogram
(mg/kg), which is consistent with the range of background arsenic concentrations up to 11 mg/kg
for the San Francisco Bay Area. Lead was detected in the soil samples up to 98.8 mg/kg, which
is above its Regional Board ESL of 80 mg/kg.
Three soil gas samples were collected at the Site. Laboratory analysis of the soil gas samples
detected: PCE up to 15.3 µg/m3; benzene up to 34.3 µg/m3; toluene up to 218 µg/m3; ethyl
benzene up to 18 µg/m3; and xylenes up to 73.3 µg/m33, which are below their respective
Regional Board ESLs.
208 Miller
208 Miller Avenue was an undeveloped lot in the 1940s. Areas of soil disturbance were observed
on historical aerial photographs from the 1940s. In the 1950s, 208 Miller Avenue was developed
with a two-story building that covered the entire lot between Miller Avenue and Tamarack Lane.
The building has been used as a workers union hall for: steel workers; butchers; department store
workers; retail clerks; sausage makers; and food & commercial workers since at least the 1970s.
204 Miller Ave
204 Miller Avenue is an approximately 7,600 square-foot property and was undeveloped between
the 1900s and the 1940s. Between the 1940s and the 2000s, an approximately 720 square-foot
building was constructed adjacent to Miller Avenue for a dry cleaning operation. In 2017,
Devcon Construction renovated the vacant building as a satellite construction office for the
adjacent Cadence development project to the east. Construction trailers were also placed on the
undeveloped portion of 204 Miller Avenue.
In 2015, soil, soil gas and groundwater samples were collected adjacent to 204 Miller Avenue to
evaluate the potential for releases of petroleum products and hazardous substances from historical
operations. Laboratory analysis of the soil gas samples collected from borings advanced adjacent
to 204 Miller Avenue revealed the presence of VOCs including PCE but at levels below their
respective laboratory-reporting limits or applicable screening levels. Groundwater samples
Cadence Phase 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis
Page 26
collected from the 401-407 Cypress Avenue property and within Miller Avenue downgradient
from 204 Miller Avenue did not reveal the presence of VOCs above their laboratory-reporting
limits or Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs).
405 Cypress
Between the 1900s and 1970s, a hotel was present at 405 Cypress Avenue, which is located
adjacent and to the east of the Site. In 1980, the hotel was demolished. Since 1980, the Site has
been used as a parking lot. In 2015, laboratory analysis of soil samples collected at 405 Cypress
Avenue revealed lead up to 812 mg/kg, which is above its screening level of 80 mg/kg. In 2017,
the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) approved a Response Plan to address lead
in soil at 405 Cypress Avenue associated with the nearby Cadence development project located
between Cypress Avenue and Airport Boulevard. The approved response action included
excavation of soil containing lead above 80 mg/kg for off-site disposal.
As discussed in the City’s General Plan, the location of existing hazardous materials cases near future
proposed development would be identified during the development approval process (South San
Francisco 1999, Health and Safety Element). Redevelopment or development would be required to
comply with all applicable regulations for remediation of hazards, such as those addressing underground
storage tanks, disposal of environmentally impacted soil, and the discharge of water generated during
construction. Compliance with existing regulations and necessary environmental actions that protect
future site users from exposure to elevated concentrations of constituents would reduce impacts related
to listed hazardous materials sites to a less-than-significant impact and would be consistent with the
analysis in the DSASP program EIR. Examples of constituents include adherence to work protection
laws and practices, encapsulation of impacted soils under durable covers, separation of residential spaces
from areas with elevated soil gas conditions, under the jurisdiction of an agency of applicable
jurisdiction (e.g., County of San Mateo Health System, San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control
Board, California Department of Toxic Substances Control),
e,f. The Project area is located approximately one mile north of the San Francisco International Airport
(SFO). The DSASP area is located outside of all airport Safety Compatibility Zones. The DSASP area is
located within Airport Influence Area B and is subject to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
notification requirements (see Exhibit IV 10 [FAA Notification Form 7460—Filing Requirements, of the
Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport])
(C/CAG 2012). The maximum building height allowed in the DSASP area (85 feet, with the exception
of the area East of 101, which is required to be consistent with the FAA regulations) is below 163.2 feet
Mean Sea Level, which is the lowest obstruction standard in the DSASP area (see Exhibit IV 14, 14
Code of Federal Regulations Part 77 Airport Imaginary Surfaces – North Side, of the Comprehensive
Airport Land Use Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport). The Project proposes a
building height of 85 feet (or 110 feet above Mean Sea Level measured to the top of parapet), consistent
with the DSASP and the Airport Land Use Plan. Consistent with CFR Part 77, developers proposing
structures taller than the notification elevations identified in Exhibit IV-10 of the Comprehensive Airport
Land Use Plan would be required to file a notification with the FAA at least 30 days before the
proposed start of construction. For the proposed Project site, pursuant to Exhibit IV 14, notification is
required for buildings over 110-120 feet Mean Sea Level.
There are no private airstrips within two miles of the DSASP area. Therefore, implementation of the
Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project vicinity,
consistent with the analysis of the DSASP program EIR.
Cadence Phase 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis
Page 27
g. Construction activities associated with development under the DSASP could potentially affect
emergency response or evacuation plans due to temporary construction barricades or other obstructions
that could impede emergency access on site. However, SFFMC Section 11.16.170 prohibits road
closures or obstructions without approval by the chief of police. Coordination with the chief of police
would ensure that adequate emergency access is maintained during construction. As a result, the
proposed project would be required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code and not impair or
interfere with emergency plans, and the project is consistent with the analysis of the DSASP program
EIR.
h. The Project site is located in a downtown urban environment not adjacent to wildlands and, therefore,
would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires. This is consistent with the analysis of the DSASP program EIR.
No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigations are required for the Project.
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or
redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or
dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Documentation:
a-d. To comply with the Clean Water Act (CWA), San Mateo County and the twenty cities and towns in the
Cadence Phase 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis
Page 28
County, including the City, formed the San Mateo Countywide STOPPP. STOPPP holds a joint
municipal NPDES permit from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB). The permit includes a comprehensive plan to reduce the discharge of pollutants to creeks,
San Francisco Bay, and the ocean to the maximum extent possible. The San Mateo Countywide
STOPPP has a Site Design Standards Checklist to evaluate proposed projects against guidelines intended
to reduce stormwater pollution; this checklist will be completed and required by the Water Quality
Division and is included as a Condition of Approval. Construction activities would continue to be
required to comply with the NPDES general permit for construction activities, pursuant to which
BMPs would be implemented to control stormwater during construction, including silt fences, watering
for dust control, straw bale check dams, hydroseeding, and other measures.
Colma Creek is the City’s main natural drainage system. A small area along the southern boundary of
the DSASP area is adjacent to Colma Creek; however, Colma Creek does not intersect the DSASP area
at any point and future development of the Project would not alter the course of Colma Creek or any
other waterway. Surface and stormwater runoff from the DSASP area is collected by the City’s storm
drainage system. The existing storm drainage system in the Project area is designed to accommodate
flows from urbanized development and takes into account the high ratio of impervious surfaces in the
area. The Project would remove existing buildings on the site and redevelop the area with similar uses.
The ratio of impervious surface area would be similar to existing conditions, thereby not increasing
runoff or stormwater flows over existing conditions. During construction, erosion and run-off would be
controlled through required compliance with the NPDES general permit for construction activities,
including preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Compliance with existing regulations
would ensure that the Project is consistent with the analysis of the DSASP program EIR and would not
violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
e. Redevelopment under this Project would require new drainage structures and localized on-site storm
drain systems. This Project proposes a new storm drain system to accommodate anticipated runoff and
sizing will be directed by the Engineering Division, as appropriate during the Building Permit process.
The San Mateo Countywide STOPPP has a Site Design Standards Checklist to evaluate proposed
projects against guidelines intended to reduce stormwater pollution. This Project will be required to
conform to those provisions and the development would be required to comply with all applicable
regulations pertaining to water quality. Compliance with existing regulations would ensure that the
Project is consistent with the analysis of the DSASP program EIR and would not violate any water
quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
f. With implementation of the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as
part of both the NPDES permit program, Project construction would result in no degradation of existing
water quality. Furthermore, operation of the Project would not generate any foreseeable uses that would
substantially degrade water quality. The Project is in compliance with all applicable regulations, as
evaluated by the DSASP program EIR and, as a result, no additional water quality impacts are
anticipated with implementation of this Project.
h- j. Portions of the DSASP area east of US 101, north of Armour Avenue, and south of 2nd Lane are within
the 100-year flood hazard area but the Project is not within this portion of DSASP (California
Department of Water Resources 2013). No residences are proposed east of US 101; therefore, no impact
would occur in this area. The Project is consistent with the analysis of the DSASP program EIR. The
Project area is not located in a potential dam failure inundation area (Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG) 2003). A 1.5-million-gallon storage reservoir located on the top of San Bruno
Cadence Phase 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis
Page 29
Hill poses the greatest risk of seiche hazards in the DSASP area. However, because the reservoir holds a
relatively small volume of water, water released during seiching would be largely absorbed in the
vegetated hillsides. Because the hillsides are not very steep, the flow of water would not be rapid. Also,
water would drain away from the hill instead of ponding and resulting in high water levels. Thus, seiche
inundation impacts are considered to be less than significant in the Project area. The Project area is not
located in an area at risk for tsunami inundation; therefore, a significant impact related to tsunamis
would not occur (California Emergency Management Agency (EMA) et al. 2009). The potential for
inundation by mudflow is considered low because the DSASP area does not contain steep slopes.
Hillsides surrounding the DSASP area are covered by development and/or landscaping. Rainfall onto
these areas would encounter vegetation or impervious surfaces, and would not pose a risk of causing
saturated soil to loosen and flow downhill. Thus, there would be no mudflow inundation impact on the
DSASP area, as evaluated in the DSASP program EIR.
No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigations are required for the Project.
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to
the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
Documentation:
a. The DSASP program EIR (p. 4.5-10) concludes that implementation of the DSASP would reinforce,
with no substantial change to, established community-wide land use patterns. The EIR also concludes
that the DSASP land use characteristics, provisions, and development standards would result in
beneficial land use effects. The DSASP has been incorporated into the City’s General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance. The Project is consistent with the DSASP standards and zoning regulations and, as a result,
no further analysis is required.
b. The Project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of agencies with
jurisdiction over the Project (DSASP program EIR p. 4.5-11). The Project complies with all applicable
DSASP standards, guidelines, and regulations. Overall density for this Project will be consistent with
the standards set forth in SSFMC Chapter 20.280 (Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District) with
the density bonus at 180 DUA permitted per the community benefits program with City Council
approval.
Implementation of the DSASP would yield significant amounts of new residential and employment
uses in the DSASP area, where development potential would be determined by applying the land use,
density and intensity assumptions to land within each district. For the purposes of the DSASP and for
assessing environmental impacts associated with the plan, it has been assumed that only 25 percent of
parcels in the DSASP area would be developed within the plan’s 20-year timeframe. Assuming such,
the DSASP has the potential to add 1,435 units of residential uses to the existing 1,426 units in the area,
for a total of 2,861 residential units in the proximity of the Caltrain station. Additionally, the DSASP
has the potential to add a maximum of 1.2 million square feet of new office/R&D uses, which
represents as many as 2,400 or more jobs added to the City. This Project represents 195 new residential
units, which will bring the cumulative total to no fewer than 960 total new residential units that have
Cadence Phase 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis
Page 30
been entitled within the DSASP area since adoption in January 2015.2 As a result, no potentially
significant land use or planning impacts are anticipated and no further analysis beyond the DSASP
program EIR is necessary.
c. There is no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan that is applicable to the DSASP area and the
Project remains consistent with the analysis of the DSASP program EIR.
No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigations are required for the Project.
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of the State?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use
plan?
Documentation:
a-b. No significant mineral deposits are identified in the DSASP area (DSASP program EIR p. 5-7). The
Project site within the DSASP does not contain valuable or locally important mineral resources, nor will
it consume extraordinary amounts of mineral resources. Therefore, Project implementation would not
create an impact on mineral resources, consistent with the analysis of the DSASP program EIR.
No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigations are required for the Project.
XII. NOISE – Would the project:
a) Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in
the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Expose persons to or generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-
borne noise levels?
c) Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d) Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Documentation:
2 See City Council Staff Report 18-114, 2/28/18, analyzing the Downtown Transit Core (DTC) zoning text amendment and
CEQA analysis, increasing the Maximum Density with Incentives to 180 du/ac
Cadence Phase 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis
Page 31
a- b Noise in South San Francisco is regulated by the City’s Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32 of the Municipal
Code). In addition, the Noise Element of the City’s General Plan enumerates noise policies. More
specifically, excessive and unreasonable noise levels are defined as noise levels generated by
construction activities, including demolition, alteration, and repair or remodeling of existing structures,
and construction of new structures, on property within the City, at more than 90 decibels (dB) measured
at any point within a residential district of the City and outside of the plane of the property. Therefore,
construction noise is required to be less than 90 dB within residential districts and no construction noise
is permitted between the hours of 8:00 PM and 8:00 AM the following day. The General Plan requires
all exterior noise sources (construction operations, air compressors, pumps, fans, and leaf blowers) to
use available noise suppression devices and techniques to bring exterior noise down to acceptable
levels compatible with adjacent land uses.
A Noise Assessment was prepared by Pack and Associates dated January 8, 2018 (attached to this
ECA). The primary sources of noise from the Project would be temporary construction noise and
operational noise. Construction noise is largely a function of the construction equipment used, the
location and sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the noise-generating
activities. Construction noise levels would vary depending on construction phase, equipment type and
duration of use, distance between noise source and receptor, and presence or absence of barriers
between noise source and receptor. All noise-generating construction activities are anticipated to be
conducted on weekdays between the hours of 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM in accordance with City
requirements, which require noise suppression devices to reduce noise levels below 90 dB.
The DSASP program EIR (pp. 4.6-14 through 4.6-16) concluded that new DSASP-facilitated
multifamily residential development could be exposed to noise levels exceeding City guidelines and
State Title 24 standards, resulting in a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure MM4.6-3
states that a noise study consistent with the requirements of the California Building Code shall be
conducted for new multifamily residential projects, and noise reduction measures necessary to achieve
compatibility with the City’s Noise Element guidelines and Title 24 standards (45 decibels (dBA)
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) within residential units) shall be incorporated into the
Project. The Noise Assessment states certain windows at rated to a 35 STC, 31 STC and 28 STC. The
Assessment also states that a 42 inch tall noise barrier wall should be constructed along the Miller Ave
edge of the third level common courtyard. Lastly, the Noise Assessment concludes that all mechanical
equipment shall be designed so as to minimize impacts on residential uses north, south and west of the
project building.
These measures, which shall be required as conditions of approval for the Project, would reduce the
potential noise impacts to a less-than-significant level and, therefore, these impacts have been
adequately addressed by the DSASP program EIR. Specifically, as noted above, MM4.6-3 recommends
a Site Specific Acoustical Analysis for multi-family residences be performed requiring that the Project
be designed to ensure that interior noise levels remain below 45dBA CNEL.
c. The DSASP program EIR (pp. 4.6-20 through 4.6-21) concluded that permanent noise levels from
DSASP development would increase primarily due to new traffic patterns, new commercial
development next to or below residential development, and site-specific sources, such as mechanical
equipment. The addition of Project traffic from buildout of the entire DSASP (up to 1,400 new units)
would result in an increase in noise levels of up to 3 dBA for two roadway segments in the DSASP
area, however, those segments are not located adjacent to this Project (e.g. South Airport Boulevard
Cadence Phase 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis
Page 32
between Airport Boulevard and Gateway Boulevard and Gateway Boulevard between Grand Avenue
and South Airport Boulevard/Mitchell) and the Project represents only a fraction of the total expected
units within the DSASP area. Therefore, Project-related impacts associated with increases in traffic
noise will not have an impact and have been adequately addressed by the DSASP program EIR.
d. The DSASP program EIR (p. 4.6-22) concluded that potentially significant temporary noise and
vibration impacts could be generated by demolition and construction activities in the DSASP area.
Construction of land uses accommodated by the DSASP area would not take place all at once, and
would be spread throughout the DSASP area so that limited receptors would be exposed to construction
noise at any given time. Under SSFMC Section 8.32.050(d), construction activities are limited to
between the hours of 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM on weekdays, 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM on Saturdays, and 10:00
AM to 6:00 PM on Sundays and holidays, or as authorized by the construction permit. Construction
noise that occurs during these hours is exempt from the noise level limits established in the City’s
Noise Ordinance because these hours are outside of the recognized sleep hours for residents and outside
of evening and early morning hours and time periods where residents are most sensitive to exterior
noise. Consequently, the City considers impacts resulting from construction noise during these hours to
be less than significant. Project construction would be required to comply with all applicable City
ordinances, including limits on construction hours. Therefore, impacts related to construction noise
would be less than significant, and no further mitigation is required, as analyzed in the DSASP program
EIR.
e,f. The DSASP area is located approximately 0.75 miles from the San Francisco International Airport
(SFO). The latest published operational (2014) and future projected (2019) noise contours for SFO
indicate that the Project site is well outside of the 65 dBA CNEL contour. Due to distance and the
orientation of the airport runways, the DSASP area is not located within the 65 dBA CNEL noise
contour of SFO (C/CAG 2012). Noise levels of 65 dBA CNEL and below are considered compatible
with residential land uses in the City’s General Plan (South San Francisco 1999, Noise Element).
Therefore, it may be concluded that, under foreseeable future conditions, the site will be exposed to a
CNEL of less than 65 dBA due to airport operations.
No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigations are required for the Project.
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Documentation:
a. With the adopted DSASP, General Plan and Zoning amendments, construction of 195 new residential
units and up to 577 new residents (2.96 persons per household) would be consistent with the General
Plan, where additional population growth due to the higher-density areas within the DSASP area has
been accounted for in future population growth projections for the City. Additionally, a higher
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project:
Cadence Phase 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis
Page 33
employment rate has also been accounted for in the General Plan. Therefore, the Project is consistent
with all governing documents and policies regulating the City and would not exceed the build-out
estimated population of the amended General Plan. Thus, the impacts from direct population growth as a
result of new housing units with this Project would be consistent with the DSASP program EIR and no
further analysis is required.
The DSASP provides for infill development that makes maximum use of existing infrastructure. The
DSASP area is located in the center of a dense urban area, and implementation of the DSASP would not
include extension of the existing infrastructure, only site-specific infrastructure upgrades, as needed. The
Project is consistent with this evaluation from the DSASP program EIR and no further analysis is
required.
b,c. The DSASP program EIR (pp. 4.7-11 through 4.7-12) concluded that the DSASP, and projects
facilitated by it, would not result in significant displacement impacts. Implementation of the DSASP
would not displace significant numbers of residents or residential units necessitating construction of
replacement housing elsewhere. Most new development would occur on commercial or vacant sites.
The Project site is a vacant parking lots, the site also includes existing commercial buildings and four
currently vacant apartments. Although the Project would remove four existing vacant apartments, the
Project proposes to construct 195 new apartments, and since the apartments are vacant there will be no
displacement of existing residents.
No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigations are required for the Project.
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES -- Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities or the need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Documentation:
a. The City has implemented a Public Safety Impact Fee (Resolution 97-2012) for all new development.
This fee is intended to fund improvements in infrastructure or public services necessitated by new
development. All development pursuant to the DSASP would be required to pay this fee. However,
construction of new fire facilities is not expected as a result of this Project as the DSASP program EIR
has evaluated that current provision is adequate.
Further reducing impacts to fire services, all development pursuant to the DSASP would be required to
comply with provisions of the California Building Code and Fire Code pertaining to fire protection
systems and equipment, general safety precautions, and many other general and specialized fire safety
requirements for new and existing buildings and premises, including emergency access provisions (see
Cadence Phase 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis
Page 34
SSFMC Sections 15.08.010 and 15.24.010, adopting the California Building Code and California Fire
Code).
The existing water, wastewater, electric, gas, and solid waste infrastructure is adequate to support the
Project, as the mixed-use development would not exceed what was previously analyzed, which the
current site was developed to support. Compliance with the City’s Municipal Code requirements,
payment of Public Safety Impact Fees, Parkland Acquisition and Construction fees, and school district
fees to the South San Francisco Unified School District will ensure that this Project is consistent with the
DSASP program EIR analysis and no further action is required.
No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigations are required for the Project.
XV. RECREATION – Would the project:
a) Result in an increased use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities, or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Documentation:
a. It is expected that existing facilities serving the DSASP area would satisfy most, if not all, of the park
and open space needs generated by the DSASP buildout, including this Project. More specifically,
Orange Memorial Park and Centennial Way, along with 218 total acres of parks and open space, 3.0
acres per 1,000 residents provides a wide range of regional facilities available for the residents of the
City. In addition to Orange Memorial Park and Centennial Way, there are a wide variety of City,
County, educational, and private recreational facilities within the City. Also, the DSASP program EIR
(p. 4.9-8 through 4.9-9) concluded that there would be no significant parks and recreation impacts
resulting from the DSASP or projects built under it. Additionally, upon build-out of the DSASP, a
network of new open space opportunities is anticipated that will further serve the entire DSASP area,
and the Project would pay Parkland Acquisition and Construction fees as required by SSFMC Section
8.67 and a proposed project-specific Development Agreement. The Project will be in compliance with
all applicable DSASP regulations, and, as a result, is consistent with the DSASP program EIR’s
analysis.
b. The Project would include private common areas that meets the open space requirements of the
DSASP, and does not require the construction or expansion of public recreational facilities. As a result,
the Project would not have an adverse physical effect on the environment related to recreational
facilities and is covered by the analysis of the DSASP program EIR.
No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigations are required for the Project.
Cadence Phase 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis
Page 35
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project:
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 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 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 location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses?
Documentation:
a. The DSASP program EIR (pp. 4.10-61 through 4.10-68) identified significant and unavoidable
impacts at five area intersections, as well as impacts on freeway segments, freeway ramps, and
transit service. Mitigations were suggested by the EIR, but the City Council determined that such
impacts could not be avoided even with the incorporation of these measures, and that no other
feasible mitigations or alternatives would avoid or lessen the impacts. Consequently, the City
adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the DSASP program EIR on January 28, 2015
that determined the new development benefits outweigh the potential traffic impacts.
b. The Project is in compliance with all applicable DSASP regulations including Congestion
Management Programs and, as a result, would not create any additional transportation or traffic
impacts in excess of those addressed by the DSASP program EIR and the Statement of Overriding
Considerations. A supplemental traffic memorandum prepared by Hexagon (Miller Cypress
Residential Project Draft Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA; Hexagon Transportation
Consultants, Inc; December 1, 2017, and attached to this ECA) identified that no impacts are
anticipated for any of the 11 intersections analyzed with mitigation measures identified in the
DSASP program EIR. The City Engineer has peer reviewed the supplemental traffic memorandum
and determined that no further traffic analysis is required.
c. The Project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns at SFO or any other airport, including
either an increase in air traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks.
d. The Project, as proposed, would operate within the existing roadway system and proposes pedestrian
safety enhancements, including corner bulb outs, to help reduce pedestrian hazards. Additionally,
the supplemental traffic analysis prepared by Hexagon (Miller Cypress Project Traffic Study-South
San Francisco; Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.; December 1, 2017) evaluated on-site
circulation to determine safety concerns and was peer-reviewed by the Engineering Division. The
Result in inadequate emergency access?
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit,
bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or
safety of such facilities?
Cadence Phase 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis
Page 36
analysis summarized the following recommendations, which will be included in the project design
and shall be required as conditions of approval for the Project:
• Standard no parking zones will be established adjacent to the Project driveways to ensure
that existing vehicles can see pedestrians on the sidewalk and vehicles on the road. Any
landscaping and signage will be located in such a way to ensure an unobstructed view for
drivers exiting the Project site. A visual pedestrian warning system will be installed at the
Project driveways to alert pedestrians when a vehicle is exiting the project.
• Parking will be assigned on any dead-end drive aisles and adequate space will be provided
at the back end of all dead-end parking aisles adjacent to the last stall to enable vehicles to
back out of these stalls.
• A designated on-site loading zone will be provided along the Project frontage for
moving/delivery trucks.
• Fire and emergency access to the building will occur from the streets fronting the Project.
• Construct and maintain landscaping and signage to ensure an unobstructed view for drivers
exiting the site.
e. The Project would utilize the existing roadways in the vicinity. The Project design would be
required to comply with all applicable City codes and regulations pertaining to emergency access, as
well as fire protection and security. In addition, all buildings would (1) include a sprinkler system;
(2) Knox key box for emergency access for each building with access keys to entry doors,
electrical/mechanical rooms, elevators, and others to be determined; and (3) maps mounted at entry
gates for rapid orientation while responding to emergencies. Additionally, the City has implemented
a Public Safety Impact Fee (Resolution 97-2012) for all new development. This fee is intended to
fund improvements to infrastructure or public services necessitated by new development to ensure
adequate emergency access.
f. Implementation of the Project would not require on- or off-site improvements that would conflict
with existing policies, plans, or programs that support alternative transportation. The Project site is
located less than one-quarter mile from a regional rail station (Caltrain) and bus stop (SamTrans). In
addition, the Project would support both bike and pedestrian usage consistent with the DSASP,
including secure bike parking and sidewalk improvements and landscaping, and public bike racks.
Moreover, the Project will construct a 10-foot sidewalk along its frontages in Miller Avenue and
Cypress Avenue, thereby improving pedestrian access to shopping, transit and amenities, and to the
downtown area. As a result, the proposed project would not have an impact on alternative
transportation modes, consistent with the analysis of the DSASP program EIR.
No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigations are required for the Project.
Cadence Phase 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis
Page 37
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS -- Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water
Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment
or distribution facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of a new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
dd? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves the
project area that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project area’s
projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate
the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g) Fail to comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related
to solid waste?
Documentation:
a. The DSASP program EIR (p. 4.11-30) concluded that the South San Francisco/San Bruno Water
Quality Control Plant, located in South San Francisco, would ensure that the wastewater facility is able
to continue to meet or exceed the wastewater treatment requirements established for it by the RWQCB,
even with the additional wastewater generated by development permitted under the DSASP.
b. The DSASP program EIR (pp. 4.11-21 through 4.11-24) concluded that development occurring under
the DSASP would not necessitate the construction or expansion of water or wastewater treatment
facilities. See items (d) and (e) below for further explanation.
c. The DSASP program EIR (pp. 4.11-21 through 4.11-24) concluded that no significant increase in storm
water runoff was anticipated to be created by the DSASP or DSASP-facilitated development.
Furthermore, each project is required to submit documentation consistent with the State and County
Water Pollution Prevention Program requirements, which are peer reviewed by the Water Quality
Division of the City’s Department of Public Works.
The Project as proposed is expected to qualify for a 100 percent exemption under Special Project
Category “C” (Transit-Oriented Development [TOD] Project) of the San Mateo County Water
Pollution Prevention Program, which means that the Project would be 100 percent exempt (in storm
drainage volume) from County low impact development (LID) requirements because the project: (1) is
within one-half mile of a transit hub; (2) has a minimum density of 100 dwelling units per acre (project
density would be approximately 180 units per acre); and (3) would contain no surface parking. The
result would be that up to 100 percent of the Project site’s impervious surface runoff could be treated
with media filter devices approved by the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association
(BASMAA). This proposed exemption is subject to City review and approval.
d. The City of South San Francisco is served by the Cal Water’s South San Francisco District. Cal Water
obtains water from a purchasing agreement with San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC),
which is supplied by local surface water sources within its Regional Water System, and from its own
Cadence Phase 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis
Page 38
groundwater sources. Future area water supplies would be delivered through existing City supply
facilities and new water infrastructure constructed for delivery into specific project sites. Adequate
delivery was identified within the DSASP program EIR (p. 4.11-24) for all anticipated new
development within the DSASP area; therefore, this Project is consistent with the DSASP program EIR
analysis.
e. Sewage and wastewater generated within the City is collected through the City’s sewer system and is
disposed of and treated at the South San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant. The
sanitary sewer system has an interconnecting network of approximately 12 miles of 6-inch to 30-inch-
diameter gravity sewer mains, force mains, and twelve pump stations, which function together to bring
wastewater from individual homes and businesses to the Water Quality Control Plant. Some pump
stations act as tributaries to a few stations that handle most of the wastewater from large portions of the
Project. Title 14 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code ensures the future health, safety, and
general welfare of the City and provides regulations for the City’s wastewater collection and treatment
system. The sanitary sewer pipeline on Miller is adequate for the entire community and the sanitary
sewer line on Tamarack is 91 units based on Wilsey Ham (Sanitary Sewer Evaluation for the Vacant
Miller Ave. Properties; December 4, 2017, attached to this ECA).
Wastewater generation is correlated with water usage and continued water conservation practices would
reduce the volume of wastewater generated. New developments, such as this Project, would be required
to comply with all provisions of the NPDES program, as well as all applicable wastewater discharge
requirements issued by the San Francisco Bay Area RWQCB. The City would maintain local sewer
lines and perform upgrades on an as-needed basis. It is anticipated that the increased flows from
development under the DSASP, including this Project, would not result in required upgrades to the
reclamation plants and, therefore, the project is consistent with the DSASP program EIR analysis.
f, g. Project construction would comply with all applicable solid waste regulations and land fill capacity
exists for future DSASP buildout. Solid waste disposal and recycling in the City is regulated by the
City’s SSFMC, particularly Chapter 8.16 (Solid Waste—Scavenger Services) and Chapter 8.28
(Recyclable Materials). Under the SSFMC, future development would be required to have its solid
waste, including construction and demolition debris, and recyclable materials collected by the
Scavenger Company. Additional health and sanitation requirements set forth in the SSFMC would be
met by the Scavenger Company. The Project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste and, therefore, is consistent with the DSASP program EIR analysis.
No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigations are required for the Project.
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
Cadence Phase 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis
Page 39
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable (“cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects
of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Documentation:
a. Based on the preceding discussion and the program EIR prepared for the DSASP, including its
mitigation measures, it has been determined that the Project is consistent with the analysis of the
DSASP program EIR and would not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory.
b. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15355, “’Cumulative impacts’ refer to two or more individual
effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other
environmental impacts.” “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an
individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. The potential cumulative
impacts of the Project have been considered for each environmental topic evaluated above. Given the
relatively short-term nature of the Project’s construction schedule, and the fact that it would serve an
existing community within an urbanized area consistent with the adopted DSASP, the Project is not
anticipated to have any cumulatively considerable impacts beyond those identified and analyzed in the
DSASP program EIR.
c. The Project would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly, beyond those previously identified and analyzed in the
DSASP program EIR.
No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigations are required for the Project.
CONCLUSION
Based on the above analysis and supporting documentation, this ECA confirms that:
1) the Project does not exceed the environmental impacts analyzed in the DSASP Program EIR,
2) that no new impacts have been identified, and
3) no new mitigation measures are required.
As detailed in the analysis presented above, the Project would not result in greater impacts than were identified
for the DSASP Program EIR. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required.
References
1. Historic Evaluation of the Structures within the Cadence II Project in South San Francisco Report
prepared by Archaeological Resource Management, dated December 13, 2107.
Cadence Phase 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis
Page 40
2. Cultural Resource Evaluation prepared by Archeological Resource Management dated February 14, 2018
(per State law, this report may contain confidential information regarding archaeological
resources, and thus is not available for public review)
3. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment 204 to 216 Miller Avenue and 405 Cypress Avenue South San
Francisco May 2018 prepared by WEST Environmental Sciences and Technology
4. Geotechnical Investigation, dated March 17, 2017 and Construction Induced Vibration letter dated June
21, 2017 prepared by Rockridge Geotechnical.
5. Plans prepared by the BDE Architecture, dated June 8, 2018.
6. Traffic Study prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. dated December 1, 2017 and
response to comments dated March 21, 2018.
7. Noise Assessment Study for Planned “Cadence 2” Multi-Family Development, Miller Avenue, South San
Francisco prepared by Edward L. Pack Associates. Inc. dated January 8, 2018.
8. VMAP – Miller Parcel B and C combined in South San Francisco, CA-Air Quality Assessment prepared
by Illingworth and Rodkin dated December 6, 2017.
9. Sanitary Sewer Evaluation for the Vacant Miller Ave Properties prepared by Wilsey Ham dated
December 4, 2017.
Archaeological Resource Management
Robert R. Cartier, Ph.D.
496 North 5th Street
San Jose, CA 95112
Telephone (408) 295-1373
Fax (408) 286-2040
email: armcartier@netscape.net
Attn: Mr. Ken Busch December 13, 2017
Sares Regis Group of Northern California
50 California Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, CA 94111
RE: HISTORIC EVALUATION OF THE STRUCTURES WITHIN THE CADENCE
PHASE II PROJECT IN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Dear Mr. Busch;
As per your request our firm is submitting the enclosed historical evaluation of the structures
within the Cadence Phase II project in the City of South San Francisco. Based upon the
requirements of the City of South San Francisco, a methodology was designed which included
the following services:
- an evaluation of the structures based on the criteria of the NRHP and CRHR
- an evaluation of the structures using the criteria of the City of South San Francisco
Historic Resource Criteria
- State Historic Resources Evaluation forms (DPR 523) for the structures
The structures at 204, 208, and 214 Miller Avenue are not currently listed in the City of South
San Francisco historic inventory, the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), or the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). In addition, they do not appear to be eligible for
listing in any of these registers. Thus the structures within the proposed Cadence Phase II project
area do not appear to be historically significant, and no further recommendations are being made
regarding existing structures within the proposed project area.
Sincerely,
Robert Cartier, Ph.D.
Principal Investigator
RC/dj
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial ______________________________
NRHP Status Code ______________________
Other Listings ________________________________________
Review Code ________ Reviewer __________ Date ________
Page _1_ of 11_ Resource Name or # ______204 Miller Avenue___________
P1. Other Identifier: _______________________________________________________
P2. Location: ____ Not for Publication _x__ Unrestricted *a. County ____San Mateo______
and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.)
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad: S. San Francisco Date: 2015 T ; R ; 1/4 of 1/4 of Sec ; BM
c. Address: 204 Miller Avenue City: South San Francisco Zip:94080
d. UTM:
e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate)
APN 012-314-110
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.)
The structure at 204 Miller Avenue is a small single story commercial structure in fair condition, although somewhat
altered from its original form. The building is rectangular in shape, constructed of baselite block and painted white.
The roof is flat and surfaced with asphalt. The structure currently houses Devcon Development offices, and features
a newly (2016) redesigned front façade. This façade includes flanking wooden plank columns at either end as well as
large plate glass ribbon windows and a glass door. The windows and doorway are shaded by a cantilevered metal
awning. The remainder of the structure is lacking in architectural detailing.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: HP06
*P4. Resources Present: x_Building __Structure __Object __District __Element of District __Site __Other
P5a. Photo or drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, objects.) P5b. Description of Photo: (View, date, accession #)
View of the front façade of 204 Miller Avenue
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources
Historic x Prehistoric Both
Constructed 1947 based upon San Mateo County
Appraiser’s Documentation.
*P7. Owner and Address:
Gary J. Filizetti, Trustee
C/O: Devcon Development
690 Gibraltar Drive
Milpitas, CA 95035
*P8. Recorded by:
Robert Cartier
Archaeological Resource Management
496 North 5th Street
San Jose, CA 95112
*P9. Date Recorded: 12/11/2017
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite Survey Report and other sources, or enter "none.")
None
* Attachments: __None x_Location Map __Sketch Map x_Continuation Sheet x_Building, Structure, and Object Record
__Archaeological Record __District Record __Linear Feature Record __Milling Station Record __Rock Art Record __Artifact
Record __Photographic Record __Other (List):
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Page _2_ of _11 *NRHP Status Code _________________________
*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) __204 Miller Avenue____________
B1. Historic Name: _____Superior Laundry Agency________________________________________________
B2. Common Name: _____204 Miller Avenue___________________________________________________
B3. Original Use: ___Commercial___ B4. Present Use: ____commercial________
*B5. Architectural Style: ___contemporary modern (front façade), vernacular (remainder)______________
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations)
Based upon County of San Mateo Appraiser’s documentation, the structure at 204 Miller Avenue was originally
constructed in 1947. The original building permits were Building Permit No. 2279, issued on March 13, 1946 and
Building Permit No. 3106, issued on June 9, 1947, for construction of a “Laundry Agency Building”. Originally
constructed as a laundry, the front façade has recently (2016) been extensively modified, and no trace of its original
function remains.
*B7. Moved? x__ No ___ Yes ___ Unknown Date: _______ Original Location: __________________
*B8. Related Features:
None
B9a. Architect: ______unknown____ b. Builder: ________unknown___________
*B10. Significance: Theme commerce _ Area ___South San Francisco___________
Period of Significance ____Post-War____ Property Type __private commercial._ Applicable Criteria __N/A___
The property at 204 Miller Avenue consists of Lot 2, Block 138 as displayed on the map of “South San Francisco, San
Mateo County, California, Plat No. 1” recorded in Book B of Maps, Page 6 on March 1, 1892. Based upon visual
evaluation and available documentation, the structure at 204 Miller Avenue was originally constructed in 1947. At that
time the property was owned by Steve and Viola Eliades. The business later passed to George and Mary Eliades.
George and Mary operated the laundry until George’s death in 1987, and Mary continued management until her
retirement at age 82 in 2007 (San Francisco Chronicle 2014). She retained ownership of the property until her death in
2014. On June 3, 2015 the property was granted by her estate to Thomas J. Eliades as trustee (Assessor’s Doc
#2015-052872). On May 17, 2016 the property was granted to Gary J. Filizetti, the current owner (Assessor’s
Document #2016-046165).
See Continuation Sheet, Page 4
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) ______N/A_____________________
*B12. References:
See Continuation Sheet, Page 7
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: _____Robert R. Cartier__________
*Date of Evaluation: _______12/11/2017____________
(This space reserved for official comments.)
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________
LOCATION MAP Trinomial ________________________________
Page _3_ of _11 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) ______204 Miller Avenue ____________________
*Map Name: ___San Francisco South, CA__ *Scale: __7.5 Minute___ *Date of Map: __2015_____
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page _4_ of 11 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) ____204 Miller Avenue____________
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 12/11/2017 Continuation x Update
Continued from B10:
California Register of Historic Resources Criteria
A cultural resource is considered "significant" if it qualifies as eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic
Resources (CRHR). Properties that are eligible for listing in the CRHR must meet one or more of the following criteria:
1. Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional
history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States;
2. Association with the lives of persons important to local, California, or
national history;
3. Embodying the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method
of construction, or representing the work of a master, or possessing high
artistic values; or
4. Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the
prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
A property may be automatically listed in the CRHR if it is formally determined eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places. Properties that are formally determined eligible for the NRHP are those that are designated as such
through one of the federal preservation programs administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation (i.e.,
the National Register, Tax Certification, and Section 106 review of federal undertakings). The CRHR interprets the
integrity of a cultural resource based upon its physical authenticity. An historic cultural resource must retain its historic
character or appearance and thus be recognizable as an historic resource. Integrity is evaluated by examining the
subject's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. If the subject has retained these
qualities, it may be said to have integrity. It is possible that a cultural resource may not retain sufficient integrity to be
listed in the National Register of Historic Places yet still be eligible for listing in the CRHR. If a cultural resource retains
the potential to convey significant historical/scientific data, it may be said to retain sufficient integrity for potential listing
in the CRHR.
The structure at 204 Miller Avenue is not currently listed on the California Register of Historical Resources. In addition,
the structure does not appear to be potentially eligible for listing in this register. The structure is not associated with
any known significant historical events thus it does not appear to qualify as potentially eligible under criterion 1. No
historically significant persons appear to have been associated with the property, thus it does not appear to qualify as
potentially eligible under criterion 2. The structure is not a notable example of any architectural style, thus it does not
appear to be eligible under criterion 3. In addition, the structure does not appear to have the potential to yield
significant historical information, and thus does not appear eligible under criterion 4.
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page _5_ of 11 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) ___ 204 Miller Avenue
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 12/11/2017 Continuation x Update
National Register Criteria
The National Register of Historic Places was first established in 1966, with major revisions in 1976. The register is set
forth in 36 CFR 60 which establishes the responsibilities of the State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO), standards
for their staffs and review boards, and describes the statewide survey and planning process for historic preservation.
Within this regulation guidelines are set forth concerning the National Register of Historic Places (36 CFR 60.6). In
addition, further regulations are found in 36 CFR 63-66, 800, and Bulletin 15 which define procedures for determination
of eligibility, identification of historic properties, recovery, reporting, and protection procedures. The National Register
of Historic Places was established to recognize resources associated with the accomplishments of all peoples who
have contributed to the country's history and heritage. Guidelines were designed for Federal and State agencies in
nominating cultural resources to the National Register. These guidelines are based upon integrity and significance of
the resource. Integrity applies to specific items such as location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and
association. Quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering and culture is present in
resources that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and meet
at least one of the following criteria:
A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to broad patterns of our
history:
B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
C. That embody distinctive characteristics of type, period, or method of
construction, or that represent the work of master, or that possess high artistic values, or that
represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual
distinction;
D. That have yielded, or are likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Integrity is defined in Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, (U.S. Department of the
Interior, National Park Service 1982) as:
the authenticity of a property's historic identity, evidenced by the survival of physical
characteristics that existed during the property’s historic or prehistoric period. If a
property retains the physical characteristics it possessed in the past then it has the
capacity to convey association with historical patterns or persons, architectural or
engineering design and technology, or information about a culture or peoples.
There are also seven aspects of integrity which are used. These aspects are:
1. location 5. workmanship
2. design 6. feeling
3. setting 7. association
4. materials
The structure at 204 Miller Avenue is not currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In addition, the
property does not appear to be potentially eligible for listing in this register. The structure is not associated with
significant historic events or persons, thus it does not appear to be potentially eligible for listing under criteria A or B.
The structure is not a notable example of any architectural style, thus it does not appear eligible for inclusion under
criterion C. The property does not appear to be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history, thus it does
not appear to qualify as potentially eligible under criterion D.
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page _6_ of 11 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) ___ 204 Miller Avenue
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 12/11/2017 Continuation x Update
South San Francisco Historic Resource Criteria
The Historic Preservation Program began in 1986 with the adoption of the Historic Preservation Ordinance. City
Council appointed a five-member Historic Preservation Commission to carry out the task of identifying South San
Francisco's most important historic sites and structures, and protecting them from needless neglect, exterior alteration
that might destroy their historic and architectural value, or demolition.
The goals are accomplished by designating landmarks as Historic Resources. Specific criteria have been established
to define how a property qualifies for nominations as a historic resource. The criteria relate to the property's
significance to the heritage of the City, the involvement of important people who may have designed, built, resided in,
or worked in the structure, its exemplification of a special architectural style, or its careful attention to detail and
craftsmanship. Its relationship to other historic buildings or to a historic district is also considered.
In considering a proposal for designation as an historic resource, the commission shall apply any or all of the following
criteria:
(a) Its character, interest or value as a significant part of the heritage of the city, the state or the nation; and
(b) Its location as a site of a significant historic event; or
(c) Its identification with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the culture and development of the
city, the state or the nation; or
(d) Its exemplification of a particular architectural style or way of life; or
(e) Its exemplification of the best remaining example of a particular architectural type in the city; or
(f) Its identification as the creation, design or work of a person or persons whose efforts have significantly
influenced the heritage of the city, the state or the nation; or
(g) Its embodiment of elements demonstrating outstanding attention to artistic, architectural and/or engineering
design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship; or
(h) Its relationship to any other historic resource if its preservation is essential to the integrity of the other historic
resource (for example, it is a clearly identified element of a larger cohesive neighborhood or area whose integrity
and character should be protected, such as the civic center, downtown, or a specific residential neighborhood);
or
(i) Its unique location or singular physical characteristics representing an established and familiar visual feature of
the city; or
(j) Its potential of yielding significant information of archeological interest; or
(k) Its integrity as a natural environment that strongly contributes to the well-being of the people of the city, the state,
or the nation. For example, an area retained in or developed in a natural setting, such as portions of Sign Hill, or
some other feature which contributes to the quality of life in South San Francisco. (Ord. 1440 § 2, 2011)
The structure at 204 Miller Avenue is not currently listed as historic resources for the City of South San Francisco. In
addition, it does not appear to be eligible for inclusion in this local register under any of the criteria listed above.
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page _7_ of 11 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) ___ 204 Miller Avenue
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 12/11/2017 Continuation x Update
Continued from B12:
Assessor's Office, County of San Mateo
2017 Record search of assessed value and associated taxes for the property at 204 Miller Avenue.
Brown, M.
2010 San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design 1935-1970 Historic Context Statement.
San Francisco City and County Planning Department.
Hoover, M. et al
1966 Historic Spots in California. Stanford University Press, Stanford California.
McAlester, V. and L. McAlester
1997 A Field Guide to American Houses. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
Recorder's Office, County of San Mateo
2017 Record search of recorded information for the property at 204 Miller Avenue.
San Francisco Chronicle
2014 Obituary for Mary Eliades, December 7, 2014.
US Department of the Interior
1990 The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic
Buildings
US Department of the Interior
1982 Bulletin 15 - "How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation."
Whiffen, Marcus
1992 American Architecture since 1780, Revised Edition. The MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 8_ of 11 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) _____204 Miller Avenue
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 12/11/2017 Continuation X Update
Photo 1: View of the front façade of 204 Miller Avenue.
Photo 2: A closed view of the front façade.
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 9_ of 11 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) _____204 Miller Avenue
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 12/11/2017 Continuation X Update
Photo 3: An oblique view of 204 Miller Avenue from the southeast.
Photo 4: View along the eastern façade of 204 Miller Avenue.
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 10_ of 11 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) _____204 Miller Avenue
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 12/11/2017 Continuation X Update
Photo 5: April 2008 Google Street View image showing Superior
Laundry sign and façade.
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 11_ of 11 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) _____204 Miller Avenue
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 12/11/2017 Continuation X Update
Photo 6: 1950 Sanborn map showing the subject property.
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial ______________________________
NRHP Status Code ______________________
Other Listings ________________________________________
Review Code ________ Reviewer __________ Date ________
Page _1_ of 13_ Resource Name or # ______208 Miller Avenue___________
P1. Other Identifier: _______________________________________________________
P2. Location: ____ Not for Publication _x__ Unrestricted *a. County ____San Mateo______
and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.)
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad: S. San Francisco Date: 2015 T ; R ; 1/4 of 1/4 of Sec ; BM
c. Address: 208 Miller Avenue City: South San Francisco Zip:94080
d. UTM:
e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate)
APN 012-314-180
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.)
The structure at 208 Miller Avenue is a two story building in fair condition, although somewhat altered from its original
form. The building is irregular in form, of concrete and steel construction, painted tan. A large slightly offset two story
addition to the original extends to Tamarack Lane to the north. The roof is flat and surfaced with asphalt. The
structure features a recessed entry with one curvilinear wall as well as a rear glass-block wall. Fenestration is
aluminum framed with narrow multi-paned ribbon windows along the 2nd story, shaded by a metal awning. Larger
aluminum framed plate glass windows are present on the 1st story.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: HP13
*P4. Resources Present: x_Building __Structure __Object __District __Element of District __Site __Other
P5a. Photo or drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, objects.) P5b. Description of Photo: (View, date, accession #)
View of the front façade of 208 Miller Avenue
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources
Historic x Prehistoric Both
Constructed 1953 based upon San Mateo County
Appraiser’s Documentation
*P7. Owner and Address:
United Food and Commercial Workers Local 115
240 Market Street
San Jose. CA 95113
*P8. Recorded by:
Robert Cartier
Archaeological Resource Management
496 North 5th Street
San Jose, CA 95112
*P9. Date Recorded: 12/11/2017
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite Survey Report and other sources, or enter "none.")
None
* Attachments: __None x_Location Map __Sketch Map x_Continuation Sheet x_Building, Structure, and Object Record
__Archaeological Record __District Record __Linear Feature Record __Milling Station Record __Rock Art Record __Artifact
Record __Photographic Record __Other (List):
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Page _2_ of _13 *NRHP Status Code _________________________
*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 208 Miller Avenue
B1. Historic Name: _____United Steel Workers Hall, Local 1069 ________________________________________________
B2. Common Name: _____United Food and Commerical Workers Hall, Local 5 _______________________________
B3. Original Use: ___Union Hall __ B4. Present Use: ____Union Hall________
*B5. Architectural Style: ___modern ______________
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations)
Based upon County of San Mateo Appraiser’s documentation, the structure at 208 Miller Avenue was originally
constructed in 1953. Since that time significant modifications have been made to the structure including the addition of
a second floor and the large rear wing of the structure (Building Permit Reference, 12/26/56).
*B7. Moved? x__ No ___ Yes ___ Unknown Date: _______ Original Location: __________________
*B8. Related Features:
None
B9a. Architect: ______unknown____ b. Builder: ________unknown___________
*B10. Significance: Theme Social, Arts & Recreation _ Area ___South San Francisco___________
Period of Significance ____Post-War____ Property Type __Union Hall._ Applicable Criteria __N/A___
The property at 208 Miller Avenue consists of Lot 3 and a portion of Lot 4, Block 138 as displayed on the map of “South
San Francisco, San Mateo County, California, Plat No. 1” recorded in Book B of Maps, Page 6 on March 1, 1892.
Based upon visual evaluation and available documentation, the structure at 208 Miller Avenue was originally
constructed in 1953, and was a much smaller, single story building. The structure was originally the Union Hall for the
United Steel Workers of America, Local 1069. In 1956 a 2nd story was added and the large rear addition was
constructed. By the 1980’s the structure housed the Union Hall and Offices of the United Food and Commercial
Workers Local 115. The Local is later listed as Local 101, and current ownership documents and building signage now
list the structure under Local 5 (Assessor’s Document #2017-047801).
See Continuation Sheet, Page 4
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) ______N/A_____________________
*B12. References:
See Continuation Sheet, Page 7
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: _____Robert R. Cartier__________
*Date of Evaluation: _______12/11/2017____________
(This space reserved for official comments.)
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________
LOCATION MAP Trinomial ________________________________
Page _3_ of _13 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) ______208 Miller Avenue ____________________
*Map Name: ___San Francisco South, CA__ *Scale: __7.5 Minute___ *Date of Map: __2015_____
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page _4_ of 13 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) ____208 Miller Avenue
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 12/11/2017 Continuation x Update
Continued from B10:
Thus the structure at 208 Miller Avenue has functioned as a Union Hall for the entirety of is existence. The precursor
organization to the United Steel Workers of American, known as the Steel Workers Organizing Committee (SWOC),
was founded on June 17, 1936. Their first contract was made with Carnegie-Illinois Steel on March 7, 1937. On May
22nd, 1942 the United Steel Workers of America (USWA) was founded, and Philip Murray is elected the first union
president (usw.org n.d.). The United Food and Commercial Workers Union was founded in 1979, made up of the
merger of the Retail Clerks and Amalgamated Meat Cutters Union. The UFCW represent warehouse packing and
processing workers, retail workers, grocery workers, and many others (UFCW.org).
California Register of Historic Resources Criteria
A cultural resource is considered "significant" if it qualifies as eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic
Resources (CRHR). Properties that are eligible for listing in the CRHR must meet one or more of the following criteria:
1. Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional
history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States;
2. Association with the lives of persons important to local, California, or
national history;
3. Embodying the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method
of construction, or representing the work of a master, or possessing high
artistic values; or
4. Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the
prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
A property may be automatically listed in the CRHR if it is formally determined eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places. Properties that are formally determined eligible for the NRHP are those that are designated as such
through one of the federal preservation programs administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation (i.e.,
the National Register, Tax Certification, and Section 106 review of federal undertakings). The CRHR interprets the
integrity of a cultural resource based upon its physical authenticity. An historic cultural resource must retain its historic
character or appearance and thus be recognizable as an historic resource. Integrity is evaluated by examining the
subject's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. If the subject has retained these
qualities, it may be said to have integrity. It is possible that a cultural resource may not retain sufficient integrity to be
listed in the National Register of Historic Places yet still be eligible for listing in the CRHR. If a cultural resource retains
the potential to convey significant historical/scientific data, it may be said to retain sufficient integrity for potential listing
in the CRHR.
The structure at 208 Miller Avenue is not currently listed on the California Register of Historical Resources. In addition,
the structure does not appear to be potentially eligible for listing in this register. The structure is not associated with
any known significant historical events thus it does not appear to qualify as potentially eligible under criterion 1.
Although the structure is associated with the USW and the UFCW Unions, which have both played significant roles in
the labor history of the United States, the structure itself does not appear to embody the historic significance of these
organizations or the broader significance of the labor movement. Thus it does not appear to be potentially eligible
under criterion 2. The structure is not a notable example of any architectural style, thus it does not appear to be
eligible under criterion 3. In addition, the structure does not appear to have the potential to yield significant historical
information, and thus does not appear eligible under criterion 4.
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page _5_ of 13 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) ___ 208 Miller Avenue
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 12/11/2017 Continuation x Update
National Register Criteria
The National Register of Historic Places was first established in 1966, with major revisions in 1976. The register is set
forth in 36 CFR 60 which establishes the responsibilities of the State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO), standards
for their staffs and review boards, and describes the statewide survey and planning process for historic preservation.
Within this regulation guidelines are set forth concerning the National Register of Historic Places (36 CFR 60.6). In
addition, further regulations are found in 36 CFR 63-66, 800, and Bulletin 15 which define procedures for determination
of eligibility, identification of historic properties, recovery, reporting, and protection procedures. The National Register
of Historic Places was established to recognize resources associated with the accomplishments of all peoples who
have contributed to the country's history and heritage. Guidelines were designed for Federal and State agencies in
nominating cultural resources to the National Register. These guidelines are based upon integrity and significance of
the resource. Integrity applies to specific items such as location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and
association. Quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering and culture is present in
resources that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and meet
at least one of the following criteria:
A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to broad patterns of our
history:
B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
C. That embody distinctive characteristics of type, period, or method of
construction, or that represent the work of master, or that possess high artistic values, or that
represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual
distinction;
D. That have yielded, or are likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Integrity is defined in Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, (U.S. Department of the
Interior, National Park Service 1982) as:
the authenticity of a property's historic identity, evidenced by the survival of physical
characteristics that existed during the property’s historic or prehistoric period. If a
property retains the physical characteristics it possessed in the past then it has the
capacity to convey association with historical patterns or persons, architectural or
engineering design and technology, or information about a culture or peoples.
There are also seven aspects of integrity which are used. These aspects are:
1. location 5. workmanship
2. design 6. feeling
3. setting 7. association
4. materials
The structure at 208 Miller Avenue is not currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In addition, the
property does not appear to be potentially eligible for listing in this register. The structure is not associated with
significant historic events, thus it does not appear to be potentially eligible for listing under criteria A. Although as a
Union Hall the structure is associated with both the USW and the UFCW, the structure itself does not appear to
embody the historic significance of these two unions or the labor movement more broadly. The structure is not a
notable example of any architectural style, thus it does not appear eligible for inclusion under criterion C. The property
does not appear to be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history, thus it does not appear to qualify as
potentially eligible under criterion D.
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page _6_ of 13 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) ___ 208 Miller Avenue
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 12/11/2017 Continuation x Update
South San Francisco Historic Resource Criteria
The Historic Preservation Program began in 1986 with the adoption of the Historic Preservation Ordinance. City
Council appointed a five-member Historic Preservation Commission to carry out the task of identifying South San
Francisco's most important historic sites and structures, and protecting them from needless neglect, exterior alteration
that might destroy their historic and architectural value, or demolition.
The goals are accomplished by designating landmarks as Historic Resources. Specific criteria have been established
to define how a property qualifies for nominations as a historic resource. The criteria relate to the property's
significance to the heritage of the City, the involvement of important people who may have designed, built, resided in,
or worked in the structure, its exemplification of a special architectural style, or its careful attention to detail and
craftsmanship. Its relationship to other historic buildings or to a historic district is also considered.
In considering a proposal for designation as an historic resource, the commission shall apply any or all of the following
criteria:
(a) Its character, interest or value as a significant part of the heritage of the city, the state or the nation; and
(b) Its location as a site of a significant historic event; or
(c) Its identification with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the culture and development of the
city, the state or the nation; or
(d) Its exemplification of a particular architectural style or way of life; or
(e) Its exemplification of the best remaining example of a particular architectural type in the city; or
(f) Its identification as the creation, design or work of a person or persons whose efforts have significantly
influenced the heritage of the city, the state or the nation; or
(g) Its embodiment of elements demonstrating outstanding attention to artistic, architectural and/or engineering
design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship; or
(h) Its relationship to any other historic resource if its preservation is essential to the integrity of the other historic
resource (for example, it is a clearly identified element of a larger cohesive neighborhood or area whose integrity
and character should be protected, such as the civic center, downtown, or a specific residential neighborhood);
or
(i) Its unique location or singular physical characteristics representing an established and familiar visual feature of
the city; or
(j) Its potential of yielding significant information of archeological interest; or
(k) Its integrity as a natural environment that strongly contributes to the well-being of the people of the city, the state,
or the nation. For example, an area retained in or developed in a natural setting, such as portions of Sign Hill, or
some other feature which contributes to the quality of life in South San Francisco. (Ord. 1440 § 2, 2011)
The structure at 208 Miller Avenue is not currently listed as historic resources for the City of South San Francisco. In
addition, it does not appear to be eligible for inclusion in this local register under any of the criteria listed above.
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page _7_ of 13 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) ___ 208 Miller Avenue
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 12/11/2017 Continuation x Update
Continued from B12:
Assessor's Office, County of San Mateo
2017 Record search of assessed value and associated taxes for the property at 208 Miller Avenue.
Brown, M.
2010 San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design 1935-1970 Historic Context Statement.
San Francisco City and County Planning Department.
Hoover, M. et al
1966 Historic Spots in California. Stanford University Press, Stanford California.
McAlester, V. and L. McAlester
1997 A Field Guide to American Houses. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
Recorder's Office, County of San Mateo
2017 Record search of recorded information for the property at 208 Miller Avenue.
UFCW.org
2016 UFCW History. http://www.ufcw.org/about/ufcw-history/ accessed 12/11/2017.
US Department of the Interior
1990 The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic
Buildings
US Department of the Interior
1982 Bulletin 15 - "How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation."
USW.org
n.d. Our History. https://www.usw.org/union/history accessed 12/11/2017.
Whiffen, Marcus
1992 American Architecture since 1780, Revised Edition. The MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 8_ of 13 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) _____208 Miller Avenue
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 12/11/2017 Continuation X Update
Photo 1: View of the front façade of 208 Miller Avenue.
Photo 2: View along the front façade from the west.
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 9_ of 13 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) _____208 Miller Avenue
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 12/11/2017 Continuation X Update
Photo 3: Detail of the recessed entry, curvilinear wall, and glass blocks.
Photo 4: Detail of the lower story plate glass windows.
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 10_ of 13 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) _____208 Miller Avenue
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 12/11/2017 Continuation X Update
Photo 5: Oblique view of the alley between 208 and 214 Miller Avenue.
Photo 6: View along the eastern façade from the southeast.
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 11_ of 13 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) _____208 Miller Avenue
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 12/11/2017 Continuation X Update
Photo 7: Oblique view of the northeast corner of 208 Miller Avenue.
Photo 8: View of the eastern half of the rear façade.
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 12_ of 13 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) _____208 Miller Avenue
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 12/11/2017 Continuation X Update
Photo 9: Detail of recessed rear entry bay.
Photo 10: View of the western half of the rear façade.
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 13_ of 13 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) _____208 Miller Avenue
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 12/11/2017 Continuation X Update
Photo 11: View of the northern portion of the western façade.
Photo 12: View of the western façade, partially obstructed by 214 Miller.
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial ______________________________
NRHP Status Code ______________________
Other Listings ________________________________________
Review Code ________ Reviewer __________ Date ________
Page _1_ of 13_ Resource Name or # ______214 Miller Avenue___________
P1. Other Identifier: _______________________________________________________
P2. Location: ____ Not for Publication _x__ Unrestricted *a. County ____San Mateo______
and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.)
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad: S. San Francisco Date: 2015 T ; R ; 1/4 of 1/4 of Sec ; BM
c. Address: 214 Miller Avenue City: South San Francisco Zip:94080
d. UTM:
e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate)
APN 012-314-190
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.)
The structure at 214 Miller Avenue is a two story m ixed-use structure in fair condition, housing commercial
businesses facing the street on the first floor, with rental residential units behind and on the second story. The
building is rectangular in form, of cinderblock construction, painted an off-white. The roof is flat and surfaced with
asphalt. The two 1st story commercial spaces feature recessed entries, the eastern entry including decorative use of
open cinder blocks. Fenestration is aluminum framed and multi-paned on the upper story, with large shop windows
for the commercial spaces below.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: HP06, HP03
*P4. Resources Present: x_Building __Structure __Object __District __Element of District __Site __Other
P5a. Photo or drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, objects.) P5b. Description of Photo: (View, date, accession #)
View of the front façade of 214 Miller Avenue
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources
Historic x Prehistoric Both
Constructed 1959 based upon San Mateo County
Appraiser’s Documentation
*P7. Owner and Address:
Nancy A. Garcia
1146 Knickerbocker Drive
Sunnyvale, CA 94087
*P8. Recorded by:
Robert Cartier
Archaeological Resource Management
496 North 5th Street
San Jose, CA 95112
*P9. Date Recorded: 12/11/2017
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite Survey Report and other sources, or enter "none.")
None
* Attachments: __None x_Location Map __Sketch Map x_Continuation Sheet x_Building, Structure, and Object Record
__Archaeological Record __District Record __Linear Feature Record __Milling Station Record __Rock Art Record __Artifact
Record __Photographic Record __Other (List):
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Page _2_ of _13 *NRHP Status Code _________________________
*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) __214 Miller Avenue____________
B1. Historic Name: _____214 Miller Avenue________________________________________________
B2. Common Name: _____214 Miller Avenue___________________________________________________
B3. Original Use: ___Commercial/residential___ B4. Present Use: ____commercial/residential________
*B5. Architectural Style: ___modern vernacular______________
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations)
Based upon County of San Mateo Appraiser’s documentation, the structure at 214 Miller Avenue was originally
constructed in 1959. Since that time it appears that only minor modifications have been made to the structure, such as
changes to the store fronts, replacement of windows, and interior remodeling.
*B7. Moved? x__ No ___ Yes ___ Unknown Date: _______ Original Location: __________________
*B8. Related Features:
None
B9a. Architect: ______unknown____ b. Builder: ________unknown___________
*B10. Significance: Theme commerce/architecture and shelter_ Area ___South San Francisco___________
Period of Significance ____Post-War____ Property Type __private com/res._ Applicable Criteria __N/A___
The property at 214 Miller Avenue consists of a portion of Lot 4, Block 138 as displayed on the map of “South San
Francisco, San Mateo County, California, Plat No. 1” recorded in Book B of Maps, Page 6 on March 1, 1892. Based
upon visual evaluation and available documentation, the structure at 214 Miller Avenue was originally constructed in
1959. At that time the property was owned by Joseph and Mabel Sciarra. The Sciarra’s retained ownership of the
property until Josephs death, when Mabel became sole owner. On September 25, 1996 Mabel J. Sciarra granted the
property to Nancy A. Garcia, her daughter (Assessor’s Document #96141870). Nancy Garcia is the current owner of
the property.
See Continuation Sheet, Page 4
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) ______N/A_____________________
*B12. References:
See Continuation Sheet, Page 7
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: _____Robert R. Cartier__________
*Date of Evaluation: _______12/11/2017____________
(This space reserved for official comments.)
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________
LOCATION MAP Trinomial ________________________________
Page _3_ of _13 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) ______214 Miller Avenue ____________________
*Map Name: ___San Francisco South, CA__ *Scale: __7.5 Minute___ *Date of Map: __2015_____
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page _4_ of 13 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) ____214 Miller Avenue____________
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 12/11/2017 Continuation x Update
Continued from B10:
California Register of Historic Resources Criteria
A cultural resource is considered "significant" if it qualifies as eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic
Resources (CRHR). Properties that are eligible for listing in the CRHR must meet one or more of the following criteria:
1. Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional
history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States;
2. Association with the lives of persons important to local, California, or
national history;
3. Embodying the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method
of construction, or representing the work of a master, or possessing high
artistic values; or
4. Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the
prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
A property may be automatically listed in the CRHR if it is formally determined eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places. Properties that are formally determined eligible for the NRHP are those that are designated as such
through one of the federal preservation programs administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation (i.e.,
the National Register, Tax Certification, and Section 106 review of federal undertakings). The CRHR interprets the
integrity of a cultural resource based upon its physical authenticity. An historic cultural resource must retain its historic
character or appearance and thus be recognizable as an historic resource. Integrity is evaluated by examining the
subject's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. If the subject has retained these
qualities, it may be said to have integrity. It is possible that a cultural resource may not retain sufficient integrity to be
listed in the National Register of Historic Places yet still be eligible for listing in the CRHR. If a cultural resource retains
the potential to convey significant historical/scientific data, it may be said to retain sufficient integrity for potential listing
in the CRHR.
The structure at 214 Miller Avenue is not currently listed on the California Register of Historical Resources. In addition,
the structure does not appear to be potentially eligible for listing in this register. The structure is not associated with
any known significant historical events thus it does not appear to qualify as potentially eligible under criterion 1. No
historically significant persons appear to have been associated with the property, thus it does not appear to qualify as
potentially eligible under criterion 2. The structure is not a notable example of any architectural style, thus it does not
appear to be eligible under criterion 3. In addition, the structure does not appear to have the potential to yield
significant historical information, and thus does not appear eligible under criterion 4.
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page _5_ of 13 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) ___ 214 Miller Avenue
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 12/11/2017 Continuation x Update
National Register Criteria
The National Register of Historic Places was first established in 1966, with major revisions in 1976. The register is set
forth in 36 CFR 60 which establishes the responsibilities of the State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO), standards
for their staffs and review boards, and describes the statewide survey and planning process for historic preservation.
Within this regulation guidelines are set forth concerning the National Register of Historic Places (36 CFR 60.6). In
addition, further regulations are found in 36 CFR 63-66, 800, and Bulletin 15 which define procedures for determination
of eligibility, identification of historic properties, recovery, reporting, and protection procedures. The National Register
of Historic Places was established to recognize resources associated with the accomplishments of all peoples who
have contributed to the country's history and heritage. Guidelines were designed for Federal and State agencies in
nominating cultural resources to the National Register. These guidelines are based upon integrity and significance of
the resource. Integrity applies to specific items such as location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and
association. Quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering and culture is present in
resources that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and meet
at least one of the following criteria:
A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to broad patterns of our
history:
B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
C. That embody distinctive characteristics of type, period, or method of
construction, or that represent the work of master, or that possess high artistic values, or that
represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual
distinction;
D. That have yielded, or are likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Integrity is defined in Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, (U.S. Department of the
Interior, National Park Service 1982) as:
the authenticity of a property's historic identity, evidenced by the survival of physical
characteristics that existed during the property’s historic or prehistoric period. If a
property retains the physical characteristics it possessed in the past then it has the
capacity to convey association with historical patterns or persons, architectural or
engineering design and technology, or information about a culture or peoples.
There are also seven aspects of integrity which are used. These aspects are:
1. location 5. workmanship
2. design 6. feeling
3. setting 7. association
4. materials
The structure at 214 Miller Avenue is not currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In addition, the
property does not appear to be potentially eligible for listing in this register. The structure is not associated with
significant historic events or persons, thus it does not appear to be potentially eligible for listing under criteria A or B.
The structure is not a notable example of any architectural style, thus it does not appear eligible for inclusion under
criterion C. The property does not appear to be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history, thus it does
not appear to qualify as potentially eligible under criterion D.
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page _6_ of 13 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) ___ 214 Miller Avenue
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 12/11/2017 Continuation x Update
South San Francisco Historic Resource Criteria
The Historic Preservation Program began in 1986 with the adoption of the Historic Preservation Ordinance. City
Council appointed a five-member Historic Preservation Commission to carry out the task of identifying South San
Francisco's most important historic sites and structures, and protecting them from needless neglect, exterior alteration
that might destroy their historic and architectural value, or demolition.
The goals are accomplished by designating landmarks as Historic Resources. Specific criteria have been established
to define how a property qualifies for nominations as a historic resource. The criteria relate to the property's
significance to the heritage of the City, the involvement of important people who may have designed, built, resided in,
or worked in the structure, its exemplification of a special architectural style, or its careful attention to detail and
craftsmanship. Its relationship to other historic buildings or to a historic district is also considered.
In considering a proposal for designation as an historic resource, the commission shall apply any or all of the following
criteria:
(a) Its character, interest or value as a significant part of the heritage of the city, the state or the nation; and
(b) Its location as a site of a significant historic event; or
(c) Its identification with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the culture and development of the
city, the state or the nation; or
(d) Its exemplification of a particular architectural style or way of life; or
(e) Its exemplification of the best remaining example of a particular architectural type in the city; or
(f) Its identification as the creation, design or work of a person or persons whose efforts have significantly
influenced the heritage of the city, the state or the nation; or
(g) Its embodiment of elements demonstrating outstanding attention to artistic, architectural and/or engineering
design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship; or
(h) Its relationship to any other historic resource if its preservation is essential to the integrity of the other historic
resource (for example, it is a clearly identified element of a larger cohesive neighborhood or area whose integrity
and character should be protected, such as the civic center, downtown, or a specific residential neighborhood);
or
(i) Its unique location or singular physical characteristics representing an established and familiar visual feature of
the city; or
(j) Its potential of yielding significant information of archeological interest; or
(k) Its integrity as a natural environment that strongly contributes to the well-being of the people of the city, the state,
or the nation. For example, an area retained in or developed in a natural setting, such as portions of Sign Hill, or
some other feature which contributes to the quality of life in South San Francisco. (Ord. 1440 § 2, 2011)
The structure at 214 Miller Avenue is not currently listed as historic resources for the City of South San Francisco. In
addition, it does not appear to be eligible for inclusion in this local register under any of the criteria listed above.
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page _7_ of 13 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) ___ 214 Miller Avenue
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 12/11/2017 Continuation x Update
Continued from B12:
Assessor's Office, County of San Mateo
2017 Record search of assessed value and associated taxes for the property at 214 Miller Avenue.
Brown, M.
2010 San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design 1935-1970 Historic Context Statement.
San Francisco City and County Planning Department.
Hoover, M. et al
1966 Historic Spots in California. Stanford University Press, Stanford California.
McAlester, V. and L. McAlester
1997 A Field Guide to American Houses. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
Recorder's Office, County of San Mateo
2017 Record search of recorded information for the property at 214 Miller Avenue.
US Department of the Interior
1990 The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic
Buildings
US Department of the Interior
1982 Bulletin 15 - "How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation."
Whiffen, Marcus
1992 American Architecture since 1780, Revised Edition. The MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 8_ of 13 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) _____214 Miller Avenue
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 12/11/2017 Continuation X Update
Photo 1: Oblique view of 214 Miller Avenue from the southwest.
Photo 2: View of the front façade of 214 Miller Avenue.
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 9_ of 13 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) _____214 Miller Avenue
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 12/11/2017 Continuation X Update
Photo 3: View of the recessed entry to the western commercial space.
Photo 4: Detail of the recessed entry to the western commercial space.
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 10_ of 13 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) _____214 Miller Avenue
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 12/11/2017 Continuation X Update
Photo 5: View of aluminum framed windows on the 2nd story.
Photo 6: View of the recessed entry to the eastern commercial space.
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 11_ of 13 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) _____214 Miller Avenue
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 12/11/2017 Continuation X Update
Photo 7: Oblique view from the southeast.
Photo 8: View along alley between 214 and 208 Miller Avenue.
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 12_ of 13 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) _____214 Miller Avenue
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 12/11/2017 Continuation X Update
Photo 9: Oblique view of the western and front façade.
Photo 10: View of the western façade of 214 Miller Avenue.
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________
Page 13_ of 13 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) _____214 Miller Avenue
*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 12/11/2017 Continuation X Update
Photo 11: Oblique view of the rear façade from the northwest.
Photo 12: View of the rear façade of 214 Miller Avenue.
Prepared for Sares Regis Group of Northern California
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
FORD PROPERTIES – PHASE II
MILLER AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
UNAUTHORIZED USE OR COPYING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS STRICTLY
PROHIBITED BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE CLIENT FOR THE SPECIFIC
PROJECT
December 6, 2017
Project No. 15-839B
DR
A
F
T
December 6, 2017
Project No. 15-839B
Mr. Ken Busch
Vice President, Development
Sares Regis Group of Northern California
901 Mariners Island Blvd. #700
San Mateo, California 94404
Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report
Proposed Residential Building
Ford Properties – Phase II
South San Francisco, California
Dear Mr. Busch:
We are pleased to present our preliminary geotechnical investigation report for the
proposed residential building to be constructed during Phase II of the Ford Properties
(Cadence) Residential Development in South San Francisco, California. We previously
performed preliminary and final geotechnical investigations for the residential
development of the Ford Properties Parcels A, B, C and D, the results of which were
presented in our preliminary and final reports dated March 25, 2015 and April 22, 2016,
respectively. Since our previous investigations, the proposed development of Parcels B
and C has changed and three parcels have been added to the project.
The project site for Phase II of the development is comprised of five contiguous parcels
located on the northern side of Miller Avenue, and includes Parcels B and C from our
previous investigations, as shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. Parcels B and C are located
on the eastern and western ends of the project site, respectively, and the three new parcels
are located at the center. The site generally slopes down to the east with elevations
ranging from approximately 32 feet at the western perimeter of the site to about 23 feet at
the eastern perimeter, which spans a horizontal distance of approximately 350 feet. The
project site is bordered by Tamarack Lane to the north, Cypress Avenue to the east,
Miller Avenue to the south, and a single-story structure and parking lot to the west. The
eastern and western portions of the site are currently occupied by asphalt-paved parking
lots, and the central portion of the site is occupied by one-story and two-story structures
fronting on Miller Avenue and asphalt-paved parking along Tamarack Lane. The parking
lots in the eastern portion of the site are currently occupied by construction materials and
trailers for Phase I construction of the Ford Properties (Cadence) Residential
Development.
DR
A
F
T
Mr. Ken Busch
Sare Regis Group of Northern California
December 6, 2017
Page 2
We understand plans are to demolish the existing buildings and construct a seven-story
residential building that will occupy the entire site, portions of which may include a
basement level. The proposed new building will consist of five levels of Type III wood-
framed residential units over two levels of Type I reinforced concrete that will be used
primarily for parking. Portions of the first level will have a finished floor elevation of
approximately 23 feet, resulting in the eastern portion of the building to be constructed
near existing site grades and sections of the western portion of the building to be
constructed one level below grade. Construction will also include a new lobby, leasing
office, storage and utilities rooms, landscaped podiums, and a gym.
From a geotechnical standpoint, we preliminarily conclude the site can be developed as
planned. The primary geotechnical issues to be addressed during design and construction
of the proposed development are:
• the potential for up to about 6-1/2 inches of liquefaction-induced settlement in the
western portion of the new structure,
• shallow groundwater relative to the proposed below-grade portions of the
building, and
• providing adequate vertical and lateral support for the proposed new building.
We preliminarily conclude the proposed new building may be supported on a mat
foundation bearing on improved soil. If it is determined that the estimated total
settlement (static plus seismic) can be tolerated by the structure, the easternmost portion
of the building (Parcel B) may be supported on a mat foundation bearing on firm, native
soil. Where portions of the foundation will be below the design groundwater level, the
mat foundation should be waterproofed and designed to resist hydrostatic uplift pressures.
This report presents preliminary conclusions and recommendations regarding
geotechnical aspects of the project. A final geotechnical investigation, potentially
including additional CPTs, should be performed to develop final geotechnical
conclusions and recommendations for the project.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide our services to you on this project. If you have
any questions, please call.
DR
A
F
T
Mr. Ken Busch
Sare Regis Group of Northern California
December 6, 2017
Page 3
Sincerely yours,
ROCKRIDGE GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Tessa E. Williams, P.E. Craig S. Shields, P.E., G.E.
Project Engineer Principal Geotechnical Engineer
DR
A
F
T
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES .......................................................................................................2
3.0 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS ........................................................................................3
3.1 Cone Penetration Tests ............................................................................................3
3.2 Test Borings .............................................................................................................4
3.3 Laboratory Testing ...................................................................................................5
4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ..........................................................................................5
4.1 Groundwater ............................................................................................................6
5.0 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS ..........................................................................................6
5.1 Regional Seismicity and Faulting ............................................................................6
5.2 Geologic Hazards .....................................................................................................9
5.2.1 Ground Shaking ...........................................................................................9
5.2.2 Ground Surface Rupture ............................................................................10
5.2.3 Liquefaction and Associated Hazards ........................................................10
5.2.4 Liquefaction-Induced Ground Failure .......................................................13
5.2.5 Cyclic Densification...................................................................................14
6.0 PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................14
6.1 Foundation Support and Settlement .......................................................................14
6.2 Ground Improvement .............................................................................................16
6.3 Site Preparation and Grading .................................................................................17
6.3.1 Exterior Concrete Flatwork ........................................................................18
6.3.2 Utility Trench Backfill ...............................................................................18
6.4 Permanent Below-Grade Walls ..............................................................................19
6.5 Excavation Shoring and Dewatering .....................................................................20
6.6 Underpinning .........................................................................................................21
6.7 Seismic Design.......................................................................................................21
6.8 Soil Corrosivity ......................................................................................................22
7.0 ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ...............................................................22
REFERENCES
FIGURES
APPENDIX A – Cone Penetration Test Results and Boring Logs from Previous Investigations
APPENDIX B – Laboratory Test Results from Previous Investigation
DR
A
F
T
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Location Map
Figure 2 Site Plan
Figure 3 Regional Geologic Map
Figure 4 Regional Fault Map
APPENDIX A
Figures A-1 Cone Penetration Test Results
through A-4
Figures A-5 Logs of Test Borings
through A-7
Figure A-8 Soil Classification Chart
APPENDIX B
Figure B-1 Plasticity Chart
Figures B-2 Particle Size Distribution
through B-3
Corrosivity Test Results
DR
A
F
T
15-839B 1 December 5, 2017
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
FORD PROPERTIES – PHASE II
South San Francisco, California
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the preliminary geotechnical investigation performed by
Rockridge Geotechnical for the proposed residential building to be constructed during Phase II
of the Ford Properties (Cadence) Residential Development in South San Francisco, California.
The site is located on the northern side of Miller Avenue between Linden and Cypress Avenues,
as shown on the Site Location Map, Figure 1. We previously performed preliminary and final
geotechnical investigations for the residential development of the Ford Properties Parcels A, B,
C and D, the results of which were presented in our preliminary and final reports dated March
25, 2015 and April 22, 2016, respectively. Since our previous investigations, the proposed
development of Parcels B and C has changed and three parcels have been added to the project.
The project site for Phase II of the development is comprised of five contiguous parcels located
on the northern side of Miller Avenue, and includes Parcels B and C from our previous
investigations, as shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. Parcels B and C are located on the eastern
and western ends of the project site, respectively, and the three new parcels are located at the
center. The site generally slopes down to the east with elevations ranging from approximately 32
feet at the western perimeter of the site to about 23 feet at the eastern perimeter, which spans a
horizontal distance of approximately 350 feet. The project site is bordered by Tamarack Lane to
the north, Cypress Avenue to the east, Miller Avenue to the south, and a single-story structure
and parking lot to the west. The eastern and western portions of the site are currently occupied
by asphalt-paved parking lots, and the central portion of the site is occupied by one-story and
two-story structures fronting on Miller Avenue and asphalt-paved parking along Tamarack Lane.
The parking lots in the eastern portion of the site are currently occupied by construction
materials and trailers for Phase I construction of the Ford Properties (Cadence) Residential
Development.
DR
A
F
T
15-839B 2 December 5, 2017
We understand plans are to demolish the existing buildings and construct a seven-story
residential building that will occupy the entire site, portions of which may include a basement
level. The proposed new building will consist of five levels of Type III wood-framed residential
units over two levels of Type I reinforced concrete that will be used primarily for parking.
Portions of the first level will have a finished floor elevation of approximately 23 feet, resulting
in the eastern portion of the building to be constructed near existing site grades and sections of
the western portion of the building to be constructed one level below grade. Construction will
also include a new lobby, leasing office, storage and utilities rooms, landscaped podiums, and a
gym.
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
Our 2015 geotechnical investigations included exploring subsurface conditions within the site
vicinity by advancing a total of nine cone penetration tests (CPTs), drilling nine exploratory
borings, and performing geotechnical laboratory testing on select samples from our borings.
Four of the CPTs and three of the borings were advanced at the proposed Phase II project site
during our previous investigation. We used the data collected during our previous field
investigations to perform engineering analyses to develop preliminary conclusions and
recommendations regarding:
• site seismicity and seismic hazards, including the potential for liquefaction and lateral
spreading, and total and differential settlement resulting from liquefaction and/or cyclic
densification
• the most appropriate foundation type(s) for the proposed building
• preliminary design criteria for the recommended foundation type(s), including vertical
and lateral capacities for each of the foundation type(s)
• estimates of foundation settlement
• lateral earth pressures for preliminary design of below-grade walls
• preliminary design criteria for temporary shoring and underpinning, as appropriate
• site grading and excavation, including criteria for fill quality and compaction
• 2016 California Building Code (CBC) site class and design spectral response acceleration
parameters
DR
A
F
T
15-839B 3 December 5, 2017
• corrosivity of the near-surface soil and the potential effects on buried concrete and metal
structures and foundations
• construction considerations, including temporary dewatering.
3.0 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
We previously performed preliminary and final geotechnical investigations at the site, the results
of which were presented in our reports dated March 25, 2015 and April 22, 2016. Our
preliminary investigation consisted of evaluating subsurface conditions within the site vicinity by
performing a total of nine CPTs, four of which were performed at the project site. Our
subsequent final investigation consisted of further evaluating subsurface conditions within the
site vicinity by advancing nine exploratory borings and performing laboratory testing on select
soil samples. Three of the test borings were performed within the project site boundaries.
Prior to the investigations, we obtained a drilling permit from San Mateo County Environmental
Health Services Division (SMCEHS), contacted Underground Service Alert (USA) to notify
them of our work, as required by law, and retained a private utility locator, Precision Locating,
LLC, to confirm the boring and CPT locations were clear of existing utility lines. The
approximate locations of the borings and CPTs performed at the site are presented on the Site
Plan, Figure 2. Details of the field investigation and laboratory testing are described below.
3.1 Cone Penetration Tests
Four CPTs were performed at the project site to provide in-situ soil data at the approximate
locations shown on Figure 2. The CPTs, designated as CPT-7 through CPT-9, were advanced to
refusal at depths ranging from 28 to 39 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs).
The CPTs were performed by Middle Earth Geo Testing, Inc. of Orange, California, on March 4,
2015 by hydraulically pushing a 1.4-inch-diameter cone-tipped probe with a projected area of 10
square centimeters into the ground. The cone-tipped probe measured tip resistance and the
friction sleeve behind the cone tip measured frictional resistance. Electrical strain gauges within
the cone continuously measured soil parameters for the entire depth advanced. Soil data,
DR
A
F
T
15-839B 4 December 5, 2017
including tip resistance and frictional resistance, were recorded by a computer while the test was
conducted. Accumulated data were processed by computer to provide engineering information
such as the soil behavior types and approximate strength characteristics of the soil encountered.
The CPT logs, showing tip resistance, friction ratio, and pore water pressure by depth, as well as
correlated soil behavior type (Robertson, 2010), are presented in Appendix A on Figures A-1
through A-4. Upon completion, the CPTs were backfilled with cement grout in accordance with
SMCEHS standards.
3.2 Test Borings
The test borings were drilled on November 17 and 18, 2015 by Exploration GeoServices of San
Jose, California. A total of nine test borings were advanced within the site vicinity, three of
which were performed at the project site. The borings drilled at the site, designated as B-7
through B-9, were each drilled to a depth of approximately 30 feet bgs using a truck-mounted,
Mobil B-53 drill rig equipped with hollow-stem augers. During drilling, our field geologist
logged the soil encountered and obtained representative samples for visual classification and
laboratory testing. The logs of the borings are presented on Figures A-5 through A-7 in
Appendix A. The soil encountered in the borings was classified in accordance with the
classification chart shown on Figure A-8.
Soil samples were obtained using the following samplers:
• Sprague and Henwood (S&H) split-barrel sampler with a 3.0-inch outside diameter and
2.5-inch inside diameter, lined with 2.43-inch inside diameter tubes.
• Standard Penetration Test (SPT) split-barrel sampler with a 2.0-inch outside and 1.5-inch
inside diameter, without liners.
• Dames & Moore (D&M) thin-walled brass tubes with a 2.5-inch outside diameter.
The type of sampler used was selected based on soil type and the desired sample quality for
laboratory testing. In general, the S&H sampler was used to obtain samples in medium stiff to
very stiff cohesive soil and the SPT sampler was used to evaluate the relative density of sandy
soils. The S&H and SPT samplers were driven with a 140-pound, downhole, wireline hammer
falling about 30 inches per drop. The samplers were driven up to 18 inches and the hammer
DR
A
F
T
15-839B 5 December 5, 2017
blows required to drive the samplers were recorded every six inches and are presented on the
boring logs. A “blow count” is defined as the number of hammer blows per six inches of
penetration or 50 blows for six inches or less of penetration. The blow counts required to drive
the S&H and SPT samplers were converted to approximate SPT N-values using factors of 0.6
and 1.0, respectively, to account for sampler type, approximate hammer energy (previously
measured by drilling subcontractor), and the fact that the SPT sampler was designed to
accommodate liners, but liners were not used. The blow counts used for this conversion were the
last two 6-inch blow counts. The converted SPT N-values are presented on the boring logs. The
D&M tube was slowly advanced using the weight of the drill rods and hydraulic pressure, as
needed.
After completion, the borings were backfilled with neat cement grout in accordance with
SMCEH requirements. The soil cuttings generated by the boring were placed in 55-gallon drums
and temporarily stored on site.
3.3 Laboratory Testing
Geotechnical laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples to assess their engineering
properties and physical characteristics. Soil samples were tested by B. Hillebrandt Soils Testing,
Inc. of Alamo, California to measure moisture content, dry density, particle size distribution, and
Atterberg limits. Corrosivity testing of a near-surface soil sample was performed by Sunland
Analytical of Rancho Cordova, California. The results of the geotechnical laboratory tests are
presented on the boring logs and in Appendix B.
4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
A regional geologic map of the site and vicinity (Figure 3) indicates that the western portion of
the site is underlain by Hillslope deposits (Qsl) and the eastern portion of the site underlain by
Pleistocene-age Alluvium (Qoa). The results of the borings and CPTs performed in our previous
investigations of Parcel B indicate the eastern portion of the project site is underlain by dense to
very dense sand with varying amounts of clay and silt with thin, interbedded layers of stiff to
very stiff clay to the maximum depth explored of 39 feet bgs. The results of our previous
DR
A
F
T
15-839B 6 December 5, 2017
investigation at Parcel C indicate the western portion of the project site is generally underlain by
very loose to medium dense sand extending to depths ranging from approximately 18 to 27 feet
bgs. The very loose to medium dense sand is underlain by medium dense to very dense sand
with varying fines content to the maximum depth explored of 37 feet bgs.
4.1 Groundwater
Groundwater was measured in our borings and CPTs prior to grouting at depths between about 8
and 10 feet bgs. Because of the relatively low permeability of the soil at these depths, the
measured groundwater levels are not necessarily the stabilized groundwater level. The depth to
groundwater is influenced by tidal fluctuations at the bay and is also expected to vary several feet
annually, depending on rainfall amounts. Available historic groundwater information of the site
and vicinity indicate historic high groundwater to be approximately 7 feet bgs. Therefore, we
preliminarily conclude a design groundwater table 7 feet bgs should be used for this project.
5.0 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS
Because the project site is in a seismically active region, we evaluated the potential for
earthquake-induced geologic hazards, including ground shaking, ground surface rupture,
liquefaction,1 lateral spreading,2 and cyclic densification3. The results of our evaluation
regarding seismic considerations for the project site are presented in the following sections.
5.1 Regional Seismicity and Faulting
The site is located in the Coast Ranges geomorphic province of California that is characterized
by northwest-trending valleys and ridges. These topographic features are controlled by folds and
faults that resulted from the collision of the Farallon and North American plates and subsequent
1 Liquefaction is a phenomenon where loose, saturated, cohesionless soil experiences temporary
reduction in strength during cyclic loading such as that produced by earthquakes.
2 Lateral spreading is a phenomenon in which surficial soil displaces along a shear zone that has
formed within an underlying liquefied layer. Upon reaching mobilization, the surficial blocks are
transported downslope or in the direction of a free face by earthquake and gravitational forces.
3 Cyclic densification is a phenomenon in which non-saturated, cohesionless soil is compacted by
earthquake vibrations, causing ground-surface settlement.
DR
A
F
T
15-839B 7 December 5, 2017
strike-slip faulting along the San Andreas Fault system. The San Andreas Fault is more than 600
miles long from Point Arena in the north to the Gulf of California in the south. The Coast
Ranges province is bounded on the east by the Great Valley and on the west by the Pacific
Ocean.
The major active faults in the area are the San Andreas, San Gregorio, Hayward, and Calaveras,
faults. These and other faults in the region are shown on Figure 4. For these and other active
faults within a 50-kilometer radius of the site, the distance from the site and estimated mean
characteristic Moment magnitude4 [2007 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities
(WGCEP) (USGS 2008) and Cao et al. (2003)] are summarized in Table 1.
4 Moment magnitude is an energy-based scale and provides a physically meaningful measure of the
size of a faulting event. Moment magnitude is directly related to average slip and fault rupture area.
DR
A
F
T
15-839B 8 December 5, 2017
TABLE 1
Regional Faults and Seismicity
Fault Segment
Approximate
Distance
from Site
(km)
Direction from
Site
Mean
Characteristic
Moment
Magnitude
N. San Andreas - Peninsula 4 West 7.23
N. San Andreas (1906 event) 4 West 8.05
San Gregorio Connected 13 West 7.50
N. San Andreas - North Coast 21 Northwest 7.51
Total Hayward 25 Northeast 7.00
Total Hayward-Rodgers Creek 25 Northeast 7.33
Monte Vista-Shannon 28 Southeast 6.50
Total Calaveras 39 East 7.03
Mount Diablo Thrust 41 Northeast 6.70
Green Valley Connected 46 Northeast 6.80
Rodgers Creek 48 North 7.07
Point Reyes 49 Northwest 6.90
Since 1800, four major earthquakes have been recorded on the San Andreas Fault. In 1836, an
earthquake with an estimated maximum intensity of VII on the Modified Mercalli (MM) scale
occurred east of Monterey Bay on the San Andreas Fault (Toppozada and Borchardt 1998). The
estimated Moment magnitude, Mw, for this earthquake is about 6.25. In 1838, an earthquake
occurred with an estimated intensity of about VIII-IX (MM), corresponding to an Mw of about
7.5. The San Francisco Earthquake of 1906 caused the most significant damage in the history of
the Bay Area in terms of loss of lives and property damage. This earthquake created a surface
rupture along the San Andreas Fault from Shelter Cove to San Juan Bautista approximately 470
kilometers in length. It had a maximum intensity of XI (MM), an Mw of about 7.9, and was felt
DR
A
F
T
15-839B 9 December 5, 2017
560 kilometers away in Oregon, Nevada, and Los Angeles. The most recent earthquake to affect
the Bay Area was the Loma Prieta Earthquake of 17 October 1989 with an Mw of 6.9. This
earthquake occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains about 83 kilometers south of the site.
In 1868, an earthquake with an estimated maximum intensity of X on the MM scale occurred on
the southern segment (between San Leandro and Fremont) of the Hayward Fault. The estimated
Mw for the earthquake is 7.0. In 1861, an earthquake of unknown magnitude (probably an Mw
of about 6.5) was reported on the Calaveras Fault. The most recent significant earthquake on this
fault was the 1984 Morgan Hill earthquake (Mw = 6.2).
The U.S. Geological Survey's 2014 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities has
compiled the earthquake fault research for the San Francisco Bay area in order to estimate the
probability of fault segment rupture. They have determined that the overall probability of
moment magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake occurring in the San Francisco Region during the
next 30 years (starting from 2014) is 72 percent. The highest probabilities are assigned to the
Hayward Fault, Calaveras Fault, and the northern segment of the San Andreas Fault. These
probabilities are 14.3, 7.4, and 6.4 percent, respectively.
5.2 Geologic Hazards
During a major earthquake on a segment of one of the nearby faults, strong to very strong ground
shaking is expected to occur at the project site. Strong shaking during an earthquake can result
in ground failure such as that associated with soil liquefaction, lateral spreading, and cyclic
densification. We used the results of the borings and CPTs performed at the project site to
evaluate the potential of these phenomena occurring at the project site.
5.2.1 Ground Shaking
The seismicity of the site is governed by the activity of the San Andreas Fault, although ground
shaking from future earthquakes on other faults, including the Hayward, San Gregorio, and
Calaveras faults, will also be felt at the site. The intensity of earthquake ground motion at the
site will depend upon the characteristics of the generating fault, distance to the earthquake
DR
A
F
T
15-839B 10 December 5, 2017
epicenter, and magnitude and duration of the earthquake. We judge that strong to very strong
ground shaking could occur at the site during a large earthquake on one of the nearby faults.
5.2.2 Ground Surface Rupture
Historically, ground surface displacements closely follow the trace of geologically young faults.
The site is not within an Earthquake Fault Zone, as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Act, and no known active or potentially active faults exist on the site. We therefore
conclude the risk of fault offset at the site from a known active fault is very low. In a seismically
active area, the remote possibility exists for future faulting in areas where no faults previously
existed; however, we conclude the risk of surface faulting and consequent secondary ground
failure from previously unknown faults is also very low.
5.2.3 Liquefaction and Associated Hazards
When a saturated, cohesionless soil liquefies, it experiences a temporary loss of shear strength
created by a transient rise in excess pore pressure generated by strong ground motion. Soil
susceptible to liquefaction includes loose to medium dense sand and gravel, low-plasticity silt,
and some low-plasticity clay deposits. Flow failure, lateral spreading, differential settlement,
loss of bearing strength, ground fissures and sand boils are evidence of excess pore pressure
generation and liquefaction.
Liquefaction susceptibility was assessed using the software CLiq v2.0 (GeoLogismiki, 2016).
CLiq uses measured field CPT data and assesses liquefaction potential given a user-defined
earthquake magnitude and peak ground acceleration (PGA). We performed a liquefaction
triggering analysis using the CPT and boring log data within the site vicinity in accordance with
the methodology by Boulanger and Idriss (2014).
Our analysis was performed using a high groundwater depth of 7 feet bgs. In accordance with
the 2016 CBC, we used a peak ground acceleration of 0.80 times gravity (g) in our liquefaction
evaluation; this peak ground acceleration is consistent with the Maximum Considered
Earthquake Geometric Mean (MCEG) peak ground acceleration adjusted for site effects (PGAM).
DR
A
F
T
15-839B 11 December 5, 2017
We also used a Moment magnitude 8.1 earthquake, which is consistent with the mean
characteristic Moment magnitude for the San Andreas Fault 1906 event, as presented in Table 1.
Our analyses indicate there are relatively thin soil layers between depths of approximately 7 and
35 feet bgs that are susceptible to liquefaction during a major earthquake. To estimate potential
ground deformations due to liquefaction, we considered three mechanisms of seismically-
induced building settlement: volumetric-induced, shear-induced, and ejecta-induced. Settlement
due to volumetric strain, typically designated as “free-field” settlement, occurs due to: 1) post-
liquefaction sedimentation resulting from high pore pressures generated during strong ground
shaking; and 2) post-liquefaction consolidation as excess pore pressures dissipate. Shear-
induced ground deformations are caused by shear stresses exerted on the underlying soil by a
structure subjected to cyclic loading, which can result in a partial bearing capacity failure
(punching failure) or ratcheting displacement due to soil-structure interaction. Ejecta-induced
deformations occur when soil beneath the foundation of a structure is brought to the ground
surface during strong shaking. When soil ejecta occurs during a major seismic event, the
settlements are typically large and difficult to quantify; therefore, deformations due to soil ejecta
are not included in the liquefaction-induced settlement calculations and are further discussed in
the section below regarding liquefaction-induced ground failure.
We estimated free-field settlement due to liquefaction using the methodology developed by
Zhang et al. (2002) and shear-induced building settlement during a major earthquake using
methodology developed by Bray et al. (2017). For our settlement analyses, we assumed an
average building pressure of approximately 800 psf for the proposed residential building.
Based on the results of our seismically-induced settlement analyses, we estimate total and
differential settlements of the westernmost portion of the proposed residential building
associated with liquefaction after an MCEG event will be on the order of about 6-1/2 inches and 3
inches over horizontal distance of 30 feet, respectively. We estimate total and differential
settlements of the easternmost portion of the proposed residential building following an MCEG
event will be up to about 2 inches and one inch over horizontal distance of 30 feet, respectively.
DR
A
F
T
15-839B 12 December 5, 2017
These are the 84th percentile (median plus one standard deviation) ground-deformation estimates,
indicating that approximately 16 percent of sites would experience seismically-induced
settlement greater than the estimates presented above and about 84 percent would experience less
settlement given the expected ground motions generated by an MCEG event, current soil
conditions, and estimated building loads.
The median and standard deviation values of seismically-induced settlement (free-field plus
shear-induced) estimated at each CPT location for the proposed residential building are presented
in Table 2.
TABLE 2
Seismically-Induced Ground Deformations
Proposed Residential Building
CPT No. Median – σ
(inches)
Median
(inches)
Median + σ
(inches)
CPT-7 1.0 1.5 2.0
CPT-8 0.8 1.0 1.5
CPT-9 3.8 4.6 6.0
CPT-10 4.2 5.1 6.7
As discussed in later sections of this report, we judge the anticipated differential settlements due
to both static and seismic load conditions exceed the typical tolerance of a conventional shallow
foundation system. The potential for liquefaction-induced settlement within the relatively
shallow layers at the westernmost portion of the proposed new building should be mitigated if
the building is to be supported on a shallow foundation system. Where the upper 30 to 40 feet
of soil beneath the proposed new building is improved, we estimate that total building settlement
associated with liquefaction of the remaining layers will be less than about one inch and
liquefaction-induced differential settlement will be about 1/2 inch over a horizontal distance of
30 feet. If the estimated liquefaction-induced settlement presented above is tolerable from a
DR
A
F
T
15-839B 13 December 5, 2017
structural and architectural standpoint, then the easternmost portion of the building may be
supported on a shallow foundation system (i.e. mat foundation) as described later in this report.
5.2.4 Liquefaction-Induced Ground Failure
The potential for liquefaction-induced ground failure depends on the thickness of the liquefiable
soil layer relative to the thickness of the overlying non-liquefiable material. Ishihara (1985)
presented empirical relationship that provides criteria that can be used to evaluate whether
liquefaction-induced ground failure, such as sand boils, would be expected to occur under a
given level of shaking for a liquefiable layer of given thickness overlain by a resistant, or
protective, surficial layer.
We evaluated the potential for surface manifestation of liquefaction using an empirical
relationship developed by Ishihara (1985). We also computed the post-liquefaction bearing
capacity using methodology by Meyerhof and Hanna (1978) for a two-layered system to
determine whether a punching failure is likely to occur during an MCEG event. On the basis of
our evaluation, we conclude the potentially liquefiable layers are sufficiently thin and have high
enough fines content such that the potential for surface manifestations from liquefaction, such as
sand boils, and loss of bearing capacity is low assuming an average building pressure of about
800 psf.
Lateral spreading is a phenomenon in which a surficial soil displaces along a shear zone that has
formed within an underlying liquefied layer. The surficial blocks are transported downslope or
in the direction of a free face, such as a channel, by earthquake and gravitational forces. Lateral
spreading is generally the most pervasive and damaging type of liquefaction-induced ground
failure generated by earthquakes.
Although numerous thin, potentially liquefiable layers were encountered, the layers do not
appear to be continuous Therefore, we conclude the risk of lateral spreading is low.
DR
A
F
T
15-839B 14 December 5, 2017
5.2.5 Cyclic Densification
Cyclic densification (also referred to as differential compaction) of non-saturated sand (sand
above groundwater table) can occur during an earthquake, resulting in settlement of the ground
surface and overlying improvements. The westernmost portion of the project site is underlain by
loose to medium dense sand with varying silt and clay content above the groundwater table that
is susceptible to cyclic densification.
For design in accordance with the 2016 CBC, we estimate total settlement due to cyclic
densification following an MCEG event would be on the order of 1/2 inch at the project site.
Where the finished floor for the proposed new structure will extend at least five feet below
existing site grade or if the soil is improved as described in section 6.2 of this report, we estimate
the settlement due to cyclic densification following an MCEG event will be negligible.
6.0 PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of our engineering analyses using the data from the CPTs and borings
performed during our previous investigations, we conclude there are no major geotechnical or
geological issues that would preclude development of the site as proposed. The primary
geotechnical issues affecting the proposed development include: 1) the potential for up to about
6-1/2 inches of liquefaction-induced settlement in the western portion of the new structure, 2)
shallow groundwater relative to the proposed below-grade portions of the building, and 3)
providing adequate vertical and lateral support for the proposed new building. These issues are
discussed in more detail below.
6.1 Foundation Support and Settlement
If the proposed new building is supported on a shallow foundation system, settlement will occur
due to compression of the underlying clay under static foundation loads. Based on our analysis,
we estimate long-term total and differential settlement of the proposed residential building
supported on a shallow foundation system will be on the order of about one inch and 1/2 inch
over a horizontal distance of 30 feet, respectively. As previously discussed, the very loose to
DR
A
F
T
15-839B 15 December 5, 2017
medium dense sand underlying the western portion of the site is susceptible to liquefaction. We
estimate additional total building settlement due to liquefaction following a major earthquake in
the western portion of the site could be as much as 6-1/2 inches. The borings and CPTs
performed at Parcel B indicate there are potentially liquefiable soil layers underlying the eastern
portion of the site as well; however, these layers are thin and relatively deep. We estimate total
building settlement due to liquefaction would be on the order of 1 to 2 inches in the eastern
portion of the site.
On the basis of our experience, we judge the anticipated differential settlements of unimproved
soil due to both static load conditions and post-liquefaction settlement in the western portion of
the site exceed the typical tolerance of shallow foundation systems, such as a mat foundation.
We conclude a mat supported on improved soil would be an appropriate foundation system for
the proposed new building, provided the soil improvement extends to a depth that would reduce
differential settlement of the structure under both static and seismic conditions to a tolerable
amount. If the estimated static plus liquefaction-induced settlement presented above for the
eastern portion of the building is tolerable from a structural and architectural standpoint, then the
easternmost portion of the building may be supported on a mat foundation. Where portions of
the foundation will be below the design groundwater level, the mat foundation should be
waterproofed and designed to resist hydrostatic uplift pressures.
On the basis of our experience, we believe the most appropriate ground improvement method for
the site conditions consists of drilled displacement sand-cement (DDSC) columns. For
preliminary design of a mat foundation bearing on improved ground, we recommend assuming
ground improvement elements will extend below the potentially liquefiable soil layers to a depth
of about 40 feet below the existing ground surface. Based on discussions with contractors with
experience installing DDSC columns in the Bay Area, we anticipate the ground improvement
system described in Section 6.2, if properly designed, should be capable of increasing the
average allowable bearing pressure for a mat foundation to at least 4,000 pounds per square foot
(psf) for dead-plus-live-loads and limiting combined static and seismic differential settlements to
less than one inch over a horizontal distance of 30 feet. Although higher allowable bearing
DR
A
F
T
15-839B 16 December 5, 2017
pressures can be achieved with closer spacing of the DDSC columns, we recommend the initial
mat design be performed using an allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 psf and a modulus of
vertical subgrade reaction (scaled for mat size) of 20 pci. These values may be increased by one-
third for total loads. The actual design allowable bearing pressure and subgrade modulus, as
well as the estimated total and differential settlement of the mat, should be evaluated by the
design-build ground improvement contractor, as they will be based on the diameter, depth, and
spacing of the ground improvement elements.
Lateral loads can be resisted by a combination of passive pressure on the vertical faces of the mat
and friction along the bottom of the mat. Lateral resistance may be computed using an
equivalent fluid weight (triangular distribution) of 280 pcf for sustained loads. Passive resistance
in the upper one foot of soil should be ignored unless it is confined by slabs or pavement. The
recommended passive pressure includes a factor of safety of at least 1.5. Allowable frictional
resistance along the base of the mat should be calculated based on parameters provided by the
design-build ground improvement contractor.
6.2 Ground Improvement
DDSC columns are installed by advancing a continuous flight, hollow-stem auger that mostly
displaces the soil and then pumping a sand-cement mixture into the hole under pressure as the
auger is withdrawn. This system results in low vibration during installation and generates
relatively few drilling spoils for off-haul. DDSC columns are installed under design-build
contracts by specialty contractors. The required size, spacing, length, and strength of columns
should be determined by the contractor, based on the desired level of improvement. The
replacement ratio for ground improvement should be selected to mitigate excessive liquefaction-
induced building settlement. We recommend a preliminary design, including calculations of
static and seismic settlement, be prepared by the ground improvement contractor and submitted
for our review.
DR
A
F
T
15-839B 17 December 5, 2017
Alternatively, the proposed buildings may be supported on deep foundation systems such as
auger cast-in-place (ACIP) piles or Torque Down piles, both of which can be installed with
minimal noise and vibrations. We can provide deep foundation recommendations upon request.
6.3 Site Preparation and Grading
Site demolition should include removal of all existing pavements, foundations, and underground
utilities. In general, abandoned underground utilities should be removed to the property line or
service connections and properly capped or plugged with concrete. Where existing utility lines
are outside of the footprint of the proposed improvements and will not interfere with the
proposed construction, they may be abandoned in-place provided the lines are filled with lean
concrete or cement grout to the property line. Voids resulting from demolition activities should
be properly backfilled with engineered fill following the recommendations provided later in this
section. Demolished asphalt concrete should be taken to an asphalt recycling facility.
Excavations should be backfilled with properly compacted fill. Fill should consist of on-site soil
or imported soil (select fill) that is free of organic matter and debris, contains no rocks or lumps
larger than four inches in greatest dimension, has a liquid limit of less than 40 and a plasticity
index lower than 15, and is approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. Samples of proposed
imported fill material should be submitted to the Geotechnical Engineer at least three business
days prior to use at the site. The grading contractor should provide analytical test results or other
suitable environmental documentation indicating the imported fill is free of hazardous materials
at least three days before use at the site. If this data is not available, up to two weeks should be
allowed to perform analytical testing on the proposed imported material.
The soil subgrade beneath proposed improvements (including sidewalks and concrete flatwork)
and areas to receive new fill should be scarified to a depth of at least eight inches, moisture-
conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90 percent relative
DR
A
F
T
15-839B 18 December 5, 2017
compaction5 for the on-site sandy soil. Fill should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding
eight inches in uncompacted thickness, moisture-conditioned to above optimum moisture
content, and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Fill consisting of clean sand
or gravel (defined as soil with less than 10 percent fines by weight) should be compacted to at
least 95 percent relative compaction. Fill placed below bottom of proposed foundations, fill
greater than five feet in thickness, and fill placed within the upper foot of vehicular pavement
soil subgrade should also be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction, and be non-
yielding.
6.3.1 Exterior Concrete Flatwork
Exterior concrete flatwork that will not receive vehicular traffic (i.e. sidewalk) should be
underlain by at least four inches of Class 2 aggregate base compacted to at least 90 percent
relative compaction. Prior to placement of the aggregate base, the upper eight inches of the
subgrade soil should be scarified, moisture-conditioned to above optimum moisture content, and
compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction.
6.3.2 Utility Trench Backfill
Excavations for utility trenches can be readily made with a backhoe. All trenches should
conform to the current CAL-OSHA requirements. To provide uniform support, pipes or conduits
should be bedded on a minimum of four inches of clean sand or fine gravel. After the pipes and
conduits are tested, inspected (if required) and approved, they should be covered to a depth of six
inches with sand or fine gravel, which should be mechanically tamped. Backfill for utility
trenches and other excavations is also considered fill, and should be placed and compacted
according to the recommendations previously presented. If imported clean sand or gravel
(defined as soil with less than 10 percent fines) is used as backfill, it should be compacted to at
least 95 percent relative compaction. Jetting of trench backfill should not be permitted. Special
5 Relative compaction refers to the in-place dry density of soil expressed as a percentage of the
maximum dry density of the same material, as determined by the ASTM D1557 laboratory
compaction procedure.
DR
A
F
T
15-839B 19 December 5, 2017
care should be taken when backfilling utility trenches in pavement areas. Poor compaction may
cause excessive settlements, resulting in damage to the pavement section.
6.4 Permanent Below-Grade Walls
Below-grade walls should be designed to resist, static lateral earth pressures, lateral pressures
caused by earthquakes, vehicular surcharge pressures, and surcharges from adjacent foundations,
where appropriate. We preliminarily recommend below-grade walls at the site be designed for
the more critical of the following criteria:
• At-rest equivalent fluid weight of 60 pcf above the design groundwater table and 90 pcf
below.
• Active pressure of 40 pcf plus a seismic increment of 29 pcf (triangular distribution)
above the design groundwater level, and 82 pcf plus a seismic increment of 14 pcf
(triangular distribution) below the groundwater level.
The recommended lateral earth pressures above are based on a level backfill condition with no
additional surcharge loads. Where the below-grade walls are subject to traffic loading within 10
feet of the wall, an additional uniform lateral pressure of 50 psf, applied to the upper 10 feet of
the wall, should be used.
To protect against moisture migration, below-grade walls should be waterproofed and water
stops should be placed at all construction joints. The design pressures recommended for above
the design water level are based on fully drained walls. Although part of the basement walls will
be above the groundwater level, water can accumulate behind the walls from other sources, such
as rainfall, irrigation, and broken water lines, etc. One acceptable method for backdraining a
basement wall is to place a prefabricated drainage panel against the back of the wall. The
drainage panel should extend down to a perforated PVC collector pipe at the design high
groundwater level (or higher if allowed by the structural engineer). The pipe should be
surrounded on all sides by at least four inches of Caltrans Class 2 permeable material or 3/4-inch
drain rock wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi NC or equivalent). A proprietary, prefabricated
collector drain system, such as Tremdrain Total Drain or Hydroduct Coil (or equivalent),
designed to work in conjunction with the drainage panel may be used in lieu of the perforated
DR
A
F
T
15-839B 20 December 5, 2017
pipe surrounded by gravel described above. The pipe should be connected to a suitable
discharge point; a sump and pump system may be required to drain the collector pipes.
If backfill is required behind basement walls prior to pouring the floor slabs, the walls should be
braced, or hand compaction equipment used, to prevent unacceptable surcharges on walls (as
determined by the structural engineer).
6.5 Excavation Shoring and Dewatering
We understand portions of the proposed building may include one level below grade. Therefore,
we anticipate an excavation on the order of about 12 to 15 feet below existing grades will be
required to construct the building. Where there is insufficient property line setback to slope cut
the excavation, a temporary shoring system will be required to support the soil cut as well as
surcharge pressures from neighboring foundations, where present.
In our experience, cantilevered soldier pile-and-lagging is likely the most suitable for the
proposed project. A soldier pile-and-lagging system usually consists of steel H-beams and
concrete placed in predrilled holes extending below the bottom of the excavation. Wood lagging
is placed between the piles as the excavation proceeds from the top down. Where the required
cut is less than about 12 feet, a soldier pile-and-lagging system can typically provide economical
shoring without tiebacks, and therefore will not encroach beyond the property line. Where cuts
exceed about 12 to 15 feet in height, soldier pile-and-lagging systems are typically more
economical if they include tieback anchors. However, tieback anchors will likely extend beneath
the neighboring properties, which would require encroachment agreements and the potential for
required de-tensioning of the tiebacks, which has cost considerations.
In addition, the proposed below-grade portions of the building may extend below the preliminary
design high water level. Therefore, depending on the time of year that excavation is performed,
the subgrade may be below or near the groundwater. Dewatering will likely be necessary during
construction. The need for, selection, and design of a dewatering system for the project is the
responsibility of the contractor.
DR
A
F
T
15-839B 21 December 5, 2017
6.6 Underpinning
Underpinning will be required if neighboring building foundations will be undermined or rest on
soil above an imaginary line that lies at an inclination of 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical), projected
upward from the bottom edge of proposed excavations. If the foundation depth of the adjacent
building cannot be determined from plans available, test pits should be excavated to determine
the foundation type and depth. We can evaluate the extent of underpinning required once the
location of new foundation elements relative to existing foundations has been determined.
Where hand-excavated underpinning piers are used to underpin adjacent foundations, the piers
should be designed to gain support through end bearing on firm/dense soil. An allowable
bearing pressure of 3,000 psf for dead-plus-live loads may be used for design of underpinning
piers. The underpinning piers should extend at least 24 inches below the planned bottom-of-
foundation elevation for the project or 24 inches below an imaginary line that lies at 45 degrees
from horizontal, projected upward from the bottom edge of the proposed excavation. The width
of the underpinning piers should be determined by the Structural Engineer or underpinning
designer based on the ability of the existing foundation to span an area of non-support.
Underpinning should be designed for unbalanced horizontal loads resulting from the soil retained
by the piers. The unbalanced load should be computed using an at-rest equivalent fluid weight
of 60 and 90 pcf above and below the design groundwater level, respectively.
6.7 Seismic Design
We understand the proposed new building will be designed using the seismic provisions in the
2016 California Building Code (CBC). Although the CBC calls for a Site Class F designation
for sites underlain by potentially liquefiable soil, we conclude a Site Class D designation is more
appropriate because: 1) the potentially liquefiable layers are relatively thin and discontinuous,
and 2) the proposed ground improvement system should be designed to sufficiently reduce
liquefaction potential; therefore, the site will not incur significant nonlinear behavior during
strong ground shaking.
DR
A
F
T
15-839B 22 December 5, 2017
The latitude and longitude of the site are 37.6562° and -122.4086°, respectively. Hence, in
accordance with the 2016 CBC, we recommend the following:
• SS = 2.03 g, S1 = 0.96 g
• SMS = 2.03 g, SM1 = 1.44 g
• SDS = 1.36 g, SD1 = 0.96 g
• PGAM = 0.80g
• Seismic Design Category E for Risk Categories I, II, and III.
6.8 Soil Corrosivity
Laboratory testing was performed by Sunland Analytical to evaluate the corrosivity of near-
surface samples obtained from boring B-9 at a depth of 2 feet bgs. The corrosivity test results
are presented in more detail in Appendix B of this report. Based on the results of the resistivity
tests, we conclude the soil at this site is classified as “moderately corrosive” to buried metal.
Accordingly, all buried iron, steel, cast iron, ductile iron, galvanized steel and dielectric-coated
steel or iron should be protected against corrosion depending upon the critical nature of the
structure. If it is necessary to have metal in contact with soil, a corrosion engineer should be
consulted to provide recommendations for corrosion protection. The results indicate that sulfate
ion concentrations are insufficient to damage reinforced concrete structures below ground, and
the chloride concentration of the soil does not present a problem with reinforcing steel in buried
concrete structures.
7.0 ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES
The preliminary conclusions and recommendations presented within are based on a preliminary
study and not intended for final design. Prior to final design, we should be retained to provide a
final geotechnical report based on the final proposed development. If it is determined that
ground improvement is not required for support of the eastern portion of the new structure,
additional CPTs may be required to further evaluate the lateral extent of the relatively shallow
liquefiable soil layers beneath the central portion of the site. Once our final report has been
DR
A
F
T
15-839B 23 December 5, 2017
completed, the design team has selected a foundation system, and prior to construction, we
should review the project plans and specifications to check their conformance with the intent of
our final recommendations. During construction, we should observe site preparation, shoring
installation, ground improvement, foundation installation, and the placement and compaction of
fill. These observations will allow us to compare the actual with the anticipated soil conditions
and to check if the contractor's work conforms with the geotechnical aspects of the plans and
specifications.
DR
A
F
T
10-274 24 January 7, 2011
REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute (2001), “Guide for Design and Construction of Concrete Parking
Lots”, report ACI 330R-01.
Boulanger, R.W. and Idriss, I.M. (2014), “CPT and SPT Based Liquefaction Triggering
Procedures,” Report No. UCD/CGM-14/01, Center for Geotechnical Modeling, Department of
Civil & Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, University of California at Davis.
Bray, J. D., Macedo, J. (2017), “Simplified Procedure for Estimating Liquefaction-Induced
Building Settlement”, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Volume 102, pp 215-231,
November 2017.
California Building Code (2016).
California Division of Mines and Geology (1996), Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for
the State of California, DMG Open-File Report 96-08.
California Geological Survey (2008), Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards
in California, Special Publication 117.
Campbell, K.W., Bozorgnia, Y. (2011), “Predictive Equations for the Horizontal Component of
Standardized Cumulative Absolute Velocity as Adapted for Use in the Shutdown of U.S. Nuclear
Power Plants”, Nuclear Engineering and Design 2011;241:2558-69.
Cao, T., Bryant, W. A., Rowshandel, B., Branum D. and Wills, C. J. (2003). “The Revised 2002
California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps”
GeoLogismiki, 2016, CLiq, Version 2.0.
Ishihara, K. (1985), “Stability of Natural Deposits During Earthquakes.”
Lew, M., Sitar, N. (2010), “Seismic Earth Pressures on Deep Building Basements,” SEAOC
2010 Convention Proceedings.
Toppozada, T.R. and Borchardt G. (1998). “Re-evaluation of the 1936 “Hayward Fault” and the
1838 San Andreas Fault Earthquakes.” Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, 88(1),
140-159.
DR
A
F
T
10-274 25 January 7, 2011
U.S. Geological Survey, (2008), The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version
2 (UCERF 2): prepared by the 2007 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, U.S.
Geological Survey Open File Report 2007-1437.
Zhang, G., Robertson. P.K., Brachman, R., (2002), “Estimating Liquefaction Induced Ground
Settlements from the CPT”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 39: pp 1168-1180.
DR
A
F
T
FIGURES
DR
A
F
T
Project No.FigureDate
ROCKRIDGE
GEOTECHNICAL 15-839B12/01/171
SITE LOCATION MAP
SITE
Base map: The Thomas Guide
San Mateo County
2002 0 1/2 Mile
Approximate scale
1/4
FORD PROPERTIES - PHASE II
South San Francisco, California
DR
A
F
T
0
Approximate scale
30 Feet 12/01/17 15-839B 2
South San Francisco, California
SITE PLAN
Date Project No.Figure
ROCKRIDGE
GEOTECHNICAL
FORD PROPERTIES - PHASE II
EXPLANATION
Approximate location of cone penetration test by
Rockridge Geotechnical Inc., March 4, 2015
Approximate location of boring by Rockridge
Geotechnical Inc., November 2015
Project limits
Reference: Base map from a drawing titled "Floor 2 Plan - Phase 2", by BDE Architecture, dated November 10, 2017.
B-7
CPT-8 Approximate limits of previous investigation for
Ford Properties Phase I (Sites B and C)
CPT-7
CPT-8
CPT-9
CPT-10
B-8
B-9
B-7SITE C
SITE B
DR
A
F
T
Project No.FigureDate 3
SITE
REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP
EXPLANATION
afaf
Geologic contact:dashed where approximate and dotted
where concealed, queried where uncertin
Franciscan Complex melange
0 1,000 Feet
Approximate scale
500
ROCKRIDGE
GEOTECHNICAL
Base map: Google Earth with U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), San Francisco County, 2016.
Qha Alluvium (Holocene)
Qsl Hillslope Deposits (Quaternary)
Qoa Alluvium (Pleistocene)
KJfs Franciscan Complex sedimentary rocks
(Early Cretaceous and (or) Late Jurassic)
fsr
af Artificial Fill
QslQsl
QoaQoa
QhaQha
(Eocen, Paleocente, and (or) Late Cretaceous)
15-839B12/01/17
FORD PROPERTIES - PHASE II
South San Francisco, California
DR
A
F
T
Project No.FigureDate
Base Map: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Seismic Hazards Maps - Fault Sources, 2008.
10 Miles
Approximate scale
0 5
4
ROCKRIDGE
GEOTECHNICAL
REGIONAL FAULT MAP
SITE
EXPLANATION
Strike slip
Thrust (Reverse)
Normal
15-839B12/01/17
FORD PROPERTIES - PHASE II
South San Francisco, California
Point Reyes Fault
S
a
n
A
n
d
r
e
a
s
F
a
u
l
t
S
a
n
G
r
e
g
o
r
i
o
F
a
u
l
t
M
o
n
te
Vist
a-S
ha
nno
n Fa
ult
W
e
s
t
N
a
p
a
M
ou
n
t
Diablo T
hrust
G
r
e
e
n
v
ill
e
F
a
u
lt
G
r
e
a
t
V
a
l
l
e
y
0
5
G
r
e
a
t
V
a
l
l
e
y
4
b
C
a
l
a
v
e
r
a
s
F
a
u
l
t
G
r
e
e
n
V
a
l
l
e
y
H
a
y
w
a
r
d
-
R
o
d
g
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
F
a
u
l
t
H
a
y
w
a
r
d
-
R
o
d
g
e
r
s
C
r
e
e
k
F
a
u
l
t
DR
A
F
T
APPENDIX A
Cone Penetration Test Results and Boring Logs from Previous Investigations
DR
A
F
T
CP
T
-
7
A-
1
To
t
a
l
d
e
p
t
h
:
3
8
.
7
2
f
t
,
D
a
t
e
:
3
/
4
/
2
0
1
5
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
D
e
p
t
h
:
8
f
e
e
t
Co
n
e
O
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
:
M
i
d
d
l
e
E
a
r
t
h
G
e
o
T
e
s
t
i
n
g
,
I
n
c
.
Co
n
e
r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
q
t
Ti
p
r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
(
t
s
f
)
30
0
20
0
10
0
Depth (ft)
383634323028262422201816141210
8642
Co
n
e
r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
q
t
Po
r
e
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
u
Pr
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
p
s
i
)
10
5
0
-5
-
1
0
Depth (ft)
383634323028262422201816141210
8642
Po
r
e
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
u
F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
r
a
t
i
o
Rf
(
%
)
10
8
6
4
2
0
Depth (ft)
383634323028262422201816141210
8642
F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
r
a
t
i
o
SB
T
I
n
d
e
x
Ic
S
B
T
4
3
2
1
Depth (ft)
383634323028262422201816141210
8642
SB
T
I
n
d
e
x
So
i
l
B
e
h
a
v
i
o
u
r
T
y
p
e
SB
T
(
R
o
b
e
r
t
s
o
n
,
2
0
1
0
)
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Depth (ft)
383634323028262422201816141210
8642
So
i
l
B
e
h
a
v
i
o
u
r
T
y
p
e
Cl
a
y
&
s
i
l
t
y
c
l
a
y
Cl
a
y
&
s
i
l
t
y
c
l
a
y
Ve
r
y
d
e
n
s
e
/
s
t
i
f
f
s
o
i
l
Si
l
t
y
s
a
n
d
&
s
a
n
d
y
s
i
l
t
Ve
r
y
d
e
n
s
e
/
s
t
i
f
f
s
o
i
l
Sa
n
d
&
s
i
l
t
y
s
a
n
d
Sa
n
d
&
s
i
l
t
y
s
a
n
d
Ve
r
y
d
e
n
s
e
/
s
t
i
f
f
s
o
i
l
Si
l
t
y
s
a
n
d
&
s
a
n
d
y
s
i
l
t
Ve
r
y
d
e
n
s
e
/
s
t
i
f
f
s
o
i
l
Si
l
t
y
s
a
n
d
&
s
a
n
d
y
s
i
l
t
Ve
r
y
d
e
n
s
e
/
s
t
i
f
f
s
o
i
l
Ve
r
y
d
e
n
s
e
/
s
t
i
f
f
s
o
i
l
Sa
n
d
&
s
i
l
t
y
s
a
n
d
Ve
r
y
d
e
n
s
e
/
s
t
i
f
f
s
o
i
l
Ve
r
y
d
e
n
s
e
/
s
t
i
f
f
s
o
i
l
Ve
r
y
d
e
n
s
e
/
s
t
i
f
f
s
o
i
l
Sa
n
d
&
s
i
l
t
y
s
a
n
d
Ve
r
y
d
e
n
s
e
/
s
t
i
f
f
s
o
i
l
Cl
a
y
&
s
i
l
t
y
c
l
a
y
Ve
r
y
d
e
n
s
e
/
s
t
i
f
f
s
o
i
l
Ve
r
y
d
e
n
s
e
/
s
t
i
f
f
s
o
i
l
Cl
a
y
&
s
i
l
t
y
c
l
a
y
Ve
r
y
d
e
n
s
e
/
s
t
i
f
f
s
o
i
l
Cl
a
y
&
s
i
l
t
y
c
l
a
y
Ve
r
y
d
e
n
s
e
/
s
t
i
f
f
s
o
i
l
Ve
r
y
d
e
n
s
e
/
s
t
i
f
f
s
o
i
l
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
o
.
Fi
g
u
r
e
Da
t
e
SB
T
l
e
g
e
n
d
1.
S
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
f
i
n
e
g
r
a
i
n
e
d
2.
O
r
g
a
n
i
c
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
3.
C
l
a
y
t
o
s
i
l
t
y
c
l
a
y
4.
C
l
a
y
e
y
s
i
l
t
t
o
s
i
l
t
y
c
l
a
y
5.
S
i
l
t
y
s
a
n
d
t
o
s
a
n
d
y
s
i
l
t
6.
C
l
e
a
n
s
a
n
d
t
o
s
i
l
t
y
s
a
n
d
7.
G
r
a
v
e
l
y
s
a
n
d
t
o
s
a
n
d
8.
V
e
r
y
s
t
i
f
f
s
a
n
d
t
o
c
l
a
y
e
y
s
a
n
d
9.
V
e
r
y
s
t
i
f
f
f
i
n
e
g
r
a
i
n
e
d
15
-
8
3
9
B
12
/
0
1
/
1
7
FO
R
D
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
I
E
S
-
P
H
A
S
E
I
I
So
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
,
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
CO
N
E
P
E
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
T
E
S
T
R
E
S
U
L
T
S
R
O
C
K
R
I
D
G
E
G
E
O
T
E
C
H
N
I
C
A
L
DR
A
F
T
CP
T
-
8
A-
2
To
t
a
l
d
e
p
t
h
:
2
9
.
5
3
f
t
,
D
a
t
e
:
3
/
4
/
2
0
1
5
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
D
e
p
t
h
:
8
f
e
e
t
Co
n
e
O
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
:
M
i
d
d
l
e
E
a
r
t
h
G
e
o
T
e
s
t
i
n
g
,
I
n
c
.
Co
n
e
r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
q
t
Ti
p
r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
(
t
s
f
)
40
0
30
0
20
0
10
0
Depth (ft)
2928272625242322212019181716151413121110
987654321
Co
n
e
r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
q
t
Po
r
e
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
u
Pr
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
p
s
i
)
5
0
-5
-
1
0
Depth (ft)
2928272625242322212019181716151413121110
987654321
Po
r
e
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
u
F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
r
a
t
i
o
Rf
(
%
)
10
8
6
4
2
0
Depth (ft)
2928272625242322212019181716151413121110
987654321
F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
r
a
t
i
o
SB
T
I
n
d
e
x
Ic
S
B
T
4
3
2
1
Depth (ft)
2928272625242322212019181716151413121110
987654321
SB
T
I
n
d
e
x
So
i
l
B
e
h
a
v
i
o
u
r
T
y
p
e
SB
T
(
R
o
b
e
r
t
s
o
n
,
2
0
1
0
)
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Depth (ft)
2928272625242322212019181716151413121110
987654321
So
i
l
B
e
h
a
v
i
o
u
r
T
y
p
e
Cl
a
y
Cl
a
y
&
s
i
l
t
y
c
l
a
y
Ve
r
y
d
e
n
s
e
/
s
t
i
f
f
s
o
i
l
Ve
r
y
d
e
n
s
e
/
s
t
i
f
f
s
o
i
l
Sa
n
d
&
s
i
l
t
y
s
a
n
d
Ve
r
y
d
e
n
s
e
/
s
t
i
f
f
s
o
i
l
Sa
n
d
&
s
i
l
t
y
s
a
n
d
Ve
r
y
d
e
n
s
e
/
s
t
i
f
f
s
o
i
l
Sa
n
d
&
s
i
l
t
y
s
a
n
d
Ve
r
y
d
e
n
s
e
/
s
t
i
f
f
s
o
i
l
Cl
a
y
Cl
a
y
Cl
a
y
&
s
i
l
t
y
c
l
a
y
Ve
r
y
d
e
n
s
e
/
s
t
i
f
f
s
o
i
l
Sa
n
d
&
s
i
l
t
y
s
a
n
d
Ve
r
y
d
e
n
s
e
/
s
t
i
f
f
s
o
i
l
Sa
n
d
&
s
i
l
t
y
s
a
n
d
Ve
r
y
d
e
n
s
e
/
s
t
i
f
f
s
o
i
l
Si
l
t
y
s
a
n
d
&
s
a
n
d
y
s
i
l
t
Cl
a
y
&
s
i
l
t
y
c
l
a
y
Si
l
t
y
s
a
n
d
&
s
a
n
d
y
s
i
l
t
Ve
r
y
d
e
n
s
e
/
s
t
i
f
f
s
o
i
l
Si
l
t
y
s
a
n
d
&
s
a
n
d
y
s
i
l
t
Cl
a
y
&
s
i
l
t
y
c
l
a
y
Ve
r
y
d
e
n
s
e
/
s
t
i
f
f
s
o
i
l
Ve
r
y
d
e
n
s
e
/
s
t
i
f
f
s
o
i
l
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
o
.
Fi
g
u
r
e
Da
t
e
SB
T
l
e
g
e
n
d
1.
S
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
f
i
n
e
g
r
a
i
n
e
d
2.
O
r
g
a
n
i
c
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
3.
C
l
a
y
t
o
s
i
l
t
y
c
l
a
y
4.
C
l
a
y
e
y
s
i
l
t
t
o
s
i
l
t
y
c
l
a
y
5.
S
i
l
t
y
s
a
n
d
t
o
s
a
n
d
y
s
i
l
t
6.
C
l
e
a
n
s
a
n
d
t
o
s
i
l
t
y
s
a
n
d
7.
G
r
a
v
e
l
y
s
a
n
d
t
o
s
a
n
d
8.
V
e
r
y
s
t
i
f
f
s
a
n
d
t
o
c
l
a
y
e
y
s
a
n
d
9.
V
e
r
y
s
t
i
f
f
f
i
n
e
g
r
a
i
n
e
d
15
-
8
3
9
B
12
/
0
1
/
1
7
FO
R
D
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
I
E
S
-
P
H
A
S
E
I
I
So
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
,
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
CO
N
E
P
E
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
T
E
S
T
R
E
S
U
L
T
S
R
O
C
K
R
I
D
G
E
G
E
O
T
E
C
H
N
I
C
A
L
DR
A
F
T
CP
T
-
9
A-
3
To
t
a
l
d
e
p
t
h
:
2
8
.
2
2
f
t
,
D
a
t
e
:
3
/
4
/
2
0
1
5
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
D
e
p
t
h
:
9
f
e
e
t
Co
n
e
O
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
:
M
i
d
d
l
e
E
a
r
t
h
G
e
o
T
e
s
t
i
n
g
,
I
n
c
.
Co
n
e
r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
q
t
Ti
p
r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
(
t
s
f
)
30
0
20
0
10
0
Depth (ft)
28272625242322212019181716151413121110
987654321
Co
n
e
r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
q
t
Po
r
e
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
u
Pr
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
p
s
i
)
5
0
-5
-
1
0
Depth (ft)
28272625242322212019181716151413121110
987654321
Po
r
e
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
u
Fr
i
c
t
i
o
n
r
a
t
i
o
Rf
(
%
)
10
8
6
4
2
0
Depth (ft)
28272625242322212019181716151413121110
987654321
F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
r
a
t
i
o
SB
T
I
n
d
e
x
Ic
S
B
T
4
3
2
1
Depth (ft)
28272625242322212019181716151413121110
987654321
SB
T
I
n
d
e
x
So
i
l
B
e
h
a
v
i
o
u
r
T
y
p
e
SB
T
(
R
o
b
e
r
t
s
o
n
,
2
0
1
0
)
18
1
6
14
12
1
0
8
6
4
2
0
Depth (ft)
28272625242322212019181716151413121110
987654321
So
i
l
B
e
h
a
v
i
o
u
r
T
y
p
e
Si
l
t
y
s
a
n
d
&
s
a
n
d
y
s
i
l
t
Si
l
t
y
s
a
n
d
&
s
a
n
d
y
s
i
l
t
C
l
a
y
&
s
i
l
t
y
c
l
a
y
Cl
a
y
Si
l
t
y
s
a
n
d
&
s
a
n
d
y
s
i
l
t
C
l
a
y
&
s
i
l
t
y
c
l
a
y
Cl
a
y
C
l
a
y
&
s
i
l
t
y
c
l
a
y
C
l
a
y
&
s
i
l
t
y
c
l
a
y
C
l
a
y
&
s
i
l
t
y
c
l
a
y
Si
l
t
y
s
a
n
d
&
s
a
n
d
y
s
i
l
t
C
l
a
y
&
s
i
l
t
y
c
l
a
y
Si
l
t
y
s
a
n
d
&
s
a
n
d
y
s
i
l
t
C
l
a
y
&
s
i
l
t
y
c
l
a
y
Ve
r
y
d
e
n
s
e
/
s
t
i
f
f
s
o
i
l
Ve
r
y
d
e
n
s
e
/
s
t
i
f
f
s
o
i
l
Ve
r
y
d
e
n
s
e
/
s
t
i
f
f
s
o
i
l
Ve
r
y
d
e
n
s
e
/
s
t
i
f
f
s
o
i
l
Si
l
t
y
s
a
n
d
&
s
a
n
d
y
s
i
l
t
Sa
n
d
&
s
i
l
t
y
s
a
n
d
Ve
r
y
d
e
n
s
e
/
s
t
i
f
f
s
o
i
l
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
o
.
Fi
g
u
r
e
Da
t
e
SB
T
l
e
g
e
n
d
1.
S
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
f
i
n
e
g
r
a
i
n
e
d
2.
O
r
g
a
n
i
c
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
3.
C
l
a
y
t
o
s
i
l
t
y
c
l
a
y
4.
C
l
a
y
e
y
s
i
l
t
t
o
s
i
l
t
y
c
l
a
y
5.
S
i
l
t
y
s
a
n
d
t
o
s
a
n
d
y
s
i
l
t
6.
C
l
e
a
n
s
a
n
d
t
o
s
i
l
t
y
s
a
n
d
7.
G
r
a
v
e
l
y
s
a
n
d
t
o
s
a
n
d
8.
V
e
r
y
s
t
i
f
f
s
a
n
d
t
o
c
l
a
y
e
y
s
a
n
d
9.
V
e
r
y
s
t
i
f
f
f
i
n
e
g
r
a
i
n
e
d
15
-
8
3
9
B
12
/
0
1
/
1
7
FO
R
D
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
I
E
S
-
P
H
A
S
E
I
I
So
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
,
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
CO
N
E
P
E
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
T
E
S
T
R
E
S
U
L
T
S
R
O
C
K
R
I
D
G
E
G
E
O
T
E
C
H
N
I
C
A
L
DR
A
F
T
CP
T
-
1
0
A-
4
To
t
a
l
d
e
p
t
h
:
3
6
.
9
1
f
t
,
D
a
t
e
:
3
/
4
/
2
0
1
5
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
D
e
p
t
h
:
9
f
e
e
t
Co
n
e
O
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
:
M
i
d
d
l
e
E
a
r
t
h
G
e
o
T
e
s
t
i
n
g
,
I
n
c
.
Co
n
e
r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
q
t
Ti
p
r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
(
t
s
f
)
20
0
15
0
10
0
50
Depth (ft)
3634323028262422201816141210
8642
Co
n
e
r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
q
t
Po
r
e
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
u
Pr
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
p
s
i
)
10
5
0
-5
-1
0
Depth (ft)
3634323028262422201816141210
8642
Po
r
e
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
u
Fr
i
c
t
i
o
n
r
a
t
i
o
Rf
(
%
)
10
8
6
4
2
0
Depth (ft)
3634323028262422201816141210
8642
F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
r
a
t
i
o
SB
T
I
n
d
e
x
Ic
S
B
T
4
3
2
1
Depth (ft)
3634323028262422201816141210
8642
SB
T
I
n
d
e
x
So
i
l
B
e
h
a
v
i
o
u
r
T
y
p
e
SB
T
(
R
o
b
e
r
t
s
o
n
,
2
0
1
0
)
18
1
6
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Depth (ft)
3634323028262422201816141210
8642
So
i
l
B
e
h
a
v
i
o
u
r
T
y
p
e
Cl
a
y
&
s
i
l
t
y
c
l
a
y
Cl
a
y
Cl
a
y
&
s
i
l
t
y
c
l
a
y
Cl
a
y
Cl
a
y
&
s
i
l
t
y
c
l
a
y
Cl
a
y
Cl
a
y
&
s
i
l
t
y
c
l
a
y
Si
l
t
y
s
a
n
d
&
s
a
n
d
y
s
i
l
t
Cl
a
y
&
s
i
l
t
y
c
l
a
y
Si
l
t
y
s
a
n
d
&
s
a
n
d
y
s
i
l
t
Cl
a
y
&
s
i
l
t
y
c
l
a
y
Cl
a
y
&
s
i
l
t
y
c
l
a
y
Cl
a
y
&
s
i
l
t
y
c
l
a
y
Ve
r
y
d
e
n
s
e
/
s
t
i
f
f
s
o
i
l
Cl
a
y
&
s
i
l
t
y
c
l
a
y
Cl
a
y
Cl
a
y
&
s
i
l
t
y
c
l
a
y
Si
l
t
y
s
a
n
d
&
s
a
n
d
y
s
i
l
t
Cl
a
y
&
s
i
l
t
y
c
l
a
y
Cl
a
y
Cl
a
y
&
s
i
l
t
y
c
l
a
y
Ve
r
y
d
e
n
s
e
/
s
t
i
f
f
s
o
i
l
Si
l
t
y
s
a
n
d
&
s
a
n
d
y
s
i
l
t
Sa
n
d
&
s
i
l
t
y
s
a
n
d
Ve
r
y
d
e
n
s
e
/
s
t
i
f
f
s
o
i
l
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
o
.
Fi
g
u
r
e
Da
t
e
SB
T
l
e
g
e
n
d
1.
S
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
f
i
n
e
g
r
a
i
n
e
d
2.
O
r
g
a
n
i
c
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
3.
C
l
a
y
t
o
s
i
l
t
y
c
l
a
y
4.
C
l
a
y
e
y
s
i
l
t
t
o
s
i
l
t
y
c
l
a
y
5.
S
i
l
t
y
s
a
n
d
t
o
s
a
n
d
y
s
i
l
t
6.
C
l
e
a
n
s
a
n
d
t
o
s
i
l
t
y
s
a
n
d
7.
G
r
a
v
e
l
y
s
a
n
d
t
o
s
a
n
d
8.
V
e
r
y
s
t
i
f
f
s
a
n
d
t
o
c
l
a
y
e
y
s
a
n
d
9.
V
e
r
y
s
t
i
f
f
f
i
n
e
g
r
a
i
n
e
d
15
-
8
3
9
B
12
/
0
1
/
1
7
FO
R
D
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
I
E
S
-
P
H
A
S
E
I
I
So
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
,
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
CO
N
E
P
E
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
T
E
S
T
R
E
S
U
L
T
S
R
O
C
K
R
I
D
G
E
G
E
O
T
E
C
H
N
I
C
A
L
DR
A
F
T
S&H
SPT
SPT
SPT
SPT
SPT
SPT
SPT
SPT
SC
SC-
SM
SC
SP-
SC
1.5 inches Asphalt2 inches Aggregate Base
CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL (SC)yellow-gray, moist, brick fragmentsSILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC-SM)yellow-brown, very dense, moist
CLAYEY SAND (SC)yellow-brown, dense, moist
very dense
dense
wet
SAND with CLAY (SP-SC)yellow-brown, very dense, wet
dense
FI
L
L
50/11"
42
55
37
46
44
39
55
32
18
3350/5"
14
1923
1724
31
1417
20
18
2125
1820
22
16
1821
18
2629
1114
18
Sa
m
p
l
e
r
Ty
p
e
Sa
m
p
l
e
Bl
o
w
s
/
6
"
SP
T
N-
V
a
l
u
e
1
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
DE
P
T
H
(f
e
e
t
)
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Lb
s
/
C
u
F
t
Ty
p
e
o
f
St
r
e
n
g
t
h
Te
s
t
Sh
e
a
r
S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
Lb
s
/
S
q
F
t
Fi
n
e
s
%
Co
n
f
i
n
i
n
g
Pr
e
s
s
u
r
e
Lb
s
/
S
q
F
t
Na
t
u
r
a
l
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
See Site Plan, Figure 2
11/17/15
Hollow Stem Auger
Hammer type: Downhole Wireline Hammer
Sprague & Henwood (S&H), Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
Date finished: 11/17/15
Hammer weight/drop: 140 lbs./30 inches
Sampler:
R. FordBoring location:
Date started:
Drilling method:
Logged by:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LABORATORY TEST DATA
SAMPLES
Figure:A-5
PROJECT:
Project No.:15-839B
FORD PROPERTIES - PHASE II
South San Francisco, California PAGE 1 OF 1
Log of Boring B-7
RO
C
K
R
I
D
G
E
1
5
-
8
3
9
.
G
P
J
T
R
.
G
D
T
1
2
/
1
/
1
7
Boring terminated at a depth of 30 feet below groundsurface.
Boring backfilled with cement grout.Groundwater encountered at a depth of 11 feet duringdrilling.
1 S&H and SPT blow counts for the last two increments wereconverted to SPT N-Values using factors of 0.6 and 1.0,
respectively, to account for sampler type and hammerenergy.
DR
A
F
T
11115.1
18.5
19.8
16.8
44
33
19
32
S&H
S&H
SPT
S&H
D&M
SPT
SPT
SPT
SPT
SC
CL
SP-
SC
SC-
SM
SC
2 inches Asphalt1.5 inches Aggregate Base
CLAYEY SAND (SC)brown, medium dense, dry to moist
CLAY (CL)brown, stiff, moistSAND with CLAY (SP-SC)dark brown, loose, moist
Particle Size Distribution, see Appendix BSILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC-SM)yellow-brown, loose, moist
wet
Particle Size Distribution, see Appendix BLL = 21, PI = 6, see Appendix B
CLAYEY SAND (SC)yellow-brown, medium dense, wetParticle Size Distribution, see Appendix B
Particle Size Distribution, see Appendix B
dense
11
11
9
7
9
25
15
37
6
99
6
810
44
5
45
6
44
5
11
1114
12
78
1216
21
Sa
m
p
l
e
r
Ty
p
e
Sa
m
p
l
e
Bl
o
w
s
/
6
"
SP
T
N-
V
a
l
u
e
1
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
DE
P
T
H
(f
e
e
t
)
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Lb
s
/
C
u
F
t
Ty
p
e
o
f
St
r
e
n
g
t
h
Te
s
t
Sh
e
a
r
S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
Lb
s
/
S
q
F
t
Fi
n
e
s
%
Co
n
f
i
n
i
n
g
Pr
e
s
s
u
r
e
Lb
s
/
S
q
F
t
Na
t
u
r
a
l
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
See Site Plan, Figure 2
11/18/15
Hollow Stem Auger
Hammer type: Downhole Wireline Hammer
Sprague & Henwood (S&H), Standard Penetration Test (SPT), Dames & Moore (D&M)
Date finished: 11/18/15
Hammer weight/drop: 140 lbs./30 inches
Sampler:
R. FordBoring location:
Date started:
Drilling method:
Logged by:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LABORATORY TEST DATA
SAMPLES
Figure:A-6
PROJECT:
Project No.:15-839B
FORD PROPERTIES - PHASE II
South San Francisco, California PAGE 1 OF 1
Log of Boring B-8
RO
C
K
R
I
D
G
E
1
5
-
8
3
9
.
G
P
J
T
R
.
G
D
T
1
2
/
1
/
1
7
Boring terminated at a depth of 30 feet below groundsurface.
Boring backfilled with cement grout.Groundwater encountered at a depth of 10 feet duringdrilling.
1 S&H and SPT blow counts for the last two increments wereconverted to SPT N-Values using factors of 0.6 and 1.0,
respectively, to account for sampler type and hammerenergy.
DR
A
F
T
41
46
39
33
29
45
6
913
12
99
1115
21
1418
23
15
1927
1417
22
11
1419
12
1514
1420
25
Sa
m
p
l
e
r
Ty
p
e
Sa
m
p
l
e
Bl
o
w
s
/
6
"
SP
T
N-
V
a
l
u
e
1
LI
T
H
O
L
O
G
Y
DE
P
T
H
(f
e
e
t
)
9.6
16.3
11
33
S&H
SPT
SPT
SPT
SPT
SPT
SPT
SPT
SPT
CL
SC
SP-
SC
SC-
SM
SC
1 inch Asphalt1 inch Aggregate Base
SANDY CLAY with GRAVEL (CL)yellow-brown, stiff, moistCLAYEY SAND (SC)yellow-brown, medium dense, moist, fine grained
SAND with CLAY (SP-SC)yellow-brown, medium dense, moist
Particle Size Distribution, see Appendix Bdense
SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC-SM)yellow-brown, dense, moist
wet
CLAYEY SAND (SC)yellow-brown, dense, moist
Particle Size Distribution, see Appendix B
medium dense
dense
FI
L
L
13
18
36
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Lb
s
/
C
u
F
t
Ty
p
e
o
f
St
r
e
n
g
t
h
Te
s
t
Sh
e
a
r
S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
Lb
s
/
S
q
F
t
Fi
n
e
s
%
Co
n
f
i
n
i
n
g
Pr
e
s
s
u
r
e
Lb
s
/
S
q
F
t
Na
t
u
r
a
l
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
See Site Plan, Figure 2
11/18/15
Hollow Stem Auger
Hammer type: Downhole Wireline Hammer
Sprague & Henwood (S&H), Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
Date finished: 11/18/15
Hammer weight/drop: 140 lbs./30 inches
Sampler:
R. FordBoring location:
Date started:
Drilling method:
Logged by:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LABORATORY TEST DATA
SAMPLES
Figure:A-7
PROJECT:
Project No.:15-839B
FORD PROPERTIES - PHASE II
South San Francisco, California PAGE 1 OF 1
Log of Boring B-9
RO
C
K
R
I
D
G
E
1
5
-
8
3
9
.
G
P
J
T
R
.
G
D
T
1
2
/
1
/
1
7
Boring terminated at a depth of 30 feet below groundsurface.
Boring backfilled with cement grout.Groundwater encountered at a depth of 10.5 feet duringdrilling.
1 S&H and SPT blow counts for the last two increments wereconverted to SPT N-Values using factors of 0.6 and 1.0,
respectively, to account for sampler type and hammerenergy.
DR
A
F
T
CLASSIFICATION CHART
Major DivisionsSymbols Typical Names
GW
GP
GM
GC
SW
SP
SM
SC
ML
CL
OL
MH
CH
OH
PTHighly Organic Soils
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Well-graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines
Poorly-graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines
Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures
Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures
Well-graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines
Poorly-graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines
Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures
Inorganic silts and clayey silts of low plasticity, sandy silts, gravelly silts
Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, lean clays
Organic silts and organic silt-clays of low plasticity
Inorganic silts of high plasticity
Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays
Organic silts and clays of high plasticity
Peat and other highly organic soils
Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures
Range of Grain Sizes
Grain Size
in Millimeters
U.S. Standard
Sieve Size
Above 12"
12" to 3"
Classification
Boulders
Cobbles
Above 305
305 to 76.2
Silt and ClayBelow No. 200Below 0.075
GRAIN SIZE CHART
SAMPLER TYPE
Co
a
r
s
e
-
G
r
a
i
n
e
d
S
o
i
l
s
(m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
h
a
l
f
o
f
s
o
i
l
>
n
o
.
2
0
0
si
e
v
e
s
i
z
e
)
Fi
n
e
-
G
r
a
i
n
e
d
S
o
i
l
s
(m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
h
a
l
f
o
f
s
o
i
l
<
n
o
.
2
0
0
s
i
e
v
e
s
i
z
e
)
Gravels
(More than half of
coarse fraction >
no. 4 sieve size)
Sands
(More than half of
coarse fraction <
no. 4 sieve size)
Silts and Clays
LL = < 50
Silts and Clays
LL = > 50
Gravel
coarse
fine
3" to No. 4
3" to 3/4"
3/4" to No. 4
No. 4 to No. 200
No. 4 to No. 10
No. 10 to No. 40
No. 40 to No. 200
76.2 to 4.76
76.2 to 19.1
19.1 to 4.76
4.76 to 0.075
4.76 to 2.00
2.00 to 0.420
0.420 to 0.075
Sand
coarse
medium
fine
C Core barrel
CA California split-barrel sampler with 2.5-inch outside
diameter and a 1.93-inch inside diameter
D&M Dames & Moore piston sampler using 2.5-inch outside
diameter, thin-walled tube
O Osterberg piston sampler using 3.0-inch outside diameter,
thin-walled Shelby tube
PT Pitcher tube sampler using 3.0-inch outside diameter,
thin-walled Shelby tube
S&H Sprague & Henwood split-barrel sampler with a 3.0-inch
outside diameter and a 2.43-inch inside diameter
SPT Standard Penetration Test (SPT) split-barrel sampler with
a 2.0-inch outside diameter and a 1.5-inch inside
diameter
ST Shelby Tube (3.0-inch outside diameter, thin-walled tube)
advanced with hydraulic pressure
SAMPLE DESIGNATIONS/SYMBOLS
Sample taken with Sprague & Henwood split-barrel sampler with a
3.0-inch outside diameter and a 2.43-inch inside diameter. Darkened
area indicates soil recovered
Classification sample taken with Standard Penetration Test sampler
Undisturbed sample taken with thin-walled tube
Disturbed sample
Sampling attempted with no recovery
Core sample
Analytical laboratory sample
Sample taken with Direct Push sampler
Sonic
Unstabilized groundwater level
Stabilized groundwater level
ROCKRIDGE
GEOTECHNICAL Project No.FigureA-8Date15-839B12/01/17
FORD PROPERTIES - PHASE II
South San Francisco, California
DR
A
F
T
APPENDIX B
Laboratory Test Results from Previous Investigation
DR
A
F
T
ML or OL
MH or OH
Symbol Source
Natural
M.C. (%)
Liquid
Limit (%)
CL - ML
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0102030405060708090100110120
LIQUID LIMIT (LL)
Description and Classification
% Passing
#200 Sieve
Plasticity
Index (%)
PLASTICITY CHART
ROCKRIDGE
GEOTECHNICAL Project No.Figure1-BetaD
PL
A
S
T
I
C
I
T
Y
I
N
D
E
X
(
P
I
)
Reference:
ASTM D2487-00
B-1 at 11.5 feet
B-2 at 18.5 feet
B-6 at 2.0 feet
B-8 at 13.5 feet
SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC-SM), brown
gray
CLAYEY SAND (SC), yellow-brown
CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL (SC),
dark green-gray, brown mottled
SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC-SM), yellow-
brown
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
19
30
22
21
6
17
9
6
12/01/17
FORD PROPERTIES - PHASE II
South San Francisco, California
15-839B
DR
A
F
T
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
ROCKRIDGE
GEOTECHNICAL
CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, dark green-gray, brown mottled
SILTY CLAYEY SAND, yellow-brown
SILTY CLAYEY SAND, yellow-brown
CLAYEY SAND, yellow-brown
CLAYEY SAND, yellow-brown
Project No.Figure2-BetaD
SC-SM
SYMBOLSOURCE SAMPLEDEPTH SCSUnoitpircseD lairetaMNO.(ft.)
MATERIAL DATA
PE
R
C
E
N
T
F
I
N
E
R
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
6
i
n
.
3
i
n
.
2
i
n
.
1½
i
n
.
1
i
n
.
¾
i
n
.
½
i
n
.
3/
8
i
n
.
#4 #1
0
#2
0
#3
0
#4
0
#6
0
#1
0
0
#1
4
0
#2
0
0
B-61B2.0'SC
B-84B7.5'
B-8 613.5'SC-SM
B-8 718.5'SC
B-8 823.5'SC
12/01/17
FORD PROPERTIES - PHASE II
South San Francisco, California
15-839B
DR
A
F
T
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
ROCKRIDGE
GEOTECHNICAL
SAND with CLAY, yellow-brown
CLAYEY SAND, yellow-brown
Project No.Figure3-BetaD
SYMBOLSOURCE SAMPLEDEPTH SCSUnoitpircseD lairetaMNO.(ft.)
MATERIAL DATA
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
F
I
N
E
R
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
6
i
n
.
3
i
n
.
2
i
n
.
1½
i
n
.
1
i
n
.
¾
i
n
.
½
i
n
.
3/
8
i
n
.
#4 #1
0
#2
0
#3
0
#4
0
#6
0
#1
0
0
#1
4
0
#2
0
0
B-9 35.0'SP-SC
B-9 718.5'SC
15-839B12/01/17
FORD PROPERTIES - PHASE II
South San Francisco, California
DR
A
F
T
DR
A
F
T
DR
A
F
T
DR
A
F
T
DR
A
F
T
Memorandum
Date: December 1, 2017
To: Ken Busch, Sares Regis
From: Trisha Dudala, P.E. and Gary Black
Subject: Miller Cypress Residential Project Draft Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA
Introduction
This report presents the results of the traffic study for the proposed Phase 2 of the Miller Cypress
Residential project in South San Francisco, CA. The project site is bordered by Miller Avenue to the
south, Tamarack Lane to the north, Cypress Avenue to the east and existing office buildings to the
west. The project would build a total of 196 multifamily dwelling units in two phases: 102 units in
phase 1 and 94 units in phase 2. The project would replace existing vacant office buildings and
parking lots. Vehicular access to the site would be provided via one full access driveway on Miller
Avenue and one driveway on Tamarack Lane. As Tamarack Lane is designated as a one-way
street in the westbound direction, project vehicles on Tamarack Lane would only be able to make a
left-turn in and left-turn out of the project.
The project is located in the area covered by the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, which
covers properties within 0.5 miles of the City’s Caltrain Station. The City of South San Francisco
has completed the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP) and EIR that was adopted in
February 2015. The land uses proposed for this project are consistent with those set forth in the
DSASP EIR. The project is located within the Downtown Residential Core (DRC) sub-district, which
is defined by Tamarack Lane on the north, Second Lane on the south, Spruce Avenue on the west,
and Airport Boulevard on the east. This district is intended to provide for high density residential
neighborhoods near the center of Downtown and within ½ mile of the Caltrain Station.
Scope of Study
Although the project is consistent with the DSASP EIR, this traffic study was conducted to
determine if the mitigation measures in the DSASP EIR are consistent with the project development
or if any additional mitigation measures would be required with the development of the proposed
project.
The impacts of the project were evaluated following the standards and methodologies set forth by
the City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, Caltrans, and the applicable provisions of
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In consultation with the City staff, the following 11
intersections were analyzed. Mitigation measures were identified at all of these intersections in the
DSASP Mitigation Monitoring Report Program (MMRP).
Study Intersections
1. Miller Avenue/Linden Avenue
2. Miller Avenue/Airport Boulevard
3. Grand Avenue/Spruce Avenue
4. Grand Avenue/Linden Avenue
Miller Cypress Residential Phase 2 Draft Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 1, 2017
Page | 2
5. Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard
6. E. Grand Avenue/Grand Avenue
7. E. Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard
8. Baden Avenue/Linden Avenue
9. San Mateo Avenue/Poletti Way/US-101 Northbound off-ramp
10. S. Airport Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue/Gateway Boulevard
11. S. Airport Boulevard/US 101 Northbound Ramps/Wonder Color Lane
The project site location and study intersections are shown on Figure 1. Traffic conditions at the
intersections were analyzed for the weekday AM and PM peak hours of traffic. The AM peak hour of
traffic is generally between 7:00 and 9:00 AM, and the PM peak hour is typically between 4:00 and
6:00 PM. It is during these periods that the most congested traffic conditions occur on an average
weekday.
Traffic conditions were evaluated for the following scenarios:
1. Existing Conditions. Existing traffic conditions were evaluated based on the level of
service analysis described in the DSASP EIR.
2. Existing Plus Project Conditions. Project-generated traffic was added to the existing
traffic volumes to analyze existing plus project conditions. Project generated traffic was
estimated using the vehicular trip generation rates recommended by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual entitled Trip Generation, 9th Edition. Since the
existing uses on the project site are vacant, the study does not assume any credit for
trips generated by existing uses. Intersection impacts associated with the development of
the proposed project were evaluated relative to existing conditions.
3. Background Conditions. This condition analyzes traffic volumes that will exist with the
completion of approved projects in the study area. Trip generation for the approved
projects was either based on traffic studies conducted for these projects or based on the
ITE trip generation manual. Trips generated by approved projects were added to existing
conditions to analyze background conditions.
4. Background Plus Project Conditions. Traffic volumes with the project (hereafter called
project traffic volumes) were estimated by adding trips generated by the proposed
residential project to the background conditions. Intersection impacts associated with the
development of the proposed project were evaluated relative to background conditions.
The results of the Background + Project conditions scenario were compared to the
Existing + Project scenario in the DSASP EIR.
Miller Cypress Residential Phase 2 Draft Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 1, 2017
Page | 4
Methodology
Traffic conditions at the study intersections were evaluated using level of service (LOS). Level of
Service is a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, or free-flow
conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, or jammed conditions with excessive delays. The City of
South San Francisco evaluates level of service at signalized intersections based on the 2000
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) level of service methodology. This method evaluates signalized
intersection operations on the basis of average control delay time for all vehicles at the intersection.
Table 1 shows the level of service definitions for signalized intersections. The City of South San
Francisco defines LOS A through D as acceptable, and LOS E and F as unacceptable. Intersection
traffic operations were analyzed using Synchro traffic analysis software. HCM 2000 methodology
was chosen for intersection analysis to maintain consistency with the South San Francisco DSASP
EIR.
Table 1 – Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay
Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Washington, D.C., 2000) p10-16.
Level of
Service Description
Average Control
Delay Per
Vehicle (sec.)
Signal progression is extremely favorable. Most vehicles arrive during the
green phase and do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to
the very low vehicle delay.
10.0 or lessA
B
Operations characterized by good signal progression and/or short cycle
lengths. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average
vehicle delay.
10.1 to 20.0
Higher delays may result from fair signal progression and/or longer cycle
lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number
of vehicles stopping is significant, though may still pass through the
intersection without stopping.
20.1 to 35.0C
This level of delay is considered unacceptable by most drivers. This condition
often occurs with oversaturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the
capacity of the intersection. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may
also be major contributing causes of such delay levels.
greater than 80.0F
The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may
result from some combination of unfavorable signal progression, long cycle
lenghts, or high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop and
individual cycle failures are noticeable.
35.1 to 55.0D
This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values
generally indicate poor signal progression, long cycle lengths, and high
volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Individual cycle failures occur frequently.
55.1 to 80.0E
Vehicle Queuing at Intersections
95th percentile queue lengths were analyzed for study intersections in the vicinity of the freeway
interchanges. Chapter 16 of the HCM 2000 outlines a methodology for calculating the 95th
percentile queues at signalized intersections. The 95th percentile queue indicates that vehicle
backups for each movement would only extend beyond this length 5 percent of the time during the
analysis hour. The Synchro software program was used to determine 95th percentile vehicle queues
Miller Cypress Residential Phase 2 Draft Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 1, 2017
Page | 5
in accordance with the HCM 2000 methodology. The standard adopted by the City of South San
Francisco and Caltrans is that the 95th percentile vehicle queue must be accommodated within
available storage for each off-ramp and on the approaches to intersections nearby each off-ramp
that accommodate a significant amount of off-ramp traffic. In addition, no off-ramp traffic is allowed
to back up to the freeway mainline during the AM or PM peak traffic hour. 95th percentile vehicle
queues were analyzed for the following five study intersections in the vicinity of freeway
interchanges:
#2. Miller Avenue/Airport Boulevard
#5. Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard
#9. San Mateo Avenue/Poletti Way/US-101 Northbound off-ramp
#10. S. Airport Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue/Gateway Boulevard
#11. S. Airport Boulevard/US 101 Northbound Ramps/Wonder Color Lane
Regulatory Framework
Existing policies, laws and regulations that apply to the proposed project are summarized below.
The City of South San Francisco has jurisdiction over all City streets and City-operated traffic
signals. State Routes, including US-101, are under the jurisdiction of California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans). Public transit agencies with operations in the study area are SamTrans,
Caltrain, and BART.
Caltrans
Caltrans is responsible for the maintenance and operations of State routes and highways. In South
San Francisco, Caltrans’s facilities include US-101. The City recognizes that “Caltrans endeavors to
maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS C and LOS D on State highway facilities”;
however, Caltrans acknowledges that this may not always be feasible and recommends that the
lead agency consult with Caltrans to determine the appropriate target LOS. In addition, Caltrans
states that for existing State highway facilities operating at less than the target LOS, the existing
LOS should be maintained.
City of South San Francisco General Plan
The Transportation and Circulation Element of the City of South San Francisco General Plan
addresses the location and extent of existing and planned transportation routes, terminals, and
other public utilities and facilities. The General Plan identifies roadway and transit goals and policies
that have been adopted to ensure that the transportation system of the City will have adequate
capacity to serve planned growth. These goals and policies are intended to provide a plan and
implementation measures for an integrated, multi-modal transportation system that will safely and
efficiently meet the transportation needs of all economic and social segments of the City.
Thresholds of Significance
The City of South San Francisco defines LOS A through D as acceptable, and LOS E and F as
unacceptable. The following guidelines have been outlined in the City of South San Francisco
General Plan (City of South San Francisco 1999):
Strive to maintain LOS D or better on arterial and collector streets.
Miller Cypress Residential Phase 2 Draft Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 1, 2017
Page | 6
Accept LOS E or F after finding that there is no feasible and practical way to mitigate the
lower level of service, and the uses resulting in the lower level of service are of clear overall
public benefit.
Exempt development within 0.25 mile of a Caltrain or BART station, or a ferry terminal from
LOS standards.
According to CEQA guidelines, a project would also have a significant impact if it would:
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 components of the circulation
system, including, but not limited to, intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths and mass transit.
Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to,
level-of-service standards, and travel demand measures, or other standards established by
a county congestion management agency for designated roadways.
Result in inadequate emergency vehicle access.
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.
The significance criteria below are used to determine whether implementation of the proposed
project would result in significant environmental impacts that require mitigation at roadway
intersections.
Intersection Impact Criteria
A project will result in a significant traffic impact at intersections:
If a signalized intersection with base traffic volumes is operating at an acceptable LOS (LOS
D or better) deteriorates to an unacceptable operation (LOS E or F) with the addition of
project traffic and the total traffic volume through the intersection increases by at least two
percent (2%); or
If a signalized intersection is already operating at an unacceptable LOS and the proposed
project increases the total traffic volume at the intersection by at least two percent (2%); or
If the addition of project traffic at intersections in the vicinity of freeway interchanges would
increase acceptable baseline 95th percentile vehicle queues to unacceptable levels (as
determined by the Synchro software program and the storage length of each movement), or,
if baseline 95th percentile vehicle queues are already at unacceptable levels, the project
would increase the traffic volume in the queue by at least one percent (1%).
Existing Roadway Network
Regional access to the project study area is provided by US 101.
US 101 is a north-south major freeway through eastern San Mateo County between San Francisco
and San Jose. It is the primary north/south route connection to I-280 and I-80 north of South San
Francisco. US-101 is typically congested in both directions during both peak periods as people
commute to and from San Francisco and the Silicon Valley. Access to the freeway from the project
site is provided via interchanges at Miller Avenue, Airport Boulevard, and E. Grand Avenue.
The following roadways provide local access to the site:
Miller Cypress Residential Phase 2 Draft Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 1, 2017
Page | 7
Airport Boulevard is a major north/south arterial route through South San Francisco parallel to US-
101. North of Grand Avenue, Airport Boulevard has two travel lanes in each direction. Airport
Boulevard runs parallel to Cypress Avenue in the study area and intersects Miller Avenue in the
vicinity of the project site.
Grand Avenue is a two- to six-lane roadway that extends from Mission Road, to its termination point
at Point San Bruno Park. Near the project site, west of US-101, Grand Avenue has one travel lane
in each direction with on-street angled parking on both sides of the street. Grand Avenue intersects
Airport Boulevard and Cypress Avenue in the vicinity of the project site.
Miller Avenue is a two-lane local roadway that extends west from Airport Boulevard and terminates
at Chestnut Avenue. There are traffic signals at its intersections with Airport Boulevard, Spruce
Avenue, and Walnut Avenue, but the other intersections are controlled by stop signs. Miller Avenue
is immediately adjacent to the southern project boundary and provides direct access via a full
access driveway.
Linden Avenue is a two-lane local roadway that extends north from San Mateo Avenue at the city
limits and terminates at Airport Boulevard. There are traffic signals at most major intersections with
the remainder of its intersections controlled by stop signs. Linden Avenue intersects Grand Avenue,
4th Lane, Miller Avenue and Tamarack Lane in the vicinity of the project site.
Cypress Avenue is a one way northbound road that extends from Armour Avenue to Baden
Avenue. Cypress Avenue is immediately adjacent to the eastern project boundary.
Tamarack Lane is a one way westbound roadway that extends from Cypress Avenue and
terminates near Laurel Avenue. Tamarack Lane is immediately adjacent to the northern project
boundary and provides direct access to the project via one driveway.
Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Bicycle facilities include bike paths, bike lanes, and bike routes. Bike paths (Class I facilities) are
pathways, separate from roadways, which are designated for use by bicycles. Often, these
pathways also allow pedestrian access. Bike lanes (Class II facilities) are lanes on roadways
designated for use by bicycles with special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bike
routes (Class III) are existing rights-of-way that accommodate bicycles but are not separate from
the existing travel lanes. Routes are typically designated only with signs.
The City has 48.3 miles of existing bikeways, though most of them are not signed (see Figure 2).
Transit stations, schools, parks and retail centers are all accessible by these bikeways. The
following bicycle facilities exist in the project study area.
Class I Bikeway (Multi-Use Path)
Grand Avenue has a bike path that extends from Industrial Way, crosses over East Grand
Avenue and ends at Harbor Way. This path connects to Class II bike lanes that begin on
Gateway Boulevard south of Grand Avenue.
Miller Cypress Residential Phase 2 Draft Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 1, 2017
Page | 8
Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane)
Airport Boulevard has Class II bike lanes in both directions that begin north of Miller
Avenue and connect to the Class III bicycle routes on Miller Avenue and Linden Avenue.
Gateway Boulevard has Class II bike lanes in both directions that begin south of Grand
Avenue and extend to South Airport Boulevard.
Grand Avenue has Class II bike lanes in both directions that begin west of Spruce Avenue
and connect to the Class III bicycle route on Spruce Avenue.
Railroad Avenue has a Class II bike lane in the eastbound direction that extends east from
Spruce Avenue to Maple Avenue, after which it becomes a Class III bicycle route with
sharrows. This lane connects to the Class III bicycle route on Spruce Avenue.
Class III Bikeway (Bike Route)
San Mateo Avenue is a Class III bicycle route without sharrow markings. The route extends
from Airport Boulevard past South Linden Avenue, connecting to the Class III bicycle route
on Linden Avenue.
Linden Avenue is a Class III bicycle route without sharrow markings. The route extends
south from Airport Boulevard to San Mateo Avenue.
Spruce Avenue is a Class III bicycle route with sharrow markings between Grand Avenue
and Victory Way. The route connects to Class II bicycle lanes on Grand Avenue.
The City of South San Francisco adopted its citywide Bicycle Master Plan in 2011, the goal of which
is to expand the bicycle network to make it easier and safer for people to bicycle through the City. In
the project vicinity, bike lanes are planned in both directions on Grand Avenue between Spruce
Avenue and Airport Boulevard. As part of the proposed Caltrain Station reconstruction, a new
ped/bike rail crossing tunnel is proposed at the Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard intersection that
would directly connect to the South San Francisco Caltrain station. The new ped/bike tunnel would
also provide a good bicycle connection between the downtown and the employment zone to the
east of US 101.
Sidewalks are provided on most streets in the immediate vicinity of the project. Sidewalks exist in
both directions on Miller Avenue and Cypress Avenue along the project frontage. There are no
sidewalks on Tamarack Lane. The proposed project would construct a sidewalk along the project
frontage on Tamarack Lane. In the immediate vicinity of the project, crosswalks exist on all four legs
at the signalized intersections of Linden Avenue/Miller Avenue and on the west leg of Airport
Boulevard/Miller Avenue for pedestrians to get to downtown destinations. Pedestrian access
improvements are proposed in the area covered under the Specific Plan and citywide under the
South San Francisco Pedestrian Master Plan. The plan calls for area-wide improvements, such as
establishing a Downtown pedestrian-priority zone, making pedestrian-friendly alley improvements to
Downtown lanes and completing the street grid to reduce block lengths immediately surrounding
the Caltrain station.
Miller Cypress Residential Phase 2 Draft Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 1, 2017
Page | 10
Existing Transit Service
Transit services in the study area include local buses, express buses, shuttles, BART, Caltrain and
ferry service. A majority of the public transit trips through the area are commuters who use the
Caltrain station or connect from BART to Downtown and East of US-101 employers via employer
shuttles. Employer sponsored shuttles connect to employment destinations east of the Caltrain
station and other commuter connections in the area. These shuttles are available to individual riders
not associated with sponsor employers for a monthly fee.
Caltrain
Caltrain provides commuter rail service between San Francisco and Gilroy. The project is located at
about 0.3 miles (walking distance) west of the South San Francisco Caltrain station, which is
located at 590 Dubuque Avenue, on the east side of US-101, immediately north of East Grand
Avenue. The South San Francisco Caltrain Station serves local and limited trains. Weekday peak
commute headways are between 20 and 60 minutes, with more frequent service for AM northbound
and PM southbound trips.
Currently, the only access to the South San Francisco Caltrain station is from the west side of the
train tracks, via the Grand Avenue overpass. This overpass requires a long and circuitous detour for
people walking and bicycling, who have to cross Grand Avenue and descend either a tall metal
staircase or use Dubuqueu Avenue. Recently, the San Mateo County Transportation Authority
(SMCTA) Board awarded a $59 million grant for station reconstruction to improve safety and
connectivity to nearby businesses. The station reconstruction will include widening the center
platform and building a pedestrian tunnel to connect the station directly to the east end of
downtown’s Grand Avenue. Passengers will be able to get to the station’s center platform via ramps
connecting to a tunnel underneath the tracks. The tunnel will connect to a pedestrian plaza at
Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard on the west side of the tracks and a transit plaza at the end of
three-lane Grand Avenue on the east side of the tracks. Busses and shuttles will pick up and drop
off Caltrain passengers from the new east-side plaza instead of the parking lot on the west side of
the station. This will save time for passengers commuting to the City’s biotech job center on the
east side of the tracks. With the South San Francisco Caltrain station reconstruction, the proposed
project will be less than 0.25 miles from the station.
Bus Service
Bus transit in the area is provided by San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans). The following
lines serve the project area:
SamTrans 38 stops at the Airport Boulevard/Linden Avenue intersection, and connects to
Safe Harbor, Colma BART station, and San Bruno BART station. This line provides limited
northbound service between 6:00 AM and 7:00 AM, and limited southbound service
between 4:45 PM and 7:15 PM.
SamTrans 131 stops at the Linden Avenue/Miller Avenue intersection and provides service
between Downtown South San Francisco, South San Francisco BART station, and Daly
City. This line provides service in both directions between 5:45 AM and 10:45 PM with 15-
minute headways during peak weekday hours.
SamTrans 133 stops at the Linden Avenue/Miller Avenue intersection and provides service
between Downtown South San Francisco and San Bruno BART station. This line provides
service in both directions between 6:00 AM and 7:00 PM with 30-minute headways during
peak weekday hours.
Miller Cypress Residential Phase 2 Draft Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 1, 2017
Page | 11
SamTrans 292 stops at the Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue, Airport Boulevard/Baden
Avenue, and Airport Boulevard/Linden Avenue intersections. The route provides connection
between Downtown San Francisco to the north and Brisbane, South San Francisco,
Burlingame and San Mateo to the south. This line provides service in both directions
between 4:00 AM and 2:00 AM, with 20- to 30-minute headways during peak weekday
hours.
South SF Shuttle (SCS) is operated by SamTrans and provides free service around South
San Francisco, with trips to local stores, senior center, libraries, city hall and parks. The
shuttle provides transit connections with SamTrans and BART. The shuttle operates
Monday through Friday between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM. The shuttle stops at the Linden
Avenue/Miller Avenue intersection, which is within walking distance of the project.
SamTrans 397 stops at the Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard/Baden
Avenue intersections, and connects to Downtown San Francisco to the north and Palo Alto
Transit Center to the south. This line provides service between 1:00 AM and 6:00 AM with
60-minute headways.
Additional commuter bus service is provided by Commute.org. These shuttles provide commuter
connections between the Caltrain Station and East of US-101 employers:
The Oyster Point Shuttle connects the Caltrain station to Oyster Point, Forbes Boulevard
and Eccles Avenue. This line provides service during peak commute hours, between 6:30
AM and 10:00 AM, and between 3:00 PM and 6:00 PM with 30 minute headways.
The Utah-Grand Shuttle connects the South San Francisco BART station to East Grand
Avenue and Utah Avenue. This line provides service during peak commute hours, between
5:30 AM and 9:30 AM, and between 4:00 PM and 6:15 PM with 30-minute headways.
The nearest bus stop for Route 131, Route 133, and SCS is located near the Linden Avenue/Miller
Avenue intersection which is less than 200 feet walking distance from the project site. The nearest
bus stops for Routes 292 and Route 397 are located at the intersection of Airport Boulevard/Baden
Avenue, which is also within walking distance of the project (less than 1/4th mile). The shuttle
services can be accessed at the Caltrain station, which is within walking distance of the project.
Continuous sidewalks are present for pedestrians walking between the proposed project and the
nearest bus stops.
BART
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) operates regional rail service in the Bay Area, connecting between
San Francisco International Airport and the Millbrae Intermodal Station to the south, San Francisco
to the north, and cities in the East Bay. The BART stations closest to the South San Francisco
Caltrain station area are the San Bruno Station located near Huntington Avenue east of El Camino
Real, and the South San Francisco Station, located on Mission Road and McLellan Drive. Both
stations are located within 3 miles of the Caltrain station, and SamTrans provides service from the
stations to Downtown South San Francisco. BART trains operate on 15-minute headways during
peak hours and 20-minute headways during off-peak hours.
Existing Intersection Operations
This section describes the existing operations analysis based on the analysis presented in the
South San Francisco DSASP EIR. Each study intersection was analyzed using existing lane
Miller Cypress Residential Phase 2 Draft Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 1, 2017
Page | 12
configurations, existing AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts and existing traffic signal
timing data, as presented in the DSASP EIR except at the following intersections:
Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue – The DSASP EIR analyzed this intersection with a shared left-
through lane and an exclusive right turn lane for the eastbound approach on Grand Avenue. Field
observations showed that the eastbound approach was modified to include an exclusive left-turn
lane and a shared through-right lane as recommended by the mitigation measure MM4.10-3 in the
EIR.
Baden Avenue/Linden Avenue – The DSASP EIR analyzed this intersection with permitted signal
phasing on all approaches and showed that this intersection operated at LOS F during the PM peak
hour. Field observations indicate that the eastbound/westbound approaches on Baden Avenue now
operate with split phasing, and the level of service is improved. PM peak hour field observations did
not indicate any significant traffic operational issues. Between 4:45 PM and 5:45 PM, the
westbound left-turn queues on Baden Avenue frequently extended up to Airport Boulevard and
occasionally vehicles at the end of the queue could not clear until the next cycle. However, due to
the short cycle length, the wait time for westbound vehicles on Baden Avenue that could not turn
left onto Linden Avenue was not more than 60 seconds. The existing conditions analysis presented
in this report reflects split phasing for the east/west approaches on Baden Avenue.
The existing lane configurations at the study intersections are shown on Figure 3 and the existing
traffic volumes are shown on Figure 4.
The existing intersection LOS analysis shows that all study intersections are currently operate at an
acceptable LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours (see Table 2). Although the
LOS is shown to be D, occasionally traffic operates at near-capacity conditions along Airport
Boulevard. The LOS shown in Table 2 is based on the average weighted delay for all movements at
the intersection. Although the average weighted delay is acceptable at most of the study
intersections, at some intersections, some vehicle movements may operate worse than average,
which indicates congestion and queues on some approaches but not others.
Vehicle queues for the five study intersections in the vicinity of freeway ramps were analyzed under
existing AM and PM peak hours using Synchro software. As shown in Table 3, at all of the study
intersections in the vicinity of freeway ramps, the 95th percentile vehicular queues for all turning
movements are accommodated within the available storage length during the AM and PM peak
hours except for the intersection of San Mateo Avenue and Airport Boulevard. The 95th percentile
queue lengths for the westbound left-turn lane, westbound right-turn lane, northbound left-turn lane,
and southbound left-turn lane exceed the available storage capacities during at least one of the
peak hour periods.
Miller Cypress Residential Phase 2 Draft Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 1, 2017
Page | 15
Table 2
Existing Conditions Intersection LOS Analysis
IDIntersection
Peak
PeriodDelay 1 LOS
1Miller Ave/Linden AveAM21.4C
PM35.2D
2Miller Ave/Airport BlvdAM28.0C
PM19.3B
3Grand Ave/Spruce AveAM16.0B
PM18.2B
4Grand Ave/Linden AveAM12.9B
PM13.5B
5Grand Ave/Airport Blvd 2 AM37.7D
PM40.4D
6Grand Ave/E. Grand AveAM21.3C
PM16.8B
7E. Grand Ave/Gateway BlvdAM34.3C
PM34.9C
8Baden Ave/Linden Ave 3 AM23.5C
PM36.8D
9San Mateo Ave/Airport BlvdAM38.4D
PM51.6D
10So. Airport Blvd/Gateway BlvdAM37.5D
PM42.9D
11101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp & So. Airport BlvdAM30.1C
PM33.2C
Existing
1 Delay reported is the weighted average delay for all movements in seconds reported by Synchro 9 using
HCM 2000 Methodology. For intersections performing at LOS F, volume/capacity ratio for the overall
intersection is shown in parenthesis.
2 Field observations showed that the improvements recommended in the DSASP EIR at the intersection of
Grand Ave/Airport Blvd, which includes mofifying the eastbound approach to include one left‐turn pocket
and one through ‐right shared lane have been implemented. The existing conditions analysis reflect these
improvements in place.
3 The analysis assumes split phasing for the eastbound/westbound approaches on Baden Avenue based
on field observations.
Miller Cypress Residential Phase 2 Draft Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 1, 2017
Page | 16
Table 3
Existing Vehicle Queuing at Freeway Interchange Intersections
IDIntersection ‐ MovementAM Peak PM Peak
2
Eastbound Right Turn68012468
Westbound Left Turn465213153
Westbound Through465217254
Northbound Through2208882
Southbound Through36020077
5
Eastbound Through665205171
Eastbound Right Turn665191102
Westbound Left Turn67046405
Westbound Through67054234
Westbound Right Turn2401351
Northbound Left Turn1504149
Northbound Through410188262
Northbound Right Turn41011915
Southbound Left Turn390335118
Southbound Through390230228
Southbound Right Turn1804543
9
Eastbound Left Turn15069121
Eastbound Through37097102
Eastbound Right Turn15049104
Westbound Left Turn225196 529
Westbound Through810165341
Westbound Right Turn85 100243
Northbound Left Turn130 177 109
Northbound Through3005640
Southbound Left Turn150120 178
Southbound Through1550360546
Southbound Right Turn15501326
10
Eastbound Left Turn1408856
Eastbound Through730294248
Eastbound Right Turn73014791
Northbound Left Turn30098183
Northbound Through9307242
Northbound Right Turn93000
11
Eastbound Left Turn800375272
Eastbound Through800366273
Eastbound Right Turn2254223
Westbound Through20000
Westbound Right Turn20000
Northbound Left Turn29571159
Northbound Through6353896
Southbound Left Turn1001839
Southbound Through1080183379
Southbound Right Turn1253781
101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp & So. Airport Blvd
Bold and shaded= 95th percentile queue exceeds storage length.
Existing
Miller Ave/Airport Blvd
Grand Ave/Airport Blvd
San Mateo Ave/Airport Blvd
Storage
Distance
(feet)
95th Percentile Queue (feet)
So. Airport Blvd/Gateway Blvd
Miller Cypress Residential Phase 2 Draft Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 1, 2017
Page | 17
Existing Plus Project Conditions
This section describes the impacts of the proposed project on existing conditions.
The magnitude of traffic produced by a new development and the locations where that traffic would
appear are estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip
assignment. In determining project trip generation, the magnitude of traffic entering and exiting the
site is estimated for the AM and PM peak hours. As part of the project trip distribution, an estimate
is made of the directions to and from which the project trips would travel. In the project trip
assignment, the project trips are assigned to specific streets. These procedures are described
further in the following sections.
Project Trip Generation
AM and PM peak hour trip generation estimates for the proposed project are based on trip rates
obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) publication Trip Generation, Ninth
Edition for Apartments (ITE Land Use 220) and are shown in Table 4. Since the project is located in
the downtown area within walking distance of numerous transit connections, the vehicle trip rate per
unit is expected to be less than the rates shown in Table 4. However, to be conservative, no
reductions were applied to the trip generation analysis. Also, no credit was taken for existing uses
as the existing buildings/surface parking lots are currently vacant and do not generate any trips.
It is estimated that the proposed project will generate 100 AM peak hour trips and 125 PM peak
hour trips on a regular weekday.
Table 4
Project Trip Generation
DailyDailyPk-HrPk-Hr
Land UseTrip Rates1 TripsRate1 InOutInOutTotalRate 1 InOutInOutTotal
Apartments196units6.691,3110.5120%80%20801000.6465%35%8243125
Source: ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition, 2012.
Size
1Trip generation using fitted curve equation(am and pm) from the ITE Trip Generation Manual (Land Use 220, Apartment)
AM Peak HourPM Peak Hour
SplitsTripsSplitsTrips
Trip Distribution Pattern and Trip Assignment
The trip distribution pattern for the project was estimated consistent with the trip distribution
assumptions presented in the DSASP EIR for the West area (west of US 101) and shown on Figure
5. These distribution estimates were developed based on the location of complementary land uses,
existing travel patterns in the area and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) regional
travel demand model. The net project trips assigned to the study intersections are shown on Figure
6.
Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes
The project trips were added to the existing traffic volumes to obtain existing plus project traffic
volumes (see Figure 7).
Miller Cypress Residential Phase 2 Draft Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 1, 2017
Page | 21
Existing plus Project Intersection Operations
The results of the intersection levels of service analysis under existing plus project conditions are
shown in Table 5.
Table 5
Existing plus Project Intersection Operations
IDIntersection
Peak
PeriodDelay 1 LOSDelay 1 LOS
1Miller Ave/Linden AveAM21.4C22.6C
PM35.2D37.5D
2Miller Ave/Airport BlvdAM28.0C28.5C
PM19.3B20.9C
3Grand Ave/Spruce AveAM16.0B16.1B
PM18.2B18.2B
4Grand Ave/Linden AveAM12.9B13.7B
PM13.5B14.0B
5Grand Ave/Airport Blvd 2 AM37.7D37.2D
PM40.4D43.2D
6Grand Ave/E. Grand AveAM21.3C21.3C
PM16.8B17.8B
7E. Grand Ave/Gateway BlvdAM34.3C34.3C
PM34.9C35.8D
8Baden Ave/Linden Ave 3 AM23.5C24.4 C
PM36.8D38.0D
9San Mateo Ave/Airport BlvdAM38.4D39.4D
PM51.6D53.7D
10So. Airport Blvd/Gateway BlvdAM37.5D37.1D
PM42.9D43.0D
11AM30.1C30.2C
PM33.2C33.2D
ExistingExisting Plus Project
1 Delay reported is the weighted average delay for all movements in seconds reported by Synchro 9 using HCM
2000 Methodology. For intersections performing at LOS F, volume/capacity ratio for the overall intersection is
shown in parenthesis.
101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp &
So. Airport Blvd
2 Field observations showed that the improvements recommended in the DSASP EIR at the intersection of Grand
Ave/Airport Blvd, which includes mofifying the eastbound approach to include one left‐turn pocket and one
through ‐right shared lane have been implemented. The existing conditions analysis reflect these improvements in
place.
3 The analysis assumes split phasing for the eastbound/westbound approaches on Baden Avenue based on field
observations.
Miller Cypress Residential Phase 2 Draft Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 1, 2017
Page | 22
As shown in Table 5, with the addition of project trips, all study intersections would continue to
operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hour periods.
95th percentile vehicle queues for the five study intersections in the vicinity of freeway ramps were
analyzed under existing plus project AM and PM peak hours using Synchro software. As shown in
Table 6, under existing plus project conditions, the 95th percentile vehicular queues for all turning
movements would be accommodated within the available storage capacities during the AM and PM
peak hours at all intersections except for the following intersection.
San Mateo Avenue/Airport Boulevard – The 95th percentile queues for the westbound left-turn,
westbound right-turn, northbound left-turn, and southbound left-turn movements exceed the
available storage capacity during at least one of the peak hours under existing conditions. However,
the proposed project would not add traffic to any of these movements and would not increase the
vehicular queues for these movements. The following mitigation measures were identified for this
intersection in the DSASP EIR.
Mitigation Measure MM4.10-5 in DSASP EIR - With the implementation of the DSASP
development, the intersection of San Mateo Avenue/Airport Boulevard is expected to
operate at unacceptable LOS F during the PM peak hour. Implementation of mitigation
measure MM4.10-5 would improve traffic operations at this intersection during the AM and
PM peak hours. The mitigation includes modifying the westbound approach to add a left-turn
pocket, modifying the approach to include three left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one
right-turn lane, and optimizing the traffic signal to reallocate green time to better serve future
volumes. Implementation of this mitigation measure would allow the intersection to operate
at acceptable conditions and accommodate the 95th percentile queues for all turning
movements within the available storage capacity.
Miller Cypress Residential Phase 2 Draft Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 1, 2017
Page | 23
Table 6
Existing plus Project 95th Percentile Vehicular Queues
IDIntersection ‐ MovementAM Peak PM Peak AM PeakPM PeakAM PeakPM Peak
2
Eastbound Right Turn6801246813774 ‐ ‐
Westbound Left Turn465213153223153 ‐ ‐
Westbound Through465217254225275 ‐ ‐
Northbound Through220888292103 ‐ ‐
Southbound Through3602007720077 ‐ ‐
5
Eastbound Left665205171228181 ‐ ‐
Eastbound Through‐Right665191102196108 ‐ ‐
Westbound Left Turn6704640546416 ‐ ‐
Westbound Through6705423454242 ‐ ‐
Westbound Right Turn24013511561 ‐ ‐
Northbound Left Turn15041494769 ‐ ‐
Northbound Through410188262173265 ‐ ‐
Northbound Right Turn410119158534 ‐ ‐
Southbound Left Turn390335118346119 ‐
Southbound Through390230228249234 ‐ ‐
Southbound Right Turn18045435040 ‐ ‐
9
Eastbound Left Turn1506912170121 ‐ ‐
Eastbound Through3709710297104 ‐ ‐
Eastbound Right Turn1504910449104 ‐ ‐
Westbound Left Turn225196 529 196 529 ‐ 0%
Westbound Through810165341165341 ‐ ‐
Westbound Right Turn85 100243100243 0%0%
Northbound Left Turn130 177 109 177 1090% ‐
Northbound Through30056405640 ‐ ‐
Southbound Left Turn150120 178 125 174 ‐ 0%
Southbound Through1550360546368571 ‐ ‐
Southbound Right Turn15501326825 ‐ ‐
10
Eastbound Left Turn14088568856 ‐ ‐
Eastbound Through730294248294248 ‐ ‐
Eastbound Right Turn7301479114790 ‐ ‐
Northbound Left Turn3009818398183 ‐ ‐
Northbound Through93072427242 ‐ ‐
Northbound Right Turn9300000 ‐ ‐
11
Eastbound Left Turn800375272375272 ‐ ‐
Eastbound Through800366273366273 ‐ ‐
Eastbound Right Turn22542234223 ‐ ‐
Westbound Through2000000 ‐ ‐
Westbound Right Turn2000000 ‐ ‐
Northbound Left Turn2957115971159 ‐ ‐
Northbound Through63538963896 ‐ ‐
Southbound Left Turn10018391839 ‐ ‐
Southbound Through1080183379183379 ‐ ‐
Southbound Right Turn12537813781 ‐ ‐
Miller Ave/Airport Blvd
Grand Ave/Airport Blvd
San Mateo Ave/Airport Blvd
So. Airport Blvd/Gateway Blvd
101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp &
In existing condition, Bold and shaded= 95th percentile queue exceeds storage length; In Existing plus project, Bold and
shaded = potentially significant impact
aVolume Increased is calculated as the increase in volume for that particular movement, and is only shown for movements
that are already exceeding storage under baseline conditions.
Existing
Storage
Distance
(feet)
95th Percentile Queue (feet)
Existing plus Project Volume Increasea
Miller Cypress Residential Phase 2 Draft Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 1, 2017
Page | 24
Background and Background plus Project Conditions
Traffic volumes for background conditions were developed by adding trips from approved projects
in the vicinity of the proposed project to the existing traffic volumes. Based on the major projects list
dated October 2017 that was made available online by City staff, the following projects were
identified as approved projects for consideration under background conditions.
418 Linden Avenue (Renamed to 488 Linden Avenue) – 38 apartment units
300 Miller Avenue – 81 senior housing units
Sares Regis (Miller Avenue/Cypress Avenue) – 260 apartment units
255 Cypress Avenue – 46 apartment Units
211 Airport Boulevard – 69 apartment units
150 Airport Boulevard – 157 apartment units
As shown in Table 7, the six approved projects are expected to generate a total of 274 trips during
the AM peak hour and 360 trips during the PM peak hour. These trips were added to existing traffic
volumes to obtain traffic volumes for analysis under background conditions. Trips from approved
projects were assigned to the study intersections based on the trip distribution assumptions
developed for the West area in the DSASP EIR.
Traffic volumes under background conditions are shown on Figure 8. Background plus project traffic
volumes were developed by adding project trips to background volumes. Background plus project
traffic volumes are shown on Figure 9.
Intersection operations analysis for background and background plus project conditions are shown
in Table 8.
Miller Cypress Residential Phase 2 Draft Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 1, 2017
Page | 25
Table 7
Approved Project Trips
Daily
Land UseTripsInOutTotalInOutTotal
418 / 488 Linden 1 3853993544402262
300 Miller Avenue 2 812794121611920
Sares Regis 3 2601,713221051279949148
255 Cypress Ave 4 4630652227281543
211 Airport Apt 5 69-170-254-21-2-15-17
150 Airport Boulevard 6 691,0751665816836104
Total31243274244116360
Notes:
6 Trip generation based on Traffic Impact Analysis for the 150 Airport Boulevard, prepared by Hexagon Transportation
Consultants in October 2017.
5 Trip generation based on Trip Generation Analysis for the 211 Airport Boulevard, prepared by LSA Associates in May
2015.
AM TripsPM TripsResidential
Units
1Trip generation based on fitted curve equation for Land Use 220 - 'Apartment' from the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition).
2 Trip generation based on Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the 300 Miller Av enue Senior Housing Project prepared by
Abrams Associates in September 2015.
3 Trip generation based on Traffic Study for the Miller/Cypress Residential Project prepared by Hexagon Transportation
Consultants in October 2015 for Parcel A and Parcel D.
4Trip generation based on average rates for Land Use 220 - 'Apartment' from the Institute of Transportation Engineers
(ITE) Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition).
Miller Cypress Residential Phase 2 Draft Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 1, 2017
Page | 28
Table 8
Background and Background Plus Project Intersection Operations
IDIntersection
Peak
PeriodDelay 1 LOSDelay 1 LOS
Project
Trips(%)Delay 1 LOS
1Miller Ave/Linden AveAM22.5C24.1C23.2C
PM38.6D40.9D55.6E
2Miller Ave/Airport BlvdAM30.6C31.0C29.1C
PM22.1C25.3C26.7C
3Grand Ave/Spruce AveAM16.6B16.9B18.5B
PM18.7B18.8B21.9C
4Grand Ave/Linden AveAM13.3B14.2B19.4B
PM13.9B14.4B44.5D
5Grand Ave/Airport Blvd 2 AM38.1D38.8D >80(1.12)F
PM46.0D48.0D >80(1.13)F
6Grand Ave/E. Grand AveAM21.1C21.1C23.2C
PM18.6B19.6B42.0D
7E. Grand Ave/Gateway BlvdAM34.2C34.2C35.7D
PM36.4D36.2D 61.7E
8Baden Ave/Linden Ave 3 AM23.5C24.5C43.2 D
PM38.0D39.0D >80(1.03)F
9San Mateo Ave/Airport BlvdAM39.4D39.4D37.1D
PM 57.3E58.5E21 (0.54%)>80(1.2)F
10So. Airport Blvd/Gateway BlvdAM37.1D37.1D 67.7E
PM43.1D43.1D >80(1.32)F
11AM30.3C30.3C28.2C
PM34.5C34.5C48.5D
DSASP
Exising Plus
Project
1 Delay reported is the weighted average delay for all movements in seconds reported by Synchro 9 using HCM 2000 Methodology. For intersections
performing at LOS F, volume/capacity ratio for the overall intersection is shown in parenthesis.
2 Field observations showed that the improvements recommended in the DSASP EIR at the intersection of Grand Ave/Airport Blvd, which includes
mofifying the eastbound approach to include one left‐turn pocket and one through‐right shared lane have been implemented. The existing conditions
analysis reflect these improvements in place.
3 The analysis assumes split phasing for the eastbound/westbound approaches on Baden Avenue based on field observations.
Background Plus ProjectBackground
101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp &
So. Airport Blvd
As shown in Table 8, all study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable LOS D or
better during the AM and PM peak hours under background conditions and would continue to
operate at acceptable conditions with the proposed project, except for the intersection of San Mateo
Avenue/Airport Boulevard.
San Mateo Avenue/Airport Boulevard – The analysis showed that this intersection would operate at
unacceptable LOS E with 57.3 seconds of delay during the PM peak hour under background
conditions. With the addition of project traffic, this intersection would continue to operate at LOS E
with 58.5 seconds of delay. The project would add trips equivalent to less than 1% of the total traffic
volume through the intersection. Since the project would add traffic less than 2% of the total traffic
volume through the intersection, the project impact is considered less than significant. The DSASP
EIR identified mitigation measures (MM4.10-5) at this intersection, which includes modifying the
westbound approach to add a left-turn pocket, modifying the approach to include three left-turn
lanes, one through lane, and one right-turn lane, and optimizing the traffic signal to reallocate green
time to better serve future volumes. These mitigation measures are expected to improve traffic
operations during the PM peak hour.
Miller Cypress Residential Phase 2 Draft Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 1, 2017
Page | 29
As shown in Table 9, under background and background plus project conditions, the 95th percentile
vehicular queues for all turning movements are accommodated within the available storage length
during the AM and PM peak hours, except for the following intersections.
Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard – The analysis showed that the 95th percentile queue for the
southbound left-turn lane would exceed the available storage capacity during the AM peak hour by
approximately 1 vehicle during the AM peak hour. The proposed project would add approximately 2
trips to the southbound left-turn lane during the AM peak hour and would not increase the 95th
percentile queue. Since the project would contribute less than 1 % traffic to this movement, the
project would not cause a significant queuing impact at this intersection.
San Mateo Avenue/Airport Boulevard – The analysis showed that the 95th percentile queues for the
westbound left-turn, westbound right-turn, northbound left-turn, and southbound left-turn
movements would exceed the available storage capacity during at least one of the peak hours
under background conditions. However, the project would not add any traffic to these movements
and would not cause any impacts.
Miller Cypress Residential Phase 2 Draft Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 1, 2017
Page | 30
Table 9
Background and Background plus Project Conditions 95th Percentile Queue Lengths
IDIntersection ‐ MovementAM Peak PM Peak AM PeakPM PeakAM PeakPM Peak
2
Eastbound Right Turn680189103207112 ‐ ‐
Westbound Left Turn465240197242197 ‐ ‐
Westbound Through465243292243315 ‐ ‐
Northbound Through2209111495151 ‐ ‐
Southbound Through3602088020880 ‐ ‐
5
Eastbound Left665205171228181 ‐ ‐
Eastbound Through‐Right665226121231124 ‐ ‐
Westbound Left Turn6704641548427 ‐ ‐
Westbound Through6705730260315 ‐ ‐
Westbound Right Turn24015691781 ‐ ‐
Northbound Left Turn15054785478 ‐ ‐
Northbound Through410181274181277 ‐ ‐
Northbound Right Turn41090349036 ‐ ‐
Southbound Left Turn390 409 135 419 1350.46% ‐
Southbound Through390324274333280 ‐ ‐
Southbound Right Turn18053384835 ‐ ‐
9
Eastbound Left Turn1507012570125 ‐ ‐
Eastbound Through3709710697107 ‐ ‐
Eastbound Right Turn1504910849108 ‐ ‐
Westbound Left Turn225196 527 196 527 ‐ 0%
Westbound Through810165339165339 ‐ ‐
Westbound Right Turn85 100284100284 0%0%
Northbound Left Turn130 179 111 179 1110% ‐
Northbound Through30056405640 ‐ ‐
Southbound Left Turn150125 174 125 174 ‐ 0%
Southbound Through1550412590433601 ‐ ‐
Southbound Right Turn155012271528 ‐ ‐
10
Eastbound Left Turn14088558856 ‐ ‐
Eastbound Through730294248294248 ‐ ‐
Eastbound Right Turn7301479014790 ‐ ‐
Northbound Left Turn3009719097190 ‐ ‐
Northbound Through93071407140 ‐ ‐
Northbound Right Turn9300000 ‐ ‐
11
Eastbound Left Turn800375286375286 ‐ ‐
Eastbound Through800367285367285 ‐ ‐
Eastbound Right Turn22542234223 ‐ ‐
Westbound Through2000000 ‐ ‐
Westbound Right Turn2000000 ‐ ‐
Northbound Left Turn2957115671156 ‐ ‐
Northbound Through6353811338113 ‐ ‐
Southbound Left Turn10018391839 ‐ ‐
Southbound Through1080181401181401 ‐ ‐
Southbound Right Turn12537833783 ‐ ‐
Volume Increasea
95th Percentile Queue (feet)Storage
Distance
(feet)
Background
So. Airport Blvd/Gateway Blvd
101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp & So. Airport Blvd
In Background condition, Bold and Shaded= 95th percentile queue exceeds storage length; In Background plus project
condition, Bold and Shaded = potentially significant impact
aVolume Increased is calculated as the increase in volume for that particular movement, and is only shown for movements
that are already exceeding storage under baseline conditions.
Miller Ave/Airport Blvd
Grand Ave/Airport Blvd
San Mateo Ave/Airport Blvd
Background plus Project
Miller Cypress Residential Phase 2 Draft Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 1, 2017
Page | 31
Site Access and On-Site Circulation
The site access and on-site circulation evaluation is based on the November 10, 2017 site plans
prepared by BDE Architecture (Figures 10A and 10B).
Site Access
Project trips that would be generated at driveways on Miller Avenue and Tamarack Lane based on
the trip generation estimates in Table 4 are shown on Figure 11. As shown on Figure 11, at the
Miller Avenue driveway the project would generate a total of 8 inbound and 32 outbound trips during
the AM peak hour and 33 inbound and 17 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. At the Tamarack
Avenue driveway, the project would generate a total of 12 inbound and 48 outbound trips during the
AM peak hour and 49 inbound and 26 outbound trips during the PM peak hour.
Vehicular access to the building would be provided via a full access driveway on Miller Avenue and
a driveway on Tamarack Lane. The driveway on Miller Avenue would provide access to level 1 of
the parking garage, and the driveway on Tamarack Lane would provide access to level 2 of the
parking garage. As Tamarack Lane is a one-way designated street in the westbound direction,
vehicles would only be able to make a left-turn in and left-turn out of the project via Tamarack Lane.
The two parking levels are not shown to be connected. Providing no connection between the two
parking levels should not pose a problem, as long as all resident parking is assigned. If parking is
not assigned, then some vehicle circulation would need to occur between the two parking levels via
Cypress Avenue and Linden Avenue. A total of 230 parking spaces would be provided within the
two parking levels (94 spaces on level 1 and 136 spaces on level 2).
The site plan shows that both the driveways measure 20 feet wide, which would be adequate for
vehicle ingress and egress for residential development.
Sight Distance at the Project Driveways
In general, the project driveways should be free and clear of any obstructions to optimize sight
distance. Providing the appropriate sight distance reduces the likelihood of a collision at a driveway
or intersection, and provides drivers with the ability to exit a driveway or locate sufficient gaps in
traffic. Sight distance generally should be provided in accordance with Caltrans standards. The
minimum acceptable sight distance is often considered the Caltrans stopping sight distance. Sight
distance requirements vary depending on the roadway speeds. For driveways on Miller Avenue and
Tamarack Lane, which have a posted speed limit of 25 mph in the study area, the Caltrans stopping
sight distance is 150 feet. Thus, a driver must be able to see 150 feet down Miller Avenue and
Tamarack Lane in order to stop and avoid a collision.
Hexagon recommends that standard no parking zones be established adjacent to the project
driveways to ensure that exiting vehicles can see pedestrians on the sidewalk, as well as vehicles
on the road. Any landscaping and signage should be located in such a way to ensure an
unobstructed view for drivers exiting the site. Since the site plan shows no building set-backs, it is
recommended that a pedestrian warning system be installed at the driveways to alert pedestrians
when a vehicle is exiting the project.
On-Site Circulation
On-site vehicular circulation was reviewed in accordance with City of South San Francisco Zoning
Ordinance and generally accepted traffic engineering standards.
All parking garage levels would contain 90-degree parking. The City’s standard width for two-way
drive aisles is 25 feet where 90-degree parking is provided. This allows sufficient room for vehicles
to back out of parking spaces. According to the site plan, the drive aisles on both parking levels
measure 24 feet wide. Based on generally accepted traffic engineering standards, a two-way drive
Miller Cypress Residential Phase 2 Draft Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 1, 2017
Page | 32
aisle that is 24 feet wide would be adequate for vehicles to maneuver in and out of the 90-degree
parking stalls. Other neighboring cities have allowed two-way drive aisles less than 25 feet. Since
the City of South San Francisco evaluates each project design on a case-by-case basis, the project
applicant should coordinate with City staff to determine if the proposed drive aisle widths are
acceptable to serve the project. Overall, vehicular circulation on all parking garage levels would be
adequate.
The site plan shows dead-end drive aisles on both parking levels. In general, dead-end aisles can
be problematic if they contain unassigned parking spaces, since drivers can enter the aisle and
upon discovering that there is no available parking must either back out or conduct three-point
maneuvers. Dead-end aisles typically are less problematic and would not create any on-site
circulation issues as long as the parking spaces are assigned to residents. Adequate space should
be provided at the end of all dead-end parking aisles adjacent to the last parking stall to enable
vehicles to back out of these stalls.
Truck Access
Garbage truck access would occur via Tamarack Lane. The site plan shows that the trash
enclosure would be located adjacent to the staircase on the west end of the building along
Tamarack Lane. The maintenance staff would roll out the garbage bins during garbage collection
times so that garbage truck access can occur along Tamarack Lane.
The site plan does not show any on-site loading zones. The project should provide a designated
area along the project frontage for moving/delivery trucks. Fire and emergency access to the
building would occur from the streets fronting the project.
Pedestrian Access and Circulation
The project is well situated to take advantage of the existing and planned pedestrian, bicycle, and
transit services in the immediate vicinity. These services would allow project residents to access
employment and many services without a car. The new Caltrain station connections will allow easy
access to transit services and will also provide a good bicycle connection to the employment zone
to the east. There are also many planned new bike lanes in the vicinity. The project will construct
new sidewalks along its frontages on Miller Avenue, Tamarack Lane and Cypress Avenue.
Pedestrians can access the project site to/from other parts of the downtown via existing sidewalks
and cross-walks at signalized intersections.
Figure 10A
Parking Level 1 (Miller Avenue Access)
Miller Cypress Residential Phase 2 Traffic Study - South San Francisco, CA
MILLER AVENUE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
TAMARACK LANE
23.0' +/-
24
.0' +/-
32
.0' +/-
31.0' +/-
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
9'-0" X 18'-0"
1
24
'
-
0
"
TY
P
.
32'31'30'29'24'25'26'27'28'
31'30'29'23'24'25'26'27'28'
33'
33'
30'
27.5'
ROOM #1
--
TRANSFORMER
TERMINATION
--
TRASH
18
.5
%
9.2
5
%
LOBBY
--
6%
UP
DN
ELEC. #1
--
MAIL
--
ROOM #2
--
TRANSFORMER
ELEC. #2
--
UP DN
A11NO:
JR 1 BDRM
- S.F.
TYPE:A11NO:
JR 1 BDRM
- S.F.
TYPE:
33'
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
9'-0" X 18'-0"
1
UPDN
A9
A1
0
A8
A8
A8
TERMINATION
--
TRASH
33'
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
UP
S5NO:
STUDIO
- S.F.
TYPE:A11NO:
JR 1 BDRM
- S.F.
TYPE:A11NO:
JR 1 BDRM
- S.F.
TYPE:
VACANT MILLER AVE PARKING LOTS, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA A2.02a11.10.2017
FLOOR 2 PLAN - PHASE 2
0 248416
Figure 10B
Parking Level 2 (Tamarack Lane Access)
MILLER AVENUE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
TAMARACK LANE
23.0' +/-
24
.0' +/-
32
.0' +/-
31.0' +/-
44'
32'31'30'29'24'25'26'27'28'
31'30'29'23'24'25'26'27'28'
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
9'-0" X 18'-0"
1
9'-0" X 18'-0"
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
24
'
-
0
"
TY
P
.
18
.5
%
9.2
5
%
UP DN
UP
DN
9.2
5
%
44'
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-6" X 16'-0"
COMPACT
1
8'-
6
"
X
1
6
'
-
0
"
CO
M
P
A
C
T
1
8'-
6
"
X
1
6
'
-
0
"
CO
M
P
A
C
T
1
8'-
6
"
X
1
6
'
-
0
"
CO
M
P
A
C
T
1
8'-
6
"
X
1
6
'
-
0
"
CO
M
P
A
C
T
1
8'-
6
"
X
1
6
'
-
0
"
CO
M
P
A
C
T
1
8'-
6
"
X
1
6
'
-
0
"
CO
M
P
A
C
T
1
8'-
6
"
X
1
6
'
-
0
"
CO
M
P
A
C
T
1
8'-
6
"
X
1
6
'
-
0
"
CO
M
P
A
C
T
1
8'-
6
"
X
1
6
'
-
0
"
CO
M
P
A
C
T
1
8'-
6
"
X
1
6
'
-
0
"
CO
M
P
A
C
T
1
8'-
6
"
X
1
6
'
-
0
"
CO
M
P
A
C
T
1
8'-
6
"
X
1
6
'
-
0
"
CO
M
P
A
C
T
1
8'-
6
"
X
1
6
'
-
0
"
CO
M
P
A
C
T
1
8'-
6
"
X
1
6
'
-
0
"
CO
M
P
A
C
T
1
8'-
6
"
X
1
6
'
-
0
"
CO
M
P
A
C
T
1
8'-
6
"
X
1
6
'
-
0
"
CO
M
P
A
C
T
1
9'-0" X 18'-0"
1
9'-0" X 18'-0"
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
UPDN
RES. STORAGE
--
LOUNGE
--
ROOM
--
MECH. VENT.
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
8'-6" X 18'-0"
STANDARD
1
DN GYM
--
VACANT MILLER AVE PARKING LOTS, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA A2.03a11.10.2017
FLOOR 3 PLAN - PHASE 2
0 248416
Miller Cypress Residential Phase 2 Traffic Study - South San Francisco, CA
Miller Cypress Residential Phase 2 Draft Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 1, 2017
Page | 36
Parking
Calculation of Vehicular Parking Requirement
The proposed project is located within the downtown area. Parking analysis for the proposed
project was based on the parking requirement consistent with the City of South Francisco Parking
Ordinance (20.330.007 - Downtown Parking). Parking requirements for the proposed project were
calculated based on the following parking ratios for multi-family dwelling units:
Studio and less than 500 sq ft – 1 space per unit maximum.
One-bedroom or 500 to 800 sq ft - 1 space minimum, 1.5 spaces maximum per unit.
Two-bedroom or 801 to 1,100 sq ft - 1.5 spaces minimum, 1.8 spaces maximum per unit.
Three or more bedrooms and 1,101 sq ft or larger – 1.5 spaces minimum, 2 spaces
maximum per unit.
The general requirement for multi-unit residential parking calls for one covered space for each unit.
As shown on the site plans, the project would provide a total of 230 covered parking spaces within
two parking levels. The unit mix for the proposed project consists of 25 studio units, 102 1-bedroom
units, 64 2-bedroom units and 5 three bedroom units. Based on the parking requirement for the
downtown district, the project should provide a minimum of 226 spaces (25 studios x 1 parking
space, 102 1-bedroom units x 1 parking space, 64 2-bedroom units x 1.5 spaces, 5 3-bedroom
units x 1.5 spaces). The project would provide an adequate number of parking spaces on site.
Parking Dimensions
Based on the site plan, the proposed parking would consist of the following mix of standard,
compact, tandem and ADA (American Disability Act) compliant parking stalls.
73 Compact spaces measuring 8.5 feet by 16 feet.
91 Standard spaces measuring 8.5 feet by 18 feet.
8 Tandem bays measuring 8.5 feet by 36 feet that would accommodate 16 compact size
vehicles.
22 Tandem bays measuring 8.5 feet by 40 feet that would accommodate 44 standard size
vehicles.
6 ADA compliant spaces.
It is noted that the parking requirement of the zoning ordinance does not provide any guidelines for
compact spaces. The site plan shows that the compact spaces would have a dimension of 8.5 feet
wide by 16 feet depth. Within the parking industry, compact spaces are typically specified to be 7.5
feet wide and 15 feet long. Therefore, the proposed compact spaces are larger than typical
compact spaces but not as large as standard spaces. In Hexagon’s experience, compact ratios of
up to 40% are workable and commonly allowed in many zoning ordinances. Therefore, Hexagon
believes that having 89 compact spaces (including the 16 compact spaces in the 8 tandem bays)
out of 230 total spaces will work. It is recommended that these spaces be marked as compact
spaces.
The site plan shows a total of 60 tandem parking spaces. The site plan shows that 8 tandem bays
would accommodate two compact vehicles, one behind the other and 22 tandem bays would
accommodate two standard size vehicles in each tandem bay. The parking code requires that the
tandem parking bay measures a minimum of 10 feet by 40 feet. The site plan shows that all tandem
bays measure 8.5 feet wide, which does not meet the code. The compact tandem bays are shown
Miller Cypress Residential Phase 2 Draft Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 1, 2017
Page | 37
to measure 36 feet in depth and the standard tandem bays are shown to measure 40 feet in depth.
The dimension of the parking bays should be adequate provided the compact tandem bays are
assigned to residents with two compact vehicles. The parking code also requires that both the
spaces in the tandem parking bay be assigned to a single dwelling unit. The parking code requires
that where tandem parking spaces are provided, the total number of tandem parking spaces should
be less than 50% of the total required parking spaces. The total number of tandem parking spaces
is 60 parking spaces, which calculates to 26% of the total required parking spaces and meets the
code.
Calculation of Bicycle Parking Spaces
The site plan shows that bicycle parking would be located on the first floor. Bicycle parking should
be provided based on the following criteria from the zoning ordinance.
Short-term bicycle parking spaces shall be provided at a rate of 10 percent of the
number of required automobile parking spaces
A minimum of one long term bicycle parking space shall be provided for every four
units for multi-unit residential and group residential projects
The site plan does not show the number of bicycle parking spaces that would be provided on site.
Based on the zoning ordinance, the project would require 23 short term bicycle parking spaces and
49 long term bicycle parking spaces.
Conclusions
The potential impacts of the project were evaluated in accordance with the standards set forth by
the City of South San Francisco and consistent with the analysis methodologies presented in the
DSASP EIR. The study included the analysis of AM and PM peak hour traffic operations for 11
signalized intersections, for which mitigations were identified in the DSASP EIR. Project impacts on
other transportation facilities, such as bicycle facilities and transit service, were determined on the
basis of engineering judgment.
The analysis of traffic operations under existing and background conditions showed that the project
would not cause any significant impacts at any of the study intersections.
The project would not have an adverse effect on existing transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities in
the study area.
A review of the site plans for the proposed project showed that adequate circulation would be
provided on site. The site plan does not show a loading zone. The project should provide a
designated area along the project frontage for moving/delivery trucks and also for emergency/fire
access in accordance with the requirements of the zoning ordinance.
The project would provide adequate parking on site. Where tandem parking spaces are provided,
the parking code requires that the total number of tandem parking spaces should be less than 50%
of the total required parking spaces. The total number of tandem parking spaces is less than 50% of
the total required parking spaces, thus meeting the parking code. The compact parking spaces
would not be problematic and should be marked as compact spaces.
A review of the parking stall dimensions showed that the tandem parking spaces do not meet the
code. The code requires that where tandem parking spaces are provided, the tandem parking bay
should measure at least 10 feet by 40 feet. The tandem parking bays shown on the site plans
measure 8.5 feet by 36 feet and 8.5 feet by 40 feet. These dimensions would be adequate provided
the shorter tandem bays are assigned to residents with two compact vehicles.
Miller Cypress Residential Phase 2 Draft Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA December 1, 2017
Page | 38
The project should provide 23 short-term bicycle parking spaces and 49 long-term bicycle parking
spaces in order to satisfy the bicycle parking requirements of the zoning ordinance.
Memorandum
Date: March 21, 2018
To: Mr. Ken Busch, Sares Regis
From: Trisha Dudala
Subject: Miller Cypress Phase 2 – Response to Comments
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. received comments dated March 8, 2018 on the traffic
impact analysis prepared for the Miller Cypress Residential Phase 2 in South San Francisco,
California. Our responses are shown below in red under each comment.
1. Page 6 - Where did the 2% come from? Should it not be based on just the LOS dropping?
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP) EIR dated October 2014, Chapter 4.10
Transportation/Traffic, Intersection Impact Criteria, Page 39
2. Page 12 – Should the LOS be based on the individual movements, not the average?
The LOS policy guidelines are based on the total average delay at the intersection and not based
on delay associated with individual turning movements. The delay and LOS analysis is based on
the HCM 2000 methodology and is consistent with the traffic impact analysis prepared for the
DSASP EIR.
3. Page 28 – Where did this 2% threshold come from?
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP) EIR dated October 2014, Chapter 4.10
Transportation/Traffic, Intersection Impact Criteria, Page 39.
.
4. Page 31 – Turning movements are very tight. Have the developer speak to the turning
movements. It appears that if cars are going in different directions, there would have to be
yield control as it won't fit side by side. Also, what size vehicle are they showing the
AutoTurns for? It appears the vehicles have to perform multiple steps to fit in parking stalls,
etc.
The turn templates represent a conservative approach with regard to characteristics such as vehicle
dimensions, degree of wheel turning, vehicle path, etc.. The proposed 24 foot drive aisles within the
parking garage would be adequate to allow maneuvering and circulation of a passenger vehicle. It
is possible that if a vehicle from each direction approaches the east end of the parking garage that
one vehicle would have to yield to the other. However, this is typical of parking
garage/parking lot operations and would not have an adverse effect on the operations of the
proposed parking garage.
The turning templates for the passenger vehicle class (as presented in the AASHTO green book) as
well as parking maneuvers for a regular cab Ford Ranger and a Toyota Corolla were evaluated.
The parking maneuvers for the Ford Ranger and Toyota Corolla are provided to show that a light-
truck/SUV and a compact car can adequately maneuver in to/out of a compact parking space. The
Miller Cypress Phase 2 – Response to Comments March 21, 2018
Page | 2
passenger vehicle car is provided in order to show that passenger vehicles of all sizes (sport/utility
vehicles, minivans, vans, and pick-up trucks) can adequately maneuver throughout the parking
garage.
5. Page 31 – 20' for one way traffic. 25' for two way traffic.
The site plan shows that both the driveways on Miller Avenue and Tamarack Lane measure 20
feet wide. These driveways provide access to ramps measuring 160 to 180 feet long and
connect to the parking aisles that measure 24 feet wide. Since vehicles will be traveling in a
straight path on these ramps, Hexagon believes that the proposed 20 feet wide opening will
provide enough space for two cars to pass. Some cities allow a minimum width of 20 feet for
two-way driveways to residential parking garages to minimize driveway width for pedestrians.
6. Page 36 – City of South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.330 to develop parking
lot layout standards used in the parking lot concepts.
The zoning ordinance does not provide guidelines for compact spaces. The proposed compact
spaces are larger than typical compact spaces but not as large as standard spaces. In
Hexagon’s experience, compact ratios of up to 30% are workable and commonly allowed in
many zoning ordinances. It is recommended that the compact spaces should be marked and
assigned to residents with smaller cars.
7. Page 37 - Loading zone needs to be identified.
The applicant will coordinate with the City to identify the location for a loading zone along Miller
Avenue along the project frontage.
8. Page 37 - All parking stalls should meet city standards.
The zoning ordinance does not provide guidelines for compact spaces. The proposed compact
spaces are larger than typical compact spaces but not as large as standard spaces. In
Hexagon’s experience, compact ratios of up to 30% are workable and commonly allowed in
many zoning ordinances. It is recommended that the compact spaces should be marked and
assigned to residents with smaller cars.
January 8, 2018
Project No 49-069
Mr. Ken Busch
Regis Homes
901 Mariners Island Boulevard
Suite 700
San Mateo, CA 94404
Subject: Noise Assessment Study for the Planned “Cadence 2” Multi-Family
Development, Miller Avenue, South San Francisco
Dear Mr. Busch:
This report presents the results of a noise assessment study for the planned “Cadence 2”
multi-family development along Miller Avenue and Cypress Avenue in South San
Francisco, as shown on the Site Plan, Ref. (a). The noise exposures at the site were
evaluated against the standards of the City of South San Francisco Noise Element, Ref.
(b), and the State of California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Ref. (c), which applies to
all new multi-family housing. The analysis of the on-site sound level measurements
indicates that the existing noise environment is due primarily to traffic sources on
Highway 101, Airport Boulevard and Miller Avenue. Aircraft operations at San
Francisco International Airport do not significantly impact the site. The results of the
study indicate that the exterior noise exposures at the site exceed the limits of the City of
South San Francisco Noise Element. Noise mitigation for the exterior areas will be
required. The interior noise exposures will exceed the limits of the standards of Title 24.
Noise mitigation measures for interior living spaces will be required.
Sections I and II of this report contain a summary of our findings and recommendations,
respectively. Subsequent sections contain the site, noise source, and project descriptions,
analyses, and evaluations. Attached hereto are Appendices A, B, and C, which include
the list of references, descriptions of the applicable standards, definitions of the
terminology, descriptions of the acoustical instrumentation used for the field survey,
general building shell controls and the on-site noise measurement data and calculation
tables.
EDWARD L. PACK ASSOCIATES, INC.
1975 HAMILTON AVENUE Acoustical Consultants TEL: 408-371-1195
SUITE 26 FAX: 408-371-1196
SAN JOSE, CA 95125 www.packassociates.com
- 2 -
I. Summary of Findings
The noise assessment results presented in the findings were evaluated against the
standards of the City of South San Francisco Noise Element, which utilizes the
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) descriptor. The Noise Element limits the
exterior noise exposures at residential uses to 65 decibels (dB) CNEL. No interior noise
exposure limits for noise sources other than aircraft are specified.
The Title 24 standards also use the CNEL descriptor and specify that when the
exterior noise exposures exceed 60 dB CNEL at planned multi-family dwelling units an
acoustical analysis must be performed to limit interior noise exposures to 45 dB CNEL or
less.
The Title 24 standards also specify minimum sound insulation ratings for
common partitions separating different dwelling units and dwelling units from interior
common spaces, such as corridors and retail spaces. The standards specify that common
walls and floor/ceiling assemblies must have a design Sound Transmission Class (STC)
rating of 50 or higher. In addition, common floor/ceiling assemblies must have a design
Impact Insulation Class (IIC) rating of 50 or higher. As design details for the interior
partitions of the project were not available at the time of this study, an evaluation of the
interior partitions has not been made.
- 3 -
A. Exterior Noise Exposures
The noise levels shown below are without the application of mitigation measures
and represent the noise environment for existing and project site conditions. The noise
exposures also include the noise reduction provided by Cadence Phase 1 buildings under
construction interposed between the project site and Airport Boulevard/Highway 101.
The existing exterior noise exposures at the most impacted planned
building setback from Highway 101 (400 ft. from the centerline),
Airport Boulevard (247 ft. from the centerline) and Miller Avenue
(40 to 100 ft. from the centerline) range from 60 to 62 dB CNEL at
the first and second floors, 61 to 63 dB CNEL at the third and
fourth floors, 62 to 64 dB CNEL at the fifth and sixth floors, 63 to
65 dB CNEL at the seventh floor and 64 to 66 dB CNEL at the
eight floor. Under future traffic conditions, the noise exposures are
expected to increase to 61 to 63 dB CNEL at the first and second
floors, 62 to 64 dB CNEL at the third and fourth floors, 63 to 65
dB CNEL at the fifth and sixth floors, 64 to 66 dB CNEL at the
seventh floor and 65 to 67 dB CNEL at the eight floor.
The existing exterior noise exposures at the most impacted planned
building setback from Miller Avenue (40 ft. from the centerline)
range from 68 to 69 dB CNEL at the first and second floors, 69 to
70 dB CNEL at the third and fourth floors, 70 to 71 dB CNEL at
the fifth and sixth floors, 71 to 72 dB CNEL at the seventh floor
and 72 to 73 dB CNEL at the eight floor. Under future traffic
conditions, the noise exposures are expected to increase to 69 to 70
dB CNEL at the first and second floors, 70 to 71 dB CNEL at the
third and fourth floors, 71 to 72 dB CNEL at the fifth and sixth
floors, 72 to 73 dB CNEL at the seventh floor and 73 to 74 dB
CNEL at the eight floor.
- 4 -
There are no exterior living areas or fenestrations on the westerly
end of the building.
The existing exterior noise exposures at the most impacted planned
building setback facing Tamarack Lane range from 54 to 56 dB
CNEL at the first through fourth floors, 55 to 57 dB CNEL at the
fifth through seventh floors and 56 to 58 dB CNEL at the eight
floor. Under future traffic conditions, the noise exposures are
expected to increase to 55 to 57 dB CNEL at the first through
fourth floors, 56 to 58 dB CNEL at the fifth through seventh floors
and 57 to 59 dB CNEL at the eighth floor.
The exterior noise exposures in the most noise impacted area of the
easterly landscaped podium area (common open space) will be up
to 70 dB CNEL. Under future traffic conditions, the noise
exposure is expected to increase to 71 dB CNEL.
The exterior noise exposures in the most noise impacted area of the
westerly landscaped podium area (common open space) will be up
to 69 dB CNEL. Under future traffic conditions, the noise
exposure is expected to increase to 70 dB CNEL.
The noise exposures in the common areas will be up to 6 dB in excess of the 65
dB CNEL limit of the City of South San Francisco Noise Element standards. Noise
mitigation measures for the exterior areas will be required.
The exterior noise exposures exceed the 60 dB CNEL criterion of Title 24 for the
requirement of an acoustical analysis. This study is intended to satisfy that requirement.
Figure 1 on page 5 provides a graphic of the exterior noise exposures around the
building.
- 5 -
- 6 -
B. Interior Noise Exposures
The interior noise exposures at the most impacted planned living
spaces facing east will be up to 45 to 47 dB CNEL at the first and
second floors, 46 to 48 dB CNEL at the third and fourth floors, 47
to 49 dB CNEL at the fifth and sixth floors, 48 to 50 dB CNEL at
the seventh floor and 49 to 51 dB CNEL at the eight floor. Under
future traffic conditions, the noise exposures are expected to
increase to 46 to 48 dB CNEL at the first and second floors, 47 to
49 dB CNEL at the third and fourth floors, 48 to 50 dB CNEL at
the fifth and sixth floors, 49 to 51 dB CNEL at the seventh floor
and 50 to 52 dB CNEL at the eight floor.
The interior noise exposures at the most impacted planned living
spaces facing Miller Avenue will be up to 53 to 54 dB CNEL at the
first and second floors, 54 to 55 dB CNEL at the third and fourth
floors, 55 to 56 dB CNEL at the fifth and sixth floors, 56 to 57 dB
CNEL at the seventh floor and 57 to 58 dB CNEL at the eight
floor. Under future traffic conditions, the noise exposures are
expected to increase to 54 to 55 dB CNEL at the first and second
floors, 55 to 56 dB CNEL at the third and fourth floors, 56 to 57
dB CNEL at the fifth and sixth floors, 57 to 58 dB CNEL at the
seventh floor and 58 to 59 dB CNEL at the eight floor.
- 7 -
The interior noise exposures at the most impacted planned living
spaces facing Tamarack Lane will be up to 39 to 41 dB CNEL at
the first through fourth floors, 40 to 42 dB CNEL at the fifth
through seventh floors and 41 to 43 dB CNEL at the eighth floor.
Under future traffic conditions, the noise exposures are expected to
increase to 40 to 42 dB CNEL at the first through fourth floors, 41
to 43 dB CNEL at the fifth through seventh floors and 42 to 44 dB
CNEL at the eighth floor.
The interior noise exposures will exceed the 45 dB CNEL limit of Title 24. Noise
mitigation measures for noise impacted interior living spaces will be required. The
recommended measures are described in Section II.
Figure 2 on page 7 provides a graphic of the interior noise exposures in the living
spaces around the building.
- 8 -
- 9 -
II. Recommendations
A. Exterior Noise Control
To comply with the 65 dB CNEL limit of the City of South San Francisco Noise
Element at the landscaped podium areas, the following noise control measures will be
required:
Construct 42” acoustically-effective railings at the southerly edges
of both landscaped podium areas. The railings shall connect air
tight to the building at each end. The railing height is in reference
to the nearest podium floor elevation.
Please see Figure 3 for the locations of the recommended noise
control podium railings.
- 10 -
- 11 -
To achieve an acoustically-effective podium railing, it must be constructed air-
tight, i.e., without cracks, gaps or other openings, and must provide for long term
durability. The railing can be constructed of concrete, masonry, wood, stucco, metal or a
combination thereof, and must have a minimum surface weight of 1.5 lbs./sq. ft. If wood
is used, homogeneous sheet materials are preferable over conventional wood fencing as
the latter has a tendency to warp and form openings with age. However, high quality air-
tight tongue-and-groove, board and batten or shiplap construction can be used. Glass,
Lexan, Plexiglas or other translucent materials may be incorporated into the railing to
provide light and views. Clear materials must have a minimum thickness of 3/16” to
meet the minimum surface weight requirement. All connections with posts and pilasters
must be sealed air-tight. Downspouts and scuppers are preferable over sheet draining.
No openings are permitted between the upper railing components and the podium deck.
B. Interior Noise Control
To achieve compliance with the 45 dB CNEL limit of the Title 24, the following
window controls will be required. In addition, general building shell controls are also
recommended, as described in Appendix B.
Maintain closed at all times, all windows and glass doors of living
spaces on all floor facing west, south or into the landscaped
podium areas at all floors with the exception the floor living spaces
viewing into the podiums that are tucked back, as shown on Figure
3. Install windows and glass doors rated minimum Sound
Transmission Class (STC) 31 to 34 at the noise impacted living
spaces on the outer periphery of the project directly facing Miller
Avenue. Install windows and glass doors rated minimum STC 28
to 31 at all other noise impacted spaces.
Provide some type of mechanical ventilation for all living spaces
with a closed window condition.
- 12 -
When windows are maintained closed for noise control, some form of mechanical
ventilation which brings in fresh air from the outside of the unit should be provided to
conform to Mechanical Code requirements. The windows specified above to be
maintained closed are to be operable as the requirement does not imply a “fixed”
condition.
To ensure that the sound insulation features of project windows will be
maintained, the window frames at impacted living spaces must be caulked to the wall
opening around their entire perimeter with an acoustical sealant. The sliding window
panels must form an air-tight seal with the frame when in the closed position. All other
windows of the development and all bathroom windows may use any type of glazing and
may be kept open as desired with the exception of bathroom windows that are an integral
part of a living space and not separated by a closeable door.
Please be aware that many dual-pane window assemblies have inherent noise
reduction problems in the traffic noise frequency spectrum due to resonance that occurs
within the air space between the window lites, and the noise reduction capabilities vary
from manufacturer to manufacturer. Therefore, the acoustical test report of all sound
rated windows should be reviewed by a qualified acoustician to ensure that the chosen
windows will adequately reduce traffic noise to acceptable levels.
The use of the above recommended windows will reduce interior noise exposures
to 45 dB DNL or lower.
- 13 -
- 14 -
III. Site, Traffic and Project Descriptions
The planned development site is located along Miller Avenue between Cypress
Street and Linden Avenue and is approximately at-grade with Airport Boulevard, Miller
Avenue and Cypress Avenue. Highway 101 ranges from 5 ft. to 20 ft. above the site.
Highway 101 turns to the east away from the sites as it crosses over Grand Avenue to the
south. The site currently contains one and two story commercial buildings, a parking lot
and a staging area for the Cadence 1 development. Surrounding land uses include the
Cadence 1 development under construction to the east, professional/medical offices
across Miller Avenue to the south, commercial buildings adjacent to the west and a
restaurant, parking lot and multi-family housing across Tamarack Lane to the north.
The primary sources of noise at the site are traffic on Highway 101, Airport
Boulevard and Miller Avenue. Highway 101 carried a 2016 Average Daily Traffic
(ADT) volume of 204,000 vehicles, as reported by CalTrans, Ref. (d).
Airport Boulevard carries an ADT (2010) of 25,528 vehicles, as reported by the
City of South San Francisco, Ref. (e). This vehicle count is the most recent available.
Traffic volume data for Miller Avenue were not available.
The site is located at the approximate 53 dB CNEL noise contour of the 2019 San
Francisco International Airport Noise Exposure Map, Ref. (f). Note that the airport noise
contour maps only go as low as 65 dB CNEL. The noise contour over the site was
extrapolated from the 75, 70 and 65 dB CNEL noise contours provided on the maps.
The planned project includes the construction 101 multi-family dwelling units in
one eight story building. Due to the slope of the land, the building will be seven stories at
the westerly end. The first floor will contain storage, building services rooms and
utilities, the lobby and five 2-story townhouse style units. The second floor will contain
parking, the second floors of the townhouse style units and flats along Miller Avenue.
The third floor will contain parking, the gym and lounge. Floors 4-8 will be all
residential units atop a podium. Ingress and egress to the project will be by way of the
garage entrance off of Tamarack Lane. The Site Plan is shown on Figure 5 on the
following page.
- 15 -
FIGURE 5 – Site Plan
- 16 -
IV. Analysis of the Noise Levels
A. Existing Noise Levels
To determine the existing noise environment at the site, continuous recordings of
the sound levels were made at three locations for the combined Cadence project.
Location 1 was on the roof of the former Ford Dealership service building (35 ft. above
grade), 204 ft. from the centerline of Highway 101 and 57 ft. from the centerline of
Airport Boulevard, corresponding to the planned minimum setback distance of the
planned Cadence 1 building from the roadways.
Location 2 was 33 ft. from the centerline of Miller Avenue, 345 ft. from the
centerline of Highway 101 and 175 ft. from the centerline of Airport Boulevard. This
location was 15 ft. above grade near the intersection of Cypress Avenue.
Location 3 was on subject parcel 38 ft. from the centerline of Miller Avenue, 680
ft. from the centerline of Highway 101 and 480 ft. from the centerline of Airport
Boulevard. This location was 14 ft. above grade.
The measurement locations are shown on Figure 6 on page 15.
The measurements were made on June 8-9, 2015 for a continuous period of 24
hours. The noise level data were acquired using Larson-Davis LDL 812 Precision
Integrating Sound Level Meters, which yield, by direct readout, a series of descriptors of
the sound levels versus time. These descriptors are commonly used to describe
community noise, as described in Appendix B. The results of the measurements are
shown in the data table in Appendix C. The measured descriptors include the L1, L10, L50,
and L90, i.e., those levels exceeded 1%, 10%, 50% and 90% of the time. Also measured
were the maximum and minimum levels and the continuous equivalent-energy levels
(Leq), which are used to calculate the CNEL.
- 17 -
FIGURE 6- Noise Measurement Locations
As shown in the data tables, the Leq’s at measurement Location 1 ranged from
67.0 to 74.9 dBA during the daytime, from 68.0 to 68.6 dBA during the evening and from
62.7 to 70.9 dBA at night.
At measurement Location 2, the Leq’s ranged from 62.7 to 68.0 dBA during the
daytime, from 63.8 to 65.7 dBA during the evening and from 55.3 to 63.7 dBA at night.
At measurement Location 3, the Leq’s ranged from 60.5 to 64.6 dBA during the
daytime, from 59.9 to 60.3 dBA during the evening and from 51.9 to 60.3 dBA at night.
Traffic noise dissipates at the rate of 3 to 6 dB for each doubling of the distance
from the source (centerline of the roadway) to the receiver. Thus, other locations on the
site at greater distances from Highway 101, Airport Boulevard or Miller Avenue will
have lower noise levels.
- 18 -
B. Future Noise Levels
Future traffic volume data were not available from either CalTrans or the City of
South San Francisco.
To estimate the future Highway 101 traffic volume, an annual average growth rate
was calculated for the past 20 years of traffic volume. The 1996 traffic volume was
reported to be 204,000 vehicles ADT, Ref. (g). The existing (2016) traffic volume is
232,000 vehicles ADT. The annual average growth rate over those 20 years was
calculated to be 0.65% per year. Applying this growth rate to the future 20 years, the
traffic volume for 2036 was calculated to be 263,843 vehicles ADT. This increase in
traffic volume yields a 1 dB increase in the Highway 101 traffic noise levels.
Similarly, a review of historical traffic counts for Airport Boulevard was made
from the information provided by the City of South San Francisco. The 1995 traffic
volume was 32,106 vehicles ADT. The 2010 traffic volume was 25,528 vehicles ADT.
As the traffic volumes have decreased slightly over that 15 year period, we expect that the
future traffic volumes will not increase by more than 15%, which is what is necessary to
increase the traffic noise levels by 1 decibel. Therefore, for the purposes of this study, we
are estimating that the future Airport Boulevard traffic noise levels will remain similar to
current levels.
Due to the buildout of the area, we estimate that the traffic volumes on Miller
Avenue will also remain similar to current levels, with no appreciable increase in the
traffic noise levels.
- 19 -
IV. Evaluations of the Noise Exposures
A. Exterior Noise Exposures
To evaluate the on-site noise exposures against the City of South San Francisco
standards, the CNEL’s for the survey locations were calculated by decibel averaging of
the Leq's as they apply to the daily time periods of the CNEL index. The CNEL is a 24-
hour noise descriptor that uses the measured Leq values to calculate a 24-hour time-
weighted average noise exposure that includes a 5 decibel penalty for noise created during
the evening hours and a 10 decibel penalty for noise created during the nighttime hours.
The formula used to calculate the CNEL is described in Appendix B.
The noise exposure at measurement Location 1, 204 ft. from the centerline of
Highway 101 and 57 ft. from the centerline of Airport Boulevard was calculated to be 75
dB CNEL. Computer modeling of the Highway 101 traffic noise and Airport Boulevard
traffic noise revealed that Highway 101 generates a noise exposure of 74 dB CNEL and
Airport Boulevard generates a noise exposure of 67 dB CNEL. The combined noise
exposure is 75 dB CNEL, which corresponds to the on-site noise measurement data.
The future Highway 101 traffic noise levels are expected to increase by 1 dB to 75
dB CNEL. The future combined noise exposure is expected to be 76 dB CNEL.
At measurement Location 2, 345 ft. from the centerline of Highway 101, 175 ft.
from the centerline of Airport Boulevard and 33 ft. from the centerline of Miller Avenue,
the noise exposure was calculated to be 68 dB CNEL. At this location, Highway 101
traffic noise reduces to 65 dB CNEL, Airport Boulevard traffic noise reduces to 57 dB
CNEL, yielding a noise exposure from Miller Avenue traffic of 64 dB CNEL. Although
Highway 101 traffic noise is expected to increase by 1 dB to 66 dB CNEL, the combined
future noise exposure will remain at 68 dB CNEL.
- 20 -
At measurement Location 3, 680 ft. from the centerline of Highway 101, 515 ft.
from the centerline of Airport Boulevard and 38 ft. from the centerline of Miller Avenue,
the noise exposure was calculated to be 65 dB CNEL. At this location, Highway 101
traffic noise reduces to 60 dB CNEL, Airport Boulevard traffic noise reduces to 49 dB
CNEL, yielding noise exposure from Miller Avenue traffic of 64 dB CNEL.
Highway 101 traffic noise is expected to increase by 1 dB to 61 dB CNEL
resulting in a combined future noise exposure of 66 dB CNEL near the center of the
building along Miller Avenue.
The noise data acquired on the site and near the site were segregated for each
different source (roadway) and adjusted, as necessary, to account for exposure to the
source, distance and the noise barrier effect of interposed buildings, primarily the
Cadence 1 buildings currently under construction between Cypress Avenue and Airport
Boulevard.
The exterior noise exposures at the easterly façade of the building facing Cypress
Avenue are 60-64 dB CNEL at first through eighth floors. Under future conditions, the
noise exposures are expected to increase to 61-65 dB CNEL at first through eighth floors.
The exterior noise exposures along the southerly façade of the building near the
easterly podium courtyard are 69 to73 dB CNEL at first through eighth floors. Under
future traffic conditions, the noise exposures are expected to increase to 70–74 dB CNEL
at first through eighth floors.
The exterior noise exposures along the southerly façade of the building near the
westerly podium courtyard are 68 to72 dB CNEL at second through eighth floors. Under
future traffic conditions, the noise exposures are expected to increase to 69 to 73 dB
CNEL at second through eighth floors.
The exterior noise exposures along the northerly façade of the building near the
west end of the building are 54 to 56 dB CNEL at second through eighth floors. Under
future traffic conditions, the noise exposures are expected to increase to 55 to 57 dB
CNEL at second through eighth floors.
- 21 -
The exterior noise exposures along the northerly façade of the building near the
east end of the building close to Cypress Avenue are 56 to 58 dB CNEL at first through
eighth floors. Under future traffic conditions, the noise exposures are expected to
increase to 57 to 59 dB CNEL at first through eighth floors.
In the easterly landscaped podium common area of the building, the noise
exposures were calculated to be up to 70 and 71 dB CNEL under existing and future
traffic conditions, respectively.
In the westerly landscaped podium common area of the building, the noise
exposures were calculated to be up to 69 and 70 dB CNEL under existing and future
traffic conditions, respectively. Thus, the noise exposure in the common areas will be up
to 6 dB in excess of the 65 dB CNEL limit of the City of South San Francisco Noise
Element standards.
As the exterior noise exposures will exceed the 65 dB CNEL limit of the City of
South San Francisco Noise Element standard for the common areas, noise mitigation
measures for the common exterior areas of the project will be required. The
recommended measures are described in Section II of this report.
B. Interior Noise Exposures
To evaluate the interior noise exposures in project living spaces against the
standards of Title 24, a 15 dB reduction was applied to the exterior noise exposure to
represent the attenuation provided by the building shell under annual-average conditions.
The annual-average condition assumes that windows have standard dual-pane thermal
insulating windows that are kept open up to 50 % of the time for natural ventilation.
The interior noise exposures in the most noise impacted living spaces of the
townhouse style units facing east toward Cypress Avenue will be up to 45 and 46 dB
CNEL under existing and future traffic conditions, respectively. Thus, the noise
exposures will be up to 1 dB in excess of the Title 24 standards.
- 22 -
The interior noise exposures in the living spaces of the upper floor (above the
podium) units facing Cypress Avenue will be up to 46 to 49 dB CNEL under existing
traffic conditions and up to 47 to 50 dB CNEL under future conditions. Thus, the noise
exposures will be up to 5 dB in excess of the Title 24 standards.
The interior noise exposures in the most noise impacted living spaces of the
second floor flats facing south toward Miller Avenue will be up to 53 to 54 dB CNEL
under existing traffic conditions and 54 to 55 dB CNEL under future traffic conditions.
Thus, the noise exposures will be up to 10 dB in excess of the Title 24 standards.
The interior noise exposures in the living spaces of the upper floor units facing
Miller Avenue will be up to 54 to 57 dB CNEL under existing traffic conditions and up to
55 to 58 dB CNEL under future conditions. Thus, the noise exposures will be up to 12
dB in excess of the Title 24 standards.
The interior noise exposures in the living spaces of the upper floor units facing
into the easterly podium common area beyond the first units closest to the edge of the
podium will be up to 42 to 44 dB CNEL at the fourth through eighth floors under existing
traffic conditions and up to 43 to 45 dB CNEL at the fourth through eighth floors under
future conditions. Thus, the noise exposures will be within the 45 dB CNEL limit of the
Title 24 standards.
The interior noise exposures in the living spaces of the upper floor units facing
into the westerly podium common area beyond the first units closest to the edge of the
podium will be up to 41 to 42 dB CNEL at the fourth through eighth floors under existing
traffic conditions and up to 42 to 43 dB CNEL at the fourth through eighth floors under
future conditions. Thus, the noise exposures will be within the 45 dB CNEL limit of the
Title 24 standards.
The interior noise exposures in the living spaces of the upper floor units facing
north toward Tamarack Lane at the westerly end of the building will be up to 39 to 41 dB
CNEL at the fourth through eighth floors under existing traffic conditions and up to 40 to
42 dB CNEL at the fourth through eighth floors under future conditions. Thus, the noise
exposures will be within the 45 dB CNEL limit of the Title 24 standards.
- 23 -
The interior noise exposures in the living spaces of the upper floor units facing
north toward Tamarack Lane at the easterly end of the building will be up to 41 to 43 dB
CNEL at the fourth through eighth floors under existing traffic conditions and up to 42 to
44 dB CNEL at the fourth through eighth floors under future conditions. Thus, the noise
exposures will be within the 45 dB CNEL limit of the Title 24 standards.
As shown by the above evaluations, the exterior noise exposures in portions of the
landscaped podium common areas will exceed the 65 dB CNEL limit of the City of South
San Francisco Noise Element standards. Noise mitigation measures will be required. The
recommended measures are described in Section II of this report.
The interior noise exposures will exceed the limits of Title 24 and mitigation
measures will be required. The recommended measures are described in Section II of this
report.
This report presents the results of a noise assessment study for the planned “Cadence 2”
multi-family development along Miller Avenue in South San Francisco. The study
findings for existing conditions are based on field measurements and other data and are
correct to the best of our knowledge. Future noise level predictions were based on
estimates made by Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. from information provided by the
City of South San Francisco and CalTrans. However, significant changes in future traffic
volumes, speed limits, motor vehicle technology, noise regulations, or other future
changes beyond our control may produce long-range noise results different from our
estimates. If you need any additional information or would like an elaboration on this
report, please call me.
Sincerely,
EDWARD L. PACK ASSOC., INC.
Jeffrey K. Pack President
Attachments: Appendices A, B, and C
APPENDIX A
References
(a) Site Plan – Phase 2A+2B, Cadence 2, by BDE Architecture, December 4, 2017
(b) Noise Element of the South San Francisco General Plan, Adopted October, 1999
(c) California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Chapter 2, Section 1207 “Sound
Transmission”, Subsection 1207.4 (Allowable Interior Noise Levels), Revised
2013
(d) State of California Department of Transportation, Division of Traffic Operations,
http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/census/volumes2016/Route101.html
(e) Traffic Volume Data Provided by Mr. Kelvin Munar, City of South San Francisco
Traffic Engineering Department, by email to Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc.,
June 24, 6, 2015
(f) San Francisco International Airport 2019 Noise Exposure Map
(g) 1996 Traffic Volumes on California State Highways, State of California
Department of Transportation, Division of Traffic Operations, June 1997
B-1
APPENDIX B
Noise Standards, Terminology, Instrumentation
and Building Shell Controls
1. Noise Standards
A. City of South San Francisco
The City of South San Francisco Noise Element to the General Plan, adopted
October 1999, specifies the following “Satisfactory” noise exposure limits for various
land uses. The noise exposures are in terms of dB Community Noise Equivalent Level
(CNEL).
Land Use Exterior Interior
Residential 65 45
Commercial 70
Industrial 75
Open 75
Interior noise exposures are limited to 45 dB CNEL where residences are located
within the 65 dB CNEL noise contour of San Francisco International Airport.
B-2
B. Title 24 Noise Standards
The California Code of Regulations, l, Title 24, Chapter 2, Section 1207,
"Allowable Interior Noise Levels", applies to all new multi-family dwellings including
condominiums, apartments, hotels, motels and dormitories. The standards, which utilize
either the Day-Night Level (DNL) descriptor or the Community Noise Equivalent Level
(CNEL), whichever is consistent with the local jurisdictional standards, specify that
interior noise exposures from exterior sources shall not exceed 45 dB DNL/CNEL in any
habitable room.
The Title 24 standards also establish minimum sound insulation requirements for
interior partitions separating different dwelling units from each other and dwelling units
from common spaces such as garages, corridors, equipment rooms, etc. The common
interior walls and floor/ceiling assemblies regulated by the California Building Code
(apartments, condominiums, hotels, etc.) must achieve a minimum Sound Transmission
Class (STC) rating of 50 for airborne noise. Common floor/ceiling assemblies must
achieve an Impact Insulation Class (IIC) rating of 50 for impact noise. These ratings are
based on laboratory tested partitions. Field tested partitions must achieve ratings of NIC
and FIIC 45. Attached dwellings regulated by the California Residential Code
(townhouses under 3 stories in height) must achieve minimum STC 45 for the common
partition.
B-3
2. Terminology
A. Statistical Noise Levels
Due to the fluctuating character of urban traffic noise, statistical procedures are
needed to provide an adequate description of the environment. A series of statistical
descriptors have been developed which represent the noise levels exceeded a given
percentage of the time. These descriptors are obtained by direct readout of the Sound
Level Meters. Some of the statistical levels used to describe community noise are defined
as follows:
L1 - A noise level exceeded for 1% of the time.
L10 - A noise level exceeded for 10% of the time, considered
to be an "intrusive" level.
L50 - The noise level exceeded 50% of the time representing
an "average" sound level.
L90 - The noise level exceeded 90 % of the time, designated
as a "background" noise level.
Leq - The continuous equivalent-energy level is that level of a
steady-state noise having the same sound energy as a given
time-varying noise. The Leq represents the decibel level of
the time-averaged value of sound energy or sound pressure
squared and is used to calculate the DNL and CNEL.
B-4
B. Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)
The CNEL is a measure of the cumulative noise exposure over a 24 hour period.
The CNEL index divides the 24 hour day into three subperiods, i.e., the daytime (7:00 am
to 7:00 pm), the evening period (7:00 pm to 10:00 pm), and the nighttime period (10:00
pm to 7:00 am). Also, weighting factors of 5 and 10 dBA are applied to the evening and
nighttime periods, respectively, to account for the greater sensitivity of people to noise
during those periods. The CNEL values are calculated from the measured Leq values in
accordance with the following mathematical formula:
CNEL = [[(10log10(10ΣLeq(7-7))) x 12] + [((10log10(10ΣLeq(7-10))))+5) x 3] +[((10log10(10ΣLeq(10-7))))+10) x 9]]/24
C. A-Weighted Sound Level
The decibel measure of the sound level utilizing the "A" weighted network of a
sound level meter is referred to as "dBA". The "A" weighting is the accepted standard
weighting system used when noise is measured and recorded for the purpose of
determining total noise levels and conducting statistical analyses of the environment so
that the output correlates well with the response of the human ear.
B-5
3. Instrumentation
The on-site field measurement data were acquired by the use of one or more of the
precision acoustical instruments shown below. The acoustical instrumentation provides a
direct readout of the L exceedance statistical levels including the equivalent-energy level
(Leq). Input to the meters was provided by a microphone extended to a height of 5 ft.
above the ground. The meter conforms to ANSI S1.4 for Type 1 instruments. The "A"
weighting network and the "Fast" response setting of the meter were used in conformance
with the applicable ISO and IEC standards. All instrumentation was acoustically
calibrated before and after field tests to assure accuracy.
Bruel & Kjaer 2231 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meter
Larson Davis LDL 812 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meter
Larson Davis 2900 Real Time Analyzer
Larson Davis 831 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meter
4. Building Shell Controls
The following additional precautionary measures are required to assure the
greatest potential for exterior-to-interior noise attenuation by the recommended mitigation
measures. These measures apply at those units where closed windows are required:
Unshielded entry doors having a direct or side orientation toward
the primary noise source must be 1-5/8" or 1-3/4" thick, insulated
metal or solid-core wood construction with effective weather seals
around the full perimeter.
If any penetrations in the building shell are required for vents,
piping, conduit, etc., sound leakage around these penetrations can
be controlled by sealing all cracks and clearance spaces with a non-
hardening caulking compound.
Ventilation openings shall not compromise the acoustical integrity of the
building shell.
APPENDIX C
On-Site Noise Measurement Data and Calculation Tables
CNEL CALCULATIONS
CLIENT:REGIS HOMES
FILE:47-047
PROJECT:MILLER ACE
DATE:6/8-9/2015
SOURCE:HIGHWAY 101, AIRPORT BLVD, MILLER AVE.
LOCATION 1 Highway 101, Airport Blvd LOCATION 2 Miller Ave, Hwy 101, Airport Blvd.
Dist. To Source 204 ft., 57 ft. Dist. To Source 33 ft., 345 ft., 180 ft.
35 ft. elevation
TIME Leq 10^Leq/10 TIME Leq 10^Leq/10
7:00 AM 71.0 12589254.1 7:00 AM 62.7 1862087.1
8:00 AM 72.3 16982436.5 8:00 AM 66.5 4466835.9
9:00 AM 74.9 30902954.3 9:00 AM 68.0 6309573.4
10:00 AM 69.5 8912509.4 10:00 AM 64.7 2951209.2
11:00 AM 72.5 17782794.1 11:00 AM 67.7 5888436.6
12:00 PM 71.9 15488166.2 12:00 PM 67.3 5370318.0
1:00 PM 69.4 8709635.9 1:00 PM 66.9 4897788.2
2:00 PM 68.6 7244359.6 2:00 PM 64.9 3090295.4
3:00 PM 68.4 6918309.7 3:00 PM 65.0 3162277.7
4:00 PM 68.8 7585775.8 4:00 PM 65.2 3311311.2
5:00 PM 67.0 5011872.3 5:00 PM 65.1 3235936.6
6:00 PM 68.3 6760829.8 SUM=144888897.7 6:00 PM 63.9 2454708.9 SUM=47000778.2
7:00 PM 68.0 6309573.4 Ld=81.6 7:00 PM 64.3 2691534.8 Ld=76.7
8:00 PM 68.6 7244359.6 8:00 PM 63.8 2398832.9
9:00 PM 68.5 7079457.8 SUM=20633390.9 9:00 PM 65.7 3715352.3 SUM=8805720.0
10:00 PM 68.4 6918309.7 Le=73.1 10:00 PM 63.7 2344228.8 Le=69.4
11:00 PM 66.4 4365158.3 11:00 PM 61.3 1348962.9
12:00 AM 65.5 3548133.9 12:00 AM 59.3 851138.0
1:00 AM 64.6 2884031.5 1:00 AM 58.3 676083.0
2:00 AM 62.7 1862087.1 2:00 AM 55.3 338844.2
3:00 AM 64.4 2754228.7 3:00 AM 55.7 371535.2
4:00 AM 66.8 4786300.9 4:00 AM 57.9 616595.0
5:00 AM 70.5 11220184.5 5:00 AM 60.6 1148153.6
6:00 AM 70.9 12302687.7 SUM=50641122.4 6:00 AM 60.2 1047128.5 SUM=8742669.3
Ln=77.0 Ln=69.4
Daytime Level=81.6 Daytime Level=76.7
Evening Level=78.1 Evening Level=74.4
Nighttime Level=87.0 Nighttime Level=79.4
CNEL=75 CNEL=68
24-Hour Leq=69.5 24-Hour Leq=64.3
CNEL CALCULATIONS
CLIENT:REGIS HOMES
FILE:47-047
PROJECT:MILLER ACE
DATE:6/8-9/2015
SOURCE:HIGHWAY 101, AIRPORT BLVD, MILLER AVE.
LOCATION 3 Miller Ave
Dist. To Source 38 ft.
TIME Leq 10^Leq/10
7:00 AM 61.5 1412537.5
8:00 AM 62.1 1621810.1
9:00 AM 62.7 1862087.1
10:00 AM 60.8 1202264.4
11:00 AM 63.2 2089296.1
12:00 PM 63.7 2344228.8
1:00 PM 62.6 1819700.9
2:00 PM 62.9 1949844.6
3:00 PM 62.4 1737800.8
4:00 PM 62.2 1659586.9
5:00 PM 64.6 2884031.5
6:00 PM 60.5 1122018.5 SUM=21705207.3
7:00 PM 60.3 1071519.3 Ld=73.4
8:00 PM 60.1 1023293.0
9:00 PM 59.9 977237.2 SUM=3072049.5
10:00 PM 60.3 1071519.3 Le=64.9
11:00 PM 58.9 776247.1
12:00 AM 56.3 426579.5
1:00 AM 55.4 346736.9
2:00 AM 51.9 154881.7
3:00 AM 54.1 257039.6
4:00 AM 54.6 288403.2
5:00 AM 58.4 691831.0
6:00 AM 60.0 1000000.0 SUM=5013238.2
1.0 Ln=67.0
Daytime Level=73.4
Evening Level=69.9
Nighttime Level=77.0
CNEL=65
24-Hour Leq=60.9
1 Willowbrook Court, Suite 120
Petaluma, California 94954
Tel: 707-794-0400 Fax: 707-794-0490
www.illingworthrodkin.com illro@illingworthrodkin.com
December 6, 2017
Ken Busch
Sares Regis
901 Mariners Island Blvd #700
San Mateo, CA 94404
VIA E-mail: kbusch@srgnc.com
SUBJECT: VMAP – Miller Parcels B and C Combined in South San Francisco, CA --
Air Quality Analysis
Dear Ken:
This letter addresses air quality issues associated with the development of the vacant Miller Avenue
Parcels (VMAP) project in South San Francisco. Our understanding is that the VMAP site includes
much of the area in the block bordered by Cypress Avenue to the east, Miller Avenue to the south and
Tamarack Lane to the north. The area is depicted in Figure 1. Much of the project site was evaluated
for air quality impacts previously as part of the Miller-Cypress SSF Parcels A, B, C, and D TAC and
GHG Emissions Assessment, South San Francisco1. This study is referred to in this report as the 2015
Air Quality Study. That analysis studied the air quality impacts associated with construction and
operation of the project. In that analysis. Parcel B would have constructed a parking lot on a 0.2-
acre site and Parcel C would construct 12 apartments and parking on a 0.4-acre site. In this
analysis, both parcels are combined along with the parcels in between to develop a total of 195
apartment units and parking. The total site area was estimated at 1.1 acres.
The Project is consistent with development that would occur as planned under the South San
Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. Air quality impacts were evaluated under the
South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR 2. As with the 2015 Air Quality
Study (SSF Parcels A, B, C, and D), this project is subject to air quality mitigation measures
associated with the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR. This analysis
addresses the mitigation requirements. Specifically:
1 Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 2015. MILLER-CYPRESS SSF PARCELS A, B, C, AND D+ TAC AND GHG
EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT South San Francisco, CA. November 11.
2 City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department. 2014. Draft South San
Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR SCH No. 2013102001
Draft
Ken Busch
Sares Regis
December 6, 2017 - Page 2 of 13
1. Mitigation Measure MM4.2-1 requires the emissions modeling of construction activities
to identify appropriate mitigation measures to reduce emissions below significance criteria;
2. Mitigation Measure MM4.2-2 requires quantification of operational emissions to
demonstrate that adequate measures have been identified to reduce emissions; and
3. Mitigation Measure MM4.2-3 requires a health risk assessment that assesses the impacts
of air pollution sources that could affect the project’s residents and, if necessary, identify
appropriate measures to reduce the potential health risk to below significant level.
Figure 1. Project Site
To address these mitigation measures, the following analyses were either conducted for this project
or previously conducted and results are applied to this project:
Evaluate Construction Activities (MM4.2-1)
Construction air quality impacts were addressed by predicting construction period emissions and
health risk impacts to nearby sensitive receptors and identifying measures to control emissions.
These projects are near existing residences and residences that are under construction and will be
occupied soon, so a health risk assessment was conducted. This involved emissions modeling
using CalEEMod and dispersion modeling using the EPA’s AERMOD model and hourly
Draft
Ken Busch
Sares Regis
December 6, 2017 - Page 3 of 13
meteorological data collected at the San Francisco International Airport and obtained from the
California Air Resources Board (CARB). The excess cancer risks, associated with modeled
construction period diesel particulate matter concentrations were computed following Bay Area
Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) risk management policy guidance. In addition,
non-cancer hazards and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) concentrations were also predicted. Note
that excess cancer risk is associated with diesel particulate matter (DPM emitted from construction
equipment and trucks. DPM is categorized as a toxic air contaminant (TAC) by the CARB.
This analysis was conducted for the project and the maximum impact from construction activity
at a sensitive receptor was identified. Project-specific mitigation measures would be required if
emissions exceed the significance thresholds or health risk thresholds identified in Table 1.
Operational Emissions (MM4.2-2)
CalEEMod model runs to predict construction emissions were used to predict operational air
pollutant emissions from the project. The emissions were compared against significance
thresholds, and where necessary, emissions reduction measures were identified. Project-specific
mitigation measures were required where if emissions exceed the significance thresholds.
Exposure to Sources of Toxic Air Contaminants (MM4.2-3)
The project site is located near several sources of toxic air contaminants that include U.S. Highway
101, the Caltrain rail line, Airport Boulevard, and several stationary sources permitted by
BAAQMD. The effect of these sources was evaluated in the 2015 air quality study and those
findings are applied to this analysis. The following analysis was conducted in the 2015 Air Quality
Study to address these sources:
• The EMFAC2011 emission factor model and the Cal3qhcr dispersion model along with
hourly meteorological data from San Francisco International Airport and obtained from
BAAQMD was used to model impacts associated with traffic on U.S. Highway 101. The
BAAQMD Roadway Screening Analysis Calculator was used to assess impacts from the
local busy roadways, which are Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue.
• EPA emissions factors for diesel train locomotives and the AERMOD dispersion model
along with hourly meteorological data from the San Francisco International Airport and
obtained from CARB was used to model impacts associated with nearby train activity.
• The BAAQMD Stationary Source Screening Analysis Tool, along with BAAQMD’s
appropriate Distance Multipliers were used to address impacts from nearby stationary
sources affecting any of the sites.
• The maximum single-source and cumulative source health risk impacts were computed at
the location where the maximum impacts occur; otherwise known as the maximum effected
individual or MEI.
Project-specific mitigation measures would be required if the health risk thresholds are exceeded.
Draft
Ken Busch
Sares Regis
December 6, 2017 - Page 4 of 13
Table 1. Air Quality Significance Thresholds
Pollutant
Construction Thresholds Operational Thresholds
Average Daily Emissions
(lbs./day)
Average Daily
Emissions
(lbs./day)
Annual Average
Emissions
(tons/year)
Criteria Air Pollutants
ROG 54 54 10
NOx 54 54 10
PM10 82 82 15
PM2.5 54 54 10
CO Not Applicable 9.0 ppm (8-hr avg.) or 20.0 ppm (1-hr
avg.)
Fugitive Dust
Construction Dust Ordinance
or other Best Management
Practices
Not Applicable
Health Risks and Hazards for New Sources (e.g., Construction)
Excess Cancer Risk >10 per one million
Chronic or Acute Hazard
Index >1.0
Incremental annual
average PM2.5 >0.3 µg/m3
Health Risks and Hazards for Sensitive Receptors (Cumulative from all sources within 1,000-foot
zone of influence) and Cumulative Thresholds for New Sources
Excess Cancer Risk >100 per one million
Chronic Hazard Index >10.0
Annual Average PM2.5 >0.8 µg/m3
Note: ROG = reactive organic gases, NOx = nitrogen oxides, PM10 = course particulate matter or particulates with
an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers (µm) or less, PM2.5 = fine particulate matter or particulates with an
aerodynamic diameter of 2.5µm or less; and GHG = greenhouse gas.
Summary of Findings
Project-specific measures were identified to meet the mitigation requirements. These measures
are as follows:
In response to Mitigation Measure MM4.2-1, a measure to reduce construction exhaust emissions
was developed to ensure localized construction emissions do not lead to significant health risk
impacts:
Draft
Ken Busch
Sares Regis
December 6, 2017 - Page 5 of 13
No additional project measures were identified to meet Mitigation Measures MM4.2-2 or MM4.2-
3. The following analysis describes the air quality impacts.
Air Quality Analysis
MM4.2-1 Requirement - Project Construction Activity
Construction equipment and associated heavy-duty truck traffic generates diesel exhaust, which is
a known TAC. These exhaust air pollutant emissions would not be considered to contribute
substantially to existing or projected air quality violations. Construction exhaust emissions may
still pose health risks for sensitive receptors such as surrounding residents. The primary
community risk impact issues associated with construction emissions are cancer risk and exposure
to PM2.5. Diesel exhaust poses both a potential health and nuisance impact to nearby receptors. A
health risk assessment of the project construction activities was conducted that evaluated potential
health effects of sensitive receptors at these nearby residences from construction emissions of
DPM and PM2.5.3 Emissions and dispersion modeling was conducted to predict the off-site
concentrations resulting from project construction, so that lifetime cancer risks and non-cancer
health effects could be evaluated.
Construction Period Emissions
The first part of the evaluation under this mitigation measures involves the prediction of
construction period emissions and comparison to significance thresholds used in the 2014 Draft
EIR. Construction period emissions were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator
Model, Version 2016.3.2 (CalEEMod). These emissions include both on-site construction activity
and off-site truck and worker travel.
Construction activity is anticipated to include demolition, grading and site preparation, trenching,
building construction, and paving. The construction schedule and equipment usage assumptions
were estimated based on those used for the previous study. Since the project would be slightly
smaller than twice the size of Parcel D studied in the 2015 air quality analysis, those assumptions
3 DPM is identified by California as a toxic air contaminant due to the potential to cause cancer.
Implement the following measures to minimize emissions from diesel equipment:
1. All diesel-powered off-road equipment larger than 50 horsepower and operating at the site for more than
two days continuously shall meet U.S. EPA particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 2 engines or
equivalent and
2. All portable pieces of construction equipment (i.e., air compressors, cement mixers, concrete/industrial
saws, generators, and welders) meet U.S. EPA particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 4 engines
or equivalent.
3. Avoid staging equipment adjacent residences.
Draft
Ken Busch
Sares Regis
December 6, 2017 - Page 6 of 13
were applied to this project, but the activity was doubled. The proposed project land uses and
construction information were input into CalEEMod were as follows:
195 “Dwelling Unit Apartments Mid Rise”
Acreage = 1.1 acres
Import fill = 1,000 cy
Export fill = 3,000 cy
Demolition = 21,500 sf and 480 tons pavement
Cement truck trip = 300 trips
Asphalt truck trips = 80 trips
Construction activity assumptions are included in Attachment 1 along with the CalEEMod
modeling output.
Construction of the project is expected to occur over two years, beginning in 2019. Construction
period emissions were modeled using CalEEMod along with the anticipated construction activity
for each project. The number and types of construction equipment and diesel vehicles, along with
the anticipated length of their use for different phases of construction, were based on a site-specific
construction schedule provided for each project. The CalEEMod modeling included emissions
from truck and worker travel. For computation of air pollutants, the default travel lengths were
used in the modeling. For the on-site health risk assessment, travel was assumed to occur over a
distance of 1 mile on or near the site (note that travel away from the site would not contribute to
health risk impacts). Table 2 presents the construction period air pollutant emissions in total tons
and pounds per average day. Assuming 20 days of construction per month and two years of
construction activity, there would be 480 construction days. The average emissions per day were
computed by dividing total emissions from construction by 480 days. The annual and daily
average emissions reported in Table 2 are below the significance thresholds.
Table 2. Project Construction Air Pollutant Emissions
Description
ROG
NOx
PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5
Exhaust
2019 emissions in tons 0.11 0.88 0.03 0.03
2020 emissions in tons 1.47 0.65 0.02 0.02
Total emissions 1.58 1.53 0.05 0.05
Average Daily Emissions (pounds per day)* 6.6 6.4 0.2 0.2
BAAQMD Thresholds (pounds per day) 54 54 82 54
Exceed Threshold? No No No No
*Assuming 480 construction workdays
The health risk assessment predicted concentrations of DPM and PM2.5 resulting from
construction. The CalEEMod model provided total annual PM2.5 exhaust emissions (assumed to
be DPM) for the off-road construction equipment and for exhaust emissions from on-road vehicles.
The on-road emissions are a result of haul truck travel during demolition and grading activities,
worker travel, and vendor deliveries during construction. As described above, a trip length of 1
mile was used to represent vehicle travel while at or near the construction site. It was assumed that
Draft
Ken Busch
Sares Regis
December 6, 2017 - Page 7 of 13
these emissions from on-road vehicles traveling at or near the site would occur at the construction
site. Fugitive PM2.5 dust emissions were also computed by CalEEMod.
Dispersion Modeling and Community Risks
The second part of the evaluation under this mitigation measures involves the dispersion modeling
of construction emissions to predict the community risk effects. The EPA AERMOD dispersion
model was used to predict concentrations of DPM and PM2.5 concentrations at existing sensitive
receptors (residences) in the vicinity of the project construction area. The AERMOD dispersion
model is a BAAQMD-recommended model for use in modeling analysis of these types of emission
activities for CEQA projects.4 The AERMOD modeling utilized two area sources for each project
to represent the on-site construction emissions; one for exhaust emissions and one for fugitive dust
emissions. To represent the construction equipment exhaust emissions, an emission release height
of 6 meters (19.7 feet) was used for the area source that represents exhaust emissions. The elevated
source height reflects the height of the equipment exhaust pipes plus an additional distance for the
height of the exhaust plume above the exhaust pipes to account for plume rise of the exhaust gases.
For modeling fugitive PM2.5 emissions, a near-ground level release height of 2 meters (6.6 feet)
was used for the area source. Emissions from the construction equipment and on-road vehicle
travel were distributed throughout the modeled area sources. Construction emissions were
modeled as occurring daily between 7 a.m. to 4 p.m., when the majority of construction activity
would occur. Figure 2 shows the project site and nearby sensitive receptor (residences) locations
where health impacts were evaluated.
The modeling used an hourly meteorological data set from San Francisco International Airport
that was obtained from CARB 5. Annual DPM and PM2.5 concentrations from construction
activities during the 2016 – 2019 period were computed using the AERMOD model. DPM and
PM2.5 concentrations were predicted at nearby sensitive receptor locations at a receptor height of
1.5 meters (4.9 feet).
The maximum-modeled DPM and PM2.5 concentrations for each construction site and the
maximum from the combination of all construction sites are identified in Figure 1.
Predicted Cancer Risk and Hazards
Increased cancer risks were calculated using the maximum modeled concentrations and BAAQMD
recommended risk assessment methods for infant exposure (3rd trimester through two years of
age), child exposure, and for an adult exposure. The cancer risk calculation methodology is
contained in Attachment 2 and includes the use of BAAQMD recommended age sensitivity factors
to the TAC concentrations. Age-sensitivity factors reflect the greater sensitivity of infants and
small children to cancer causing TACs. BAAQMD-recommended exposure parameters were used
4 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2012, Recommended Methods for Screening and
Modeling Local Risks and Hazards, Version 3.0. May.
5 CARB 2015. Processed meteorological data provided by the Air Quality Planning and Science Division processed
and provided in a format specified by AERMOD. See http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/harp/metfiles2.htm#district
Draft
Ken Busch
Sares Regis
December 6, 2017 - Page 8 of 13
for the cancer risk calculations.6 Infant, child, and adult exposures were assumed to occur at all
residences during the construction period.
Combined Construction Risk Assessment
In addition to construction of the project, there are other sources of TAC and PM2.5 emissions in
the area and some of those are within 1,000 feet of the construction sites. The effect of these
nearby sources was evaluated in the 2015 air quality study and those results are applied to this
analysis. These sources include:
Local Roadway - Airport Boulevard. The BAAQMD Roadway Screening Analysis Calculator
was used to assess impacts from the two local busy roadways, which are Airport Boulevard and
Grand Avenue. The average traffic volume was computed by multiplying the peak-hour traffic
volume by 10. For Airport Boulevard, this was 19,500 vehicles and for Grand Avenue, it was
12,130 vehicles 7. The roadway orientation and distance between the MEI receptor and the
roadway were input to the calculator. The calculator provides the maximum excess lifetime cancer
risk and annual PM2.5 concentration.
U.S. 101 Traffic. Emissions and dispersion modeling were conducted to assess the impacts from
the freeway traffic. The description for this modeling is described later in this report where this
source was assessed for impacts to new project residents.
CalTrain. Emissions and dispersion modeling were conducted to assess the impacts from Caltrain.
The description for this modeling is described later in this report where this source was assessed
for impacts to new project residents.
Stationary Sources. The BAAQMD Google Earth Tool - Stationary Source Screening Analysis
Tool was used to predict impacts from the freeway at the construction MEI receptor. Two
stationary sources were identified within 1,000 feet of the project that pose excess cancer risk
impacts. Both of these sources are gasoline stations. The BAAQMD Gasoline Dispensing Facility
(GDF) Distance Multiplier Tool was used to adjust cancer risk values for the distance between the
source and the MEI.
Table 3 presents results of this health risk assessment for the maximally exposed individual (MEI)
receptor for construction activities. Note that the analysis assumed that there would be new
residents occupying new apartment buildings nearby that are currently under construction. This
includes Parcels A and D, evaluated under the 2015 air quality study. Attachment 2 includes the
emission calculations (i.e., CalEEMod Output) and source information used in the modeling and
the cancer risk calculations.
The cancer risk calculations assume an infant would be present at each receptor. Since the cancer
risk calculations incorporate age sensitivity factors that are 10 times higher than adults and a higher
6 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2010, Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Screening
Analysis Guidelines, January.
7 This is the “Existing Plus Project” traffic volume provided by Fehr & Peers.
Draft
Ken Busch
Sares Regis
December 6, 2017 - Page 9 of 13
breathing rate for infants, the cancer risk for infants is much higher than adults or children. These
are reported as a worst-case condition. Under this scenario, construction of Parcels C and D would
pose significant cancer risk, while annual PM2.5 concentrations and non-cancer hazards would
below significance thresholds. Additional project mitigation would be required for the
construction of Parcels C and D.
Figure 1. Project Construction Site and Locations of Off-Site Sensitive Receptors
and Maximum Cancer Risks
Parcel Construction Areas
Off-Site Residential Receptor Locations
VMAP Construction - Location of Maximum TAC Impact
Parcel A Construction - Location of Maximum TAC Impact
and Location of Maximum Cumulative Construction TAC Impact
Draft
Ken Busch
Sares Regis
December 6, 2017 - Page 10 of 13
Table 3. Combined Construction Source Cancer Risks, PM2.5 Concentrations, and Hazard
Index
Source
Cancer Risk
(per million)*
PM2.5
Concentration
(µg/m3)
Acute and
Chronic
Hazard (HI)
Proposed Project Construction MEI Max 16.1 0.3 0.01
Local Roadways – Airport Blvd. at 170 ft 1.7 0.04 <0.01
Local Roadways – Grand Ave at 450 ft 0.7 0.02 <0.03
U.S. 101 at over 300 ft West based on modeling
for Parcel D that was 175 feet from freeway
(see 2015 Air Quality Study)
<7.7 0.3 0.01
CalTrain at 700 feet based on modeling for
Parcel D that was 500 feet from rail line (see
2015 Air Quality Study)
<0.8 <0.01 <0.01
Stationary Source G11137 at 500 ft 0.4 0.00 <0.01
Stationary Source G9214 at 900 ft 0.4 0.00 <0.01
Total <27.8 <0.7 <0.2
BAAQMD Thresholds 100 0.8 10.0
Significant? Yes No No
*Cancer risk adjusted for 2015 OEHHA methods
Note: (1) Analysis based on modeling conducted for previous air quality study. (2) Source 18401 misplaced on
Google Earth Tool and is located beyond 1,000 feet. (3) Source 16678 has no risk or PM2.5 concentration associated
with it. (4) Source 4316 and 14612 are dry cleaners that do not pose long-term risk and does not generate PM2.5
concentrations.
Additional Construction Mitigation for MM4.2-1
Implement the following measures to minimize emissions from diesel equipment:
1. All diesel-powered off-road equipment larger than 50 horsepower and operating at the site
for more than two days continuously shall meet U.S. EPA particulate matter emissions
standards for Tier 2 engines or equivalent and
2. All portable pieces of construction equipment (i.e., air compressors, cement mixers,
concrete/industrial saws, generators, and welders) meet U.S. EPA particulate matter
emissions standards for Tier 4 engines or equivalent.
3. Avoid staging equipment adjacent to residences.
Implementation of these measures would substantially reduce on-site diesel exhaust emissions.
The computed maximum excess child cancer risk would be 7.4 per million.
Mitigation Measure MM4.2-2 Operational Air Pollutant Emissions
This mitigation measure requires quantification of operational emissions to demonstrate that
adequate measures have been identified to reduce project air pollutant emissions. The CalEEMod
model that was used to compute operational air pollutant emissions was also used to compute
operational emissions. The model was run with default inputs for the project land use and types
describe previously for the construction emissions. CalEEMod provided annual emissions in tons.
These were divided by 365 days to compute average daily emissions. Key inputs to the model for
computing operational emissions include the following:
Draft
Ken Busch
Sares Regis
December 6, 2017 - Page 11 of 13
• Year = 2020, the first year that all project components could be fully constructed and
• operational;
• Traffic = Default trip rates, trip types and trip lengths;
• Area Sources = Default inputs, except no wood burning was assumed per BAAQMD
• regulations
Table 4 reports the annual and average daily emissions associated with operation of the project.
Average daily emissions are well below the significance thresholds, so additional mitigation
measures are not necessary. Attachment 1 includes the CalEEMod operational modeling.
Table 4. Project Operation Air Pollutant Emissions
Description
ROG
NOx
PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5
Exhaust
2020 Annual emissions in tons 1.29 1.16 1.11 0.32
Average Daily Emissions (pounds per day)* 7.1 6.4 6.1 1.8
BAAQMD Thresholds (pounds per day) 54 54 82 54
Exceed Threshold? No No No No
Mitigation Measure MM4.2-3 TAC Sources Affecting the Project
Operation of this residential project is not considered a source of TAC or fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) emissions. As a result, the project operation would not cause emissions that expose
sensitive receptors to unhealthy air pollutant levels. Because the project would not be a source of
TACs, it would not contribute cumulatively to unhealthy exposure to TACs. The project would
include new sensitive receptors. Substantial sources of air pollution can adversely affect sensitive
receptors proposed as part of new projects. A review of the area indicates that there are roadways,
diesel-powered trains and stationary sources within 1,000 feet of the site that could adversely affect
new residences.
The effect of TAC and PM2.5 emission sources upon the project were addressed in the 2015 Air
Quality Study. Rather than conducting additional modeling, the analyses provided in that study
were applied to this evaluation. The effect of each source upon the project site is reported in Table
5. A discussion of the effect from each source is provided below.
Local Roadways
The project is located near two high volume local roadways. The BAAQMD Roadway Screening
Analysis Calculator was used to assess impacts from the two local busy roadways, which are
Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue. The average traffic volume was computed by multiplying
the peak-hour traffic volume by 10. For Airport Boulevard, this was 19,500 vehicles and for Grand
Avenue, it was 12,130 vehicles 8. The roadway orientation and distance between each Parcel and
the roadway were input to the calculator. Note that screening tables published by BAAQMD
indicate that non-cancer hazards from traffic would be well below the BAAQMD thresholds.
8 This is the “Existing Plus Project” traffic volume provided by Fehr & Peers.
Draft
Ken Busch
Sares Regis
December 6, 2017 - Page 12 of 13
Table 5. Community Risk Impacts from Single and Cumulative Sources
Source
Maximum
Cancer Risk
(per million)*
Maximum
Annual PM2.5
Concentration
(µg/m3)
Maximum
Hazard
Index
VMAP
Local Roadways – Airport Blvd. at >200ft West 1.8 0.1 <0.04
Local Roadways – Grand Ave at >350 ft West 1.4 0.0 <0.04
U.S. 101 at >175 ft 7.7 0.3 <0.01
CalTrain at >500 feet 1.1 0.0 <0.01
Stationary Source G11137 at 200 ft 1.6 0.00 <0.01
Stationary Source G9214 at 800 ft 0.4 0.00 <0.01
Cumulative Total 14.0 0.4 <0.1
BAAQMD Threshold - Single Source 10.0 0.3 1.0
BAAQMD Threshold – Cumulative Sources 100 0.8 10.0
Significant No No No
*Cancer risk adjusted for 2015 OEHHA methods (see Attachment 2)
Stationary Sources
Two operational stationary sources of TACs were identified within 1,000 feet of the project sites
using the BAAQMD Stationary Source Screening Analysis Tool.9 This tool provided screening
levels of cancer risk, PM2.5 and non-cancer risk for the identified sources. Both sources are
gasoline stations. These facilities only result in excess cancer risk impacts due to emissions of
benzene from fueling storage and dispensing. The cancer risk reported in the BAAQMD tool was
adjusted for distance using the BAAQMD Gasoline Dispensing Facility (GDF) Distance
Multiplier Tool. Note that Plant #18401, is not within 1,000 feet of the project site, even though
it is depicted in the BAAQMD Stationary Source Screening Analysis Tool as being in the influence
area. Plant 16678, an auto body shop, does not have any emissions. Plants 14612 and 4316 are
dry cleaners that are not considered long-term sources of TAC emissions since their use of
perchlorethylene, a TAC used in dry cleaning, is being phased out by regulation.
Refined Highway Community Risk Impacts the Bayshore Freeway (U.S. 101)
A refined analysis of the impacts of TAC and PM2.5 to new sensitive receptors was conducted to
evaluate potential cancer risks and PM2.5 concentrations from U.S. 101 at Parcels A and D in the
2015 Air Quality Study. That refined study included modeling of traffic emission rates and
dispersion modeling using meteorological data obtained at the San Francisco International Airport.
The dispersion modeling provided concentrations of TACs and PM2.5 that were used to assess
community risk impacts in terms of excess lifetime cancer risk, annual PM2.5 concentrations and
Hazard Index.
The maximum cancer risks modeled for Parcels A and D in the 2015 Air Quality Study can be
applied to this analysis. Since the VMAP would be further from the freeway. Those results were
used as an upper bound and are summarized in Table 6. The maximum increased cancer risk from
9 See http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Tools-and-
Methodology.aspx , accessed December 10, 2014.
Draft
Ken Busch
Sares Regis
December 6, 2017 - Page 13 of 13
traffic on U.S. 101 at Parcel A was 6.4 chances per million. This was modeled at a third-floor
receptor in the eastern portion of Parcel A closest to U.S. 101; so, levels at the VMAP would be
lower. The maximum predicted annual DPM concentrations at Parcels A and D from Highway
101 traffic were used to compute the Hazard Index or HI. The maximum annual average PM2.5
concentration from U.S. 101 traffic (i.e., all exhaust, tire and brake wear and reentrained roadway
dust) also occurred at the Parcels A and D receptor that had the maximum cancer risk from U.S.
101.
Railroad Community Risk Impacts
Parcel D of the project is located about 450 feet west of the Caltrain rail lines and Parcel A is about
500 feet from the rail lines. Rail activity on these rail lines includes passenger and freight train
service that generate TAC and PM2.5 emissions from diesel locomotive exhaust. Modeling of
railroad emissions was conducted in the 2015 Air Quality Study and community risk impacts were
predicted for Parcels A, C and D. Those results were applied to this analysis.
Maximum excess cancer risks were calculated from the maximum modeled long-term average
DPM concentrations using the same cancer risk procedures that were used for assessing U.S. 101
traffic, based on the analysis of the 2015 Air Quality Study. That study found annual
concentrations of DPM and PM2.5 from railroad activity were negligible.
Combined Community Risk Impacts to Project Sensitive Receptors
Table 5 also includes the community risk levels at the project site for the combination of all sources
within the influence area of 1,000 feet. As shown in Table 5, these exposures do not exceed the
single or cumulative source thresholds of significance.
* * *
This concludes our analysis of the VMAP with respect to the South San Francisco Downtown Station
Area Specific Plan EIR.
Sincerely yours,
James A. Reyff
Senior Consultant, Principal
ILLINGWORTH & RODKIN, INC.
15-112
Attachment 1: CalEEMod Output for Criteria Pollutants
Attachment 2: Health Risk Methodology
Attachment 3: Construction Health Risk Analysis
Draft
Attachment 1 - CalEEMod Modeling Output
Draft
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 10.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 4.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00
tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 4.00
Demolition - Measured from GoogleEarth. Pavement computed as 480 tons added to demo trips
Grading - Based on schedule for Parcel D
Vehicle Trips -
Woodstoves - No hearth so added wood to gas fireplaces = 63
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Tier 2 Mobile, Tier 4 portable and BMPs for dust
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
Off-road Equipment - Based on schedule for Parcel D
Off-road Equipment - Based on schedule for Parcel D
Off-road Equipment - Based on schedule for Parcel D
Off-road Equipment - Based on schedule for Parcel D
Off-road Equipment - Based on schedule for Parcel D
Trips and VMT - Added asphalt demo 480 tons = 64 trips. Cement and paving haul trucks = Parcel Dx2 at vendor distance
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Project Characteristics - PG&E 2020 rate
Land Use - Measured acreage from GoogleEarth. Population based on US Census persons per household SSF 2010
Construction Phase - Adjusted schedule using Parcel D as follows: Demolition the same, all other phases are double
Off-road Equipment - Based on schedule for Parcel D
Off-road Equipment - Based on schedule for Parcel D
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
290 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.029 N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006
70
Climate Zone 5 Operational Year 2020
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s)2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days)
Floor Surface Area Population
Apartments Mid Rise 195.00 Dwelling Unit 1.10 195,000.00 605
1.0 Project Characteristics
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Page 1 of 1 Date: 12/6/2017 12:23 PM
SSF Parcel B + C Reanalysis (Cadence) - San Mateo County, Annual
SSF Parcel B + C Reanalysis (Cadence)
San Mateo County, Annual
Draft
tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 290
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 6.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 2.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 6.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 1.50
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 2.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.70
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 4.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 2.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 3.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 3.00
tblLandUse Population 558.00 605.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 1,000.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 5.13 1.10
tblFireplaces NumberWood 33.15 0.00
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 3,000.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 228.80 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberGas 29.25 63.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 20.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 2.00 6.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 200.00 436.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 4.00 16.00
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 200.00
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimDraft
Unmitigated Operational
Highest 0.6776 0.6769
2.2 Overall Operational
6 4-1-2020 6-30-2020 0.6703 0.6696
7 7-1-2020 9-30-2020 0.6776 0.6769
4 10-1-2019 12-31-2019 0.2391 0.2199
5 1-1-2020 3-31-2020 0.3563 0.3459
2 4-1-2019 6-30-2019 0.2050 0.1821
3 7-1-2019 9-30-2019 0.2073 0.1841
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
1 1-1-2019 3-31-2019 0.3298 0.3515
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002.03 40.47 6.84 1.14 38.16 13.77
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
3.37 -0.28 -3.79 0.00
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2ROGNOxCOSO2Fugitive
PM10
0.0000 250.7870 250.7870 0.0224 0.0000 251.34630.1567 0.0143 0.1692 0.0420 0.0141 0.0544Maximum1.4452 0.8650 0.8806 2.7000e-
003
0.0000 233.0981 233.0981 0.0200 0.0000 233.59780.1567 0.0125 0.1692 0.0420 0.0124 0.054420201.4452 0.6652 0.8722 2.5400e-
003
0.0000 250.7870 250.7870 0.0224 0.0000 251.34630.1514 0.0143 0.1657 0.0401 0.0141 0.054220190.0782 0.8650 0.8806 2.7000e-
003
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 250.7871 250.7871 0.0224 0.0000 251.34640.1578 0.0274 0.1852 0.0420 0.0260 0.0671Maximum1.4666 0.8763 0.8582 2.7000e-
003
0.0000 233.0982 233.0982 0.0200 0.0000 233.59780.1567 0.0176 0.1743 0.0420 0.0169 0.058920201.4666 0.6496 0.8306 2.5400e-
003
0.0000 250.7871 250.7871 0.0224 0.0000 251.34640.1578 0.0274 0.1852 0.0410 0.0260 0.067120190.1098 0.8763 0.8582 2.7000e-
003
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
2.0 Emissions Summary
2.1 Overall Construction
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 8.00 10.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 582.40 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 300.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 80.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 7.30
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 98.00 162.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 7.30Draft
Load Factor
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power
200
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 1.5
Acres of Paving: 0
Residential Indoor: 394,875; Residential Outdoor: 131,625; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking
7 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 3/1/2020 12/4/2020 5
436
6 Paving Paving 11/13/2019 12/10/2019 5 20
5 Building Construction Building Construction 2/27/2019 10/28/2020 5
16
4 Trenching Trenching 2/6/2019 2/27/2019 5 16
3 Grading Grading 2/6/2019 2/27/2019 5
20
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/29/2019 2/5/2019 5 6
End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 1/1/2019 1/28/2019 5
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
NBio-CO2 Total
CO2
CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2ROGNOxCOSO2Fugitive
PM10
22.2390 1,333.618
9
1,355.8579 1.5480 0.0141 1,398.756
3
1.0852 0.0282 1.1134 0.2916 0.0274 0.3190Total1.2861 1.1613 5.2393 0.0128
4.0307 12.7307 16.7615 0.4153 0.0100 30.13470.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Water
18.2083 0.0000 18.2083 1.0761 0.0000 45.11030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Waste
0.0000 1,111.513
0
1,111.5130 0.0416 0.0000 1,112.553
6
1.0852 0.0133 1.0985 0.2916 0.0125 0.3041Mobile0.3331 1.0593 3.7503 0.0122
0.0000 199.1451 199.1451 0.0126 3.9100e-
003
200.62356.3400e-
003
6.3400e-
003
6.3400e-
003
6.3400e-
003
Energy 9.1800e-
003
0.0785 0.0334 5.0000e-
004
0.0000 10.2300 10.2300 2.4600e-
003
1.4000e-
004
10.33448.5400e-
003
8.5400e-
003
8.5400e-
003
8.5400e-
003
Area 0.9439 0.0236 1.4556 1.2000e-
004
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
22.2390 1,333.618
9
1,355.8579 1.5480 0.0141 1,398.756
3
1.0852 0.0282 1.1134 0.2916 0.0274 0.3190Total1.2861 1.1613 5.2393 0.0128
4.0307 12.7307 16.7615 0.4153 0.0100 30.13470.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Water
18.2083 0.0000 18.2083 1.0761 0.0000 45.11030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Waste
0.0000 1,111.513
0
1,111.5130 0.0416 0.0000 1,112.553
6
1.0852 0.0133 1.0985 0.2916 0.0125 0.3041Mobile0.3331 1.0593 3.7503 0.0122
0.0000 199.1451 199.1451 0.0126 3.9100e-
003
200.62356.3400e-
003
6.3400e-
003
6.3400e-
003
6.3400e-
003
Energy 9.1800e-
003
0.0785 0.0334 5.0000e-
004
0.0000 10.2300 10.2300 2.4600e-
003
1.4000e-
004
10.33448.5400e-
003
8.5400e-
003
8.5400e-
003
8.5400e-
003
Area 0.9439 0.0236 1.4556 1.2000e-
004
CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2ROGNOxCOSO2Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total Draft
0.0000 3.2661 3.2661 6.9000e-
004
0.0000 3.28331.1200e-
003
1.1200e-
003
1.0800e-
003
1.0800e-
003
Off-Road 2.2600e-
003
0.0202 0.0228 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0106 0.0000 0.0106 1.6000e-
003
0.0000 1.6000e-
003
CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2OSO2Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
3.2 Demolition - 2019
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO
7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Architectural Coating 4 28.00 0.00 0.00 10.80
10.80 7.30 7.30 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 3 10.00 0.00 80.00
Trenching 2 5.00 0.00 0.00 10.80
10.80 7.30 7.30 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 7 140.00 21.00 300.00
Grading 6 15.00 0.00 500.00 10.80
10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 4 10.00 0.00 0.00
Demolition 5 13.00 0.00 162.00 10.80
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 0 6.00 78 0.48
Architectural Coating Aerial Lifts 4 3.00 63 0.31
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 8.00 97 0.37
Paving Rollers 2 2.00 80 0.38
Paving Paving Equipment 1 2.00 132 0.36
Paving Pavers 0 6.00 130 0.42
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 0 6.00 9 0.56
Trenching Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 4.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 2 1.00 46 0.45
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 6.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Generator Sets 2 1.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Forklifts 2 1.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Cranes 1 1.00 231 0.29
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 6.00 97 0.37
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 0 6.00 247 0.40
Grading Graders 1 1.50 187 0.41
Grading Excavators 2 2.30 158 0.38
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 6.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 0 7.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Graders 0 8.00 187 0.41
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 8.00 97 0.37
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 0 8.00 247 0.40
Demolition Excavators 2 1.60 158 0.38
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 3 0.70 81 0.73Draft
0.0000 2.5110 2.5110 7.9000e-
004
0.0000 2.53081.4000e-
003
1.4000e-
003
1.2900e-
003
1.2900e-
003
Off-Road 2.1000e-
003
0.0210 0.0207 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
3.3 Site Preparation - 2019
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 7.7425 7.7425 8.6000e-
004
0.0000 7.76392.3700e-
003
1.2000e-
004
2.5000e-
003
6.4000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
7.6000e-
004
Total 1.1900e-
003
0.0286 0.0137 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.8801 0.8801 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.88061.0200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0300e-
003
2.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.8000e-
004
Worker 3.8000e-
004
2.7000e-
004
2.7900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 6.8623 6.8623 8.4000e-
004
0.0000 6.88331.3500e-
003
1.1000e-
004
1.4700e-
003
3.7000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
4.8000e-
004
Hauling 8.1000e-
004
0.0283 0.0109 7.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 3.2661 3.2661 6.9000e-
004
0.0000 3.28324.7600e-
003
5.6000e-
004
5.3200e-
003
7.2000e-
004
5.6000e-
004
1.2800e-
003
Total 1.1100e-
003
0.0235 0.0258 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.2661 3.2661 6.9000e-
004
0.0000 3.28325.6000e-
004
5.6000e-
004
5.6000e-
004
5.6000e-
004
Off-Road 1.1100e-
003
0.0235 0.0258 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00004.7600e-
003
0.0000 4.7600e-
003
7.2000e-
004
0.0000 7.2000e-
004
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 7.7425 7.7425 8.6000e-
004
0.0000 7.76392.3700e-
003
1.2000e-
004
2.5000e-
003
6.4000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
7.6000e-
004
Total 1.1900e-
003
0.0286 0.0137 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.8801 0.8801 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.88061.0200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0300e-
003
2.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.8000e-
004
Worker 3.8000e-
004
2.7000e-
004
2.7900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 6.8623 6.8623 8.4000e-
004
0.0000 6.88331.3500e-
003
1.1000e-
004
1.4700e-
003
3.7000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
4.8000e-
004
Hauling 8.1000e-
004
0.0283 0.0109 7.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 3.2661 3.2661 6.9000e-
004
0.0000 3.28330.0106 1.1200e-
003
0.0117 1.6000e-
003
1.0800e-
003
2.6800e-
003
Total 2.2600e-
003
0.0202 0.0228 4.0000e-
005 Draft
0.0000 8.0498 8.0498 2.5500e-
003
0.0000 8.11353.7200e-
003
3.7200e-
003
3.4200e-
003
3.4200e-
003
Off-Road 6.1200e-
003
0.0643 0.0592 9.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00001.0200e-
003
0.0000 1.0200e-
003
1.2000e-
004
0.0000 1.2000e-
004
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
3.4 Grading - 2019
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.2031 0.2031 0.0000 0.0000 0.20322.4000e-
004
0.0000 2.4000e-
004
6.0000e-
005
0.0000 6.0000e-
005
Total 9.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.4000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.2031 0.2031 0.0000 0.0000 0.20322.4000e-
004
0.0000 2.4000e-
004
6.0000e-
005
0.0000 6.0000e-
005
Worker 9.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.4000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 2.5110 2.5110 7.9000e-
004
0.0000 2.53080.0000 1.0600e-
003
1.0600e-
003
0.0000 1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
Total 1.2200e-
003
0.0277 0.0211 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.5110 2.5110 7.9000e-
004
0.0000 2.53081.0600e-
003
1.0600e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
Off-Road 1.2200e-
003
0.0277 0.0211 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.2031 0.2031 0.0000 0.0000 0.20322.4000e-
004
0.0000 2.4000e-
004
6.0000e-
005
0.0000 6.0000e-
005
Total 9.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.4000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.2031 0.2031 0.0000 0.0000 0.20322.4000e-
004
0.0000 2.4000e-
004
6.0000e-
005
0.0000 6.0000e-
005
Worker 9.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.4000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 2.5110 2.5110 7.9000e-
004
0.0000 2.53080.0000 1.4000e-
003
1.4000e-
003
0.0000 1.2900e-
003
1.2900e-
003
Total 2.1000e-
003
0.0210 0.0207 3.0000e-
005 Draft
0.0000 2.2320 2.2320 7.1000e-
004
0.0000 2.24961.2500e-
003
1.2500e-
003
1.1500e-
003
1.1500e-
003
Total 1.8600e-
003
0.0187 0.0184 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.2320 2.2320 7.1000e-
004
0.0000 2.24961.2500e-
003
1.2500e-
003
1.1500e-
003
1.1500e-
003
Off-Road 1.8600e-
003
0.0187 0.0184 2.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
3.5 Trenching - 2019
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 21.9924 21.9924 2.6100e-
003
0.0000 22.05755.1200e-
003
3.6000e-
004
5.4800e-
003
1.4000e-
003
3.4000e-
004
1.7400e-
003
Total 2.8500e-
003
0.0876 0.0362 2.2000e-
004
0.0000 0.8124 0.8124 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.81299.4000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
9.5000e-
004
2.5000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.6000e-
004
Worker 3.5000e-
004
2.5000e-
004
2.5700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 21.1800 21.1800 2.5900e-
003
0.0000 21.24464.1800e-
003
3.5000e-
004
4.5300e-
003
1.1500e-
003
3.3000e-
004
1.4800e-
003
Hauling 2.5000e-
003
0.0873 0.0336 2.1000e-
004
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 8.0498 8.0498 2.5500e-
003
0.0000 8.11354.6000e-
004
2.9200e-
003
3.3800e-
003
5.0000e-
005
2.9500e-
003
3.0000e-
003
Total 3.6200e-
003
0.0842 0.0655 9.0000e-
005
0.0000 8.0498 8.0498 2.5500e-
003
0.0000 8.11352.9200e-
003
2.9200e-
003
2.9500e-
003
2.9500e-
003
Off-Road 3.6200e-
003
0.0842 0.0655 9.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00004.6000e-
004
0.0000 4.6000e-
004
5.0000e-
005
0.0000 5.0000e-
005
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 21.9924 21.9924 2.6100e-
003
0.0000 22.05755.1200e-
003
3.6000e-
004
5.4800e-
003
1.4000e-
003
3.4000e-
004
1.7400e-
003
Total 2.8500e-
003
0.0876 0.0362 2.2000e-
004
0.0000 0.8124 0.8124 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.81299.4000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
9.5000e-
004
2.5000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.6000e-
004
Worker 3.5000e-
004
2.5000e-
004
2.5700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 21.1800 21.1800 2.5900e-
003
0.0000 21.24464.1800e-
003
3.5000e-
004
4.5300e-
003
1.1500e-
003
3.3000e-
004
1.4800e-
003
Hauling 2.5000e-
003
0.0873 0.0336 2.1000e-
004
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 8.0498 8.0498 2.5500e-
003
0.0000 8.11351.0200e-
003
3.7200e-
003
4.7400e-
003
1.2000e-
004
3.4200e-
003
3.5400e-
003
Total 6.1200e-
003
0.0643 0.0592 9.0000e-
005 Draft
0.0000 31.6195 31.6195 5.3000e-
003
0.0000 31.75200.0155 0.0155 0.0150 0.0150Total0.0341 0.2704 0.2165 3.7000e-
004
0.0000 31.6195 31.6195 5.3000e-
003
0.0000 31.75200.0155 0.0155 0.0150 0.0150Off-Road 0.0341 0.2704 0.2165 3.7000e-
004
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
3.6 Building Construction - 2019
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.2708 0.2708 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.27103.1000e-
004
0.0000 3.2000e-
004
8.0000e-
005
0.0000 9.0000e-
005
Total 1.2000e-
004
8.0000e-
005
8.6000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.2708 0.2708 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.27103.1000e-
004
0.0000 3.2000e-
004
8.0000e-
005
0.0000 9.0000e-
005
Worker 1.2000e-
004
8.0000e-
005
8.6000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 2.2320 2.2320 7.1000e-
004
0.0000 2.24969.4000e-
004
9.4000e-
004
9.5000e-
004
9.5000e-
004
Total 1.0900e-
003
0.0246 0.0188 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.2320 2.2320 7.1000e-
004
0.0000 2.24969.4000e-
004
9.4000e-
004
9.5000e-
004
9.5000e-
004
Off-Road 1.0900e-
003
0.0246 0.0188 2.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.2708 0.2708 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.27103.1000e-
004
0.0000 3.2000e-
004
8.0000e-
005
0.0000 9.0000e-
005
Total 1.2000e-
004
8.0000e-
005
8.6000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.2708 0.2708 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.27103.1000e-
004
0.0000 3.2000e-
004
8.0000e-
005
0.0000 9.0000e-
005
Worker 1.2000e-
004
8.0000e-
005
8.6000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Draft
0.0000 30.8119 30.8119 5.0000e-
003
0.0000 30.93680.0133 0.0133 0.0128 0.0128Total0.0300 0.2442 0.2082 3.7000e-
004
0.0000 30.8119 30.8119 5.0000e-
003
0.0000 30.93680.0133 0.0133 0.0128 0.0128Off-Road 0.0300 0.2442 0.2082 3.7000e-
004
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
3.6 Building Construction - 2020
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 168.7218 168.7218 8.0200e-
003
0.0000 168.92230.1371 2.8600e-
003
0.1400 0.0368 2.7100e-
003
0.0395Total0.0569 0.3410 0.4487 1.8000e-
003
0.0000 104.2630 104.2630 2.2300e-
003
0.0000 104.31880.1212 7.8000e-
004
0.1220 0.0323 7.2000e-
004
0.0330Worker0.0456 0.0321 0.3304 1.1500e-
003
0.0000 61.7936 61.7936 5.4600e-
003
0.0000 61.93000.0151 2.0400e-
003
0.0171 4.3500e-
003
1.9500e-
003
6.3000e-
003
Vendor 0.0110 0.2950 0.1133 6.2000e-
004
0.0000 2.6652 2.6652 3.3000e-
004
0.0000 2.67358.0000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
8.5000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
2.5000e-
004
Hauling 3.8000e-
004
0.0140 4.9900e-
003
3.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 31.6195 31.6195 5.3000e-
003
0.0000 31.75194.6100e-
003
4.6100e-
003
4.6100e-
003
4.6100e-
003
Total 8.4600e-
003
0.2186 0.2269 3.7000e-
004
0.0000 31.6195 31.6195 5.3000e-
003
0.0000 31.75194.6100e-
003
4.6100e-
003
4.6100e-
003
4.6100e-
003
Off-Road 8.4600e-
003
0.2186 0.2269 3.7000e-
004
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 168.7218 168.7218 8.0200e-
003
0.0000 168.92230.1371 2.8600e-
003
0.1400 0.0368 2.7100e-
003
0.0395Total0.0569 0.3410 0.4487 1.8000e-
003
0.0000 104.2630 104.2630 2.2300e-
003
0.0000 104.31880.1212 7.8000e-
004
0.1220 0.0323 7.2000e-
004
0.0330Worker0.0456 0.0321 0.3304 1.1500e-
003
0.0000 61.7936 61.7936 5.4600e-
003
0.0000 61.93000.0151 2.0400e-
003
0.0171 4.3500e-
003
1.9500e-
003
6.3000e-
003
Vendor 0.0110 0.2950 0.1133 6.2000e-
004
0.0000 2.6652 2.6652 3.3000e-
004
0.0000 2.67358.0000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
8.5000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
2.5000e-
004
Hauling 3.8000e-
004
0.0140 4.9900e-
003
3.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Draft
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Paving0.0000
0.0000 2.0926 2.0926 6.6000e-
004
0.0000 2.10921.0200e-
003
1.0200e-
003
9.4000e-
004
9.4000e-
004
Off-Road 1.6700e-
003
0.0169 0.0159 2.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
3.7 Paving - 2019
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 161.8025 161.8025 7.4700e-
003
0.0000 161.98940.1346 2.0900e-
003
0.1367 0.0362 1.9700e-
003
0.0381Total0.0503 0.3038 0.4038 1.7300e-
003
0.0000 99.1160 99.1160 1.9300e-
003
0.0000 99.16430.1190 7.5000e-
004
0.1198 0.0317 6.9000e-
004
0.0324Worker0.0412 0.0279 0.2942 1.1000e-
003
0.0000 60.1006 60.1006 5.2200e-
003
0.0000 60.23120.0148 1.3100e-
003
0.0161 4.2800e-
003
1.2500e-
003
5.5300e-
003
Vendor 8.7900e-
003
0.2630 0.1047 6.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.5859 2.5859 3.2000e-
004
0.0000 2.59398.0000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
8.3000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
2.4000e-
004
Hauling 3.2000e-
004
0.0128 4.8400e-
003
3.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 30.8119 30.8119 5.0000e-
003
0.0000 30.93684.5300e-
003
4.5300e-
003
4.5300e-
003
4.5300e-
003
Total 8.3000e-
003
0.2147 0.2228 3.7000e-
004
0.0000 30.8119 30.8119 5.0000e-
003
0.0000 30.93684.5300e-
003
4.5300e-
003
4.5300e-
003
4.5300e-
003
Off-Road 8.3000e-
003
0.2147 0.2228 3.7000e-
004
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 161.8025 161.8025 7.4700e-
003
0.0000 161.98940.1346 2.0900e-
003
0.1367 0.0362 1.9700e-
003
0.0381Total0.0503 0.3038 0.4038 1.7300e-
003
0.0000 99.1160 99.1160 1.9300e-
003
0.0000 99.16430.1190 7.5000e-
004
0.1198 0.0317 6.9000e-
004
0.0324Worker0.0412 0.0279 0.2942 1.1000e-
003
0.0000 60.1006 60.1006 5.2200e-
003
0.0000 60.23120.0148 1.3100e-
003
0.0161 4.2800e-
003
1.2500e-
003
5.5300e-
003
Vendor 8.7900e-
003
0.2630 0.1047 6.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.5859 2.5859 3.2000e-
004
0.0000 2.59398.0000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
8.3000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
2.4000e-
004
Hauling 3.2000e-
004
0.0128 4.8400e-
003
3.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Draft
0.0000 22.1289 22.1289 7.1600e-
003
0.0000 22.30792.1500e-
003
2.1500e-
003
1.9800e-
003
1.9800e-
003
Off-Road 5.9400e-
003
0.0966 0.1641 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 1.3727
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
3.8 Architectural Coating - 2020
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 2.0855 2.0855 1.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.09031.0300e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.0600e-
003
2.8000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
004
Total 5.0000e-
004
7.5900e-
003
4.7800e-
003
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6770 0.6770 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.67747.9000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.9000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
0.0000 2.1000e-
004
Worker 3.0000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
2.1500e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 1.4085 1.4085 1.7000e-
004
0.0000 1.41292.4000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
2.7000e-
004
7.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
Hauling 2.0000e-
004
7.3800e-
003
2.6300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 2.0926 2.0926 6.6000e-
004
0.0000 2.10927.8000e-
004
7.8000e-
004
7.8000e-
004
7.8000e-
004
Total 1.0100e-
003
0.0215 0.0177 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Paving0.0000
0.0000 2.0926 2.0926 6.6000e-
004
0.0000 2.10927.8000e-
004
7.8000e-
004
7.8000e-
004
7.8000e-
004
Off-Road 1.0100e-
003
0.0215 0.0177 2.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 2.0855 2.0855 1.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.09031.0300e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.0600e-
003
2.8000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
004
Total 5.0000e-
004
7.5900e-
003
4.7800e-
003
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6770 0.6770 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.67747.9000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.9000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
0.0000 2.1000e-
004
Worker 3.0000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
2.1500e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 1.4085 1.4085 1.7000e-
004
0.0000 1.41292.4000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
2.7000e-
004
7.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
Hauling 2.0000e-
004
7.3800e-
003
2.6300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 2.0926 2.0926 6.6000e-
004
0.0000 2.10921.0200e-
003
1.0200e-
003
9.4000e-
004
9.4000e-
004
Total 1.6700e-
003
0.0169 0.0159 2.0000e-
005 Draft
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eExhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
0.0000 18.3548 18.3548 3.6000e-
004
0.0000 18.36380.0220 1.4000e-
004
0.0222 5.8700e-
003
1.3000e-
004
5.9900e-
003
Total 7.6400e-
003
5.1700e-
003
0.0545 2.0000e-
004
0.0000 18.3548 18.3548 3.6000e-
004
0.0000 18.36380.0220 1.4000e-
004
0.0222 5.8700e-
003
1.3000e-
004
5.9900e-
003
Worker 7.6400e-
003
5.1700e-
003
0.0545 2.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 22.1289 22.1289 7.1600e-
003
0.0000 22.30785.7900e-
003
5.7900e-
003
5.7900e-
003
5.7900e-
003
Total 1.3789 0.1416 0.1912 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 22.1289 22.1289 7.1600e-
003
0.0000 22.30785.7900e-
003
5.7900e-
003
5.7900e-
003
5.7900e-
003
Off-Road 6.2000e-
003
0.1416 0.1912 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 1.3727
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 18.3548 18.3548 3.6000e-
004
0.0000 18.36380.0220 1.4000e-
004
0.0222 5.8700e-
003
1.3000e-
004
5.9900e-
003
Total 7.6400e-
003
5.1700e-
003
0.0545 2.0000e-
004
0.0000 18.3548 18.3548 3.6000e-
004
0.0000 18.36380.0220 1.4000e-
004
0.0222 5.8700e-
003
1.3000e-
004
5.9900e-
003
Worker 7.6400e-
003
5.1700e-
003
0.0545 2.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 22.1289 22.1289 7.1600e-
003
0.0000 22.30792.1500e-
003
2.1500e-
003
1.9800e-
003
1.9800e-
003
Total 1.3786 0.0966 0.1641 2.5000e-
004 Draft
90.8484 1.7400e-
003
1.6700e-
003
91.38826.3400e-
003
6.3400e-
003
6.3400e-
003
0.0000 90.8484
91.3882
Total 9.1800e-
003
0.0785 0.0334 5.0000e-
004
6.3400e-
003
6.3400e-
003
0.0000 90.8484 90.8484 1.7400e-
003
1.6700e-
003
5.0000e-
004
6.3400e-
003
6.3400e-
003
6.3400e-
003
Apartments Mid
Rise
1.70243e+
006
9.1800e-
003
0.0785 0.0334
NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
0.0000 90.8484 90.8484 1.7400e-
003
1.6700e-
003
91.38826.3400e-
003
6.3400e-
003
6.3400e-
003
6.3400e-
003
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
9.1800e-
003
0.0785 0.0334 5.0000e-
004
0.0000 90.8484 90.8484 1.7400e-
003
1.6700e-
003
91.38826.3400e-
003
6.3400e-
003
6.3400e-
003
6.3400e-
003
NaturalGas
Mitigated
9.1800e-
003
0.0785 0.0334 5.0000e-
004
0.0000 108.2968 108.2968 0.0108 2.2400e-
003
109.23520.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Electricity
Unmitigated
0.0000 108.2968 108.2968 0.0108 2.2400e-
003
109.23520.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Electricity
Mitigated
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
5.0 Energy Detail
Historical Energy Use: N
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
0.006323 0.003943 0.003278 0.008771 0.000435 0.000741
SBUS MH
Apartments Mid Rise 0.490452 0.049742 0.253638 0.136789 0.017926 0.006526 0.021436
LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCYLand Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1
15.00 54.00 86 11 3
4.4 Fleet Mix
H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Apartments Mid Rise 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00
4.3 Trip Type Information
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
Total 1,296.75 1,246.05 1,142.70 2,927,427 2,927,427
Annual VMT
Apartments Mid Rise 1,296.75 1,246.05 1142.70 2,927,427 2,927,427
4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT
0.0000 1,111.513
0
1,111.5130 0.0416 0.0000 1,112.553
6
1.0852 0.0133 1.0985 0.2916 0.0125 0.3041Unmitigated0.3331 1.0593 3.7503 0.0122
0.0000 1,111.513
0
1,111.5130 0.0416 0.0000 1,112.553
6
1.0852 0.0133 1.0985 0.2916 0.0125 0.3041Mitigated0.3331 1.0593 3.7503 0.0122
Category tons/yr MT/yrDraft
6.2 Area by SubCategory
0.0000 10.2300 10.2300 2.4600e-
003
1.4000e-
004
10.33448.5400e-
003
8.5400e-
003
8.5400e-
003
8.5400e-
003
Unmitigated 0.9439 0.0236 1.4556 1.2000e-
004
0.0000 10.2300 10.2300 2.4600e-
003
1.4000e-
004
10.33448.5400e-
003
8.5400e-
003
8.5400e-
003
8.5400e-
003
Mitigated 0.9439 0.0236 1.4556 1.2000e-
004
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
6.0 Area Detail
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
109.2352
Total 108.2968 0.0108 2.2400e-
003
109.2352
Land Use kWh/yr t
o
n
MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
823288 108.2968 0.0108 2.2400e-
003
Mitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
109.2352
Total 108.2968 0.0108 2.2400e-
003
109.2352
Land Use kWh/yr t
o
n
MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
823288 108.2968 0.0108 2.2400e-
003
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
90.8484 90.8484 1.7400e-
003
1.6700e-
003
91.3882
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
6.3400e-
003
6.3400e-
003
6.3400e-
003
6.3400e-
003
0.0000
1.6700e-
003
91.3882
Total 9.1800e-
003
0.0785 0.0334 5.0000e-
004
6.3400e-
003
6.3400e-
003
0.0000 90.8484 90.8484 1.7400e-
003
0.0334 5.0000e-
004
6.3400e-
003
6.3400e-
003
CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
1.70243e+
006
9.1800e-
003
0.0785
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OSO2Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO
Mitigated Draft
30.1347
Land Use Mgal t
o
n
MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
12.705 /
8.0097
16.7615 0.4153 0.0100
7.2 Water by Land Use
Unmitigated
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Unmitigated 16.7615 0.4153 0.0100 30.1347
Category t
o
n
MT/yr
Mitigated 16.7615 0.4153 0.0100 30.1347
7.0 Water Detail
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
0.0000 10.2300 10.2300 2.4600e-
003
1.4000e-
004
10.33448.5400e-
003
8.5400e-
003
8.5400e-
003
8.5400e-
003
Total 0.9439 0.0236 1.4556 1.2000e-
004
0.0000 2.3651 2.3651 2.3100e-
003
0.0000 2.42287.9900e-
003
7.9900e-
003
7.9900e-
003
7.9900e-
003
Landscaping 0.0442 0.0168 1.4527 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 7.8649 7.8649 1.5000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
7.91165.5000e-
004
5.5000e-
004
5.5000e-
004
5.5000e-
004
Hearth 7.9000e-
004
6.7900e-
003
2.8900e-
003
4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Consumer
Products
0.7616
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Architectural
Coating
0.1373
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Mitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 10.2300 10.2300 2.4600e-
003
1.4000e-
004
10.33448.5400e-
003
8.5400e-
003
8.5400e-
003
8.5400e-
003
Total 0.9439 0.0236 1.4556 1.2000e-
004
0.0000 2.3651 2.3651 2.3100e-
003
0.0000 2.42287.9900e-
003
7.9900e-
003
7.9900e-
003
7.9900e-
003
Landscaping 0.0442 0.0168 1.4527 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 7.8649 7.8649 1.5000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
7.91165.5000e-
004
5.5000e-
004
5.5000e-
004
5.5000e-
004
Hearth 7.9000e-
004
6.7900e-
003
2.8900e-
003
4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Consumer
Products
0.7616
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Architectural
Coating
0.1373
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Unmitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Draft
45.1103
Land Use tons t
o
n
MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
89.7 18.2083 1.0761 0.0000
Mitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
45.1103
Total 18.2083 1.0761 0.0000 45.1103
Land Use tons t
o
n
MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
89.7 18.2083 1.0761 0.0000
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Unmitigated 18.2083 1.0761 0.0000 45.1103
t
o
n
MT/yr
Mitigated 18.2083 1.0761 0.0000 45.1103
8.0 Waste Detail
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
Category/Year
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
30.1347
Total 16.7615 0.4153 0.0100 30.1347
Land Use Mgal t
o
n
MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
12.705 /
8.0097
16.7615 0.4153 0.0100
Mitigated
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Total 16.7615 0.4153 0.0100 30.1347 Draft
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
11.0 Vegetation
Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power
Total 18.2083 1.0761 0.0000 45.1103 Draft
Project Name: Miller Cypress SSF - Parcel D+
See Equipment Type TAB for type, horsepower and load factor
Project Size 105,993 s.f. residential 0.52 total project acres disturbed
0 s.f. retail
0 s.f. office/commerical
s.f. other, specify:
58,419 s.f. parking garage
Construction Hours 7:30 am to 3:30 pm
Qty Description HP Load Factor Hours/day
Total
Work
Days
Avg.
Hours per
day
Annual
Hours Comments
Demolition Start Date:Q3 2016 Total work days:15 Overall Import/Export Volumes
End Date:Q3 2016
3 Concrete/Industrial Saws 81 0.73 2 5 0.6666667 30 Demolition Volume
2 Excavators 162 0.3819 6 4 1.6 48 Square footage of buildings to be demolished
0 Rubber-Tired Dozers 255 0.3953 0 0 0 0 (or total tons to be hauled)
Other Equipment?_22,650_ square feet or_?_ Hauling volume (tons)
Site Preperation Start Date:Q4 2016 Total work days:3 Any pavement demolished and hauled? _0_ tons
End Date:Q4 2016
0 Rubber Tired Dozers 255 0.3953 0 0 0 0
4 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.3685 6 3 6 72
Other Equipment?
Grading / Excavation Start Date:Q4 2016 Total work days:8
End Date:Q4 2016 Soil Hauling Volume
2 Excavators 162 0.3819 6 3 2.25 36 Export volume = 500 cubic yards?
1 Graders 174 0.4087 4 3 1.5 12 Import volume = 275 cubic yards?
0 Rubber Tired Dozers 255 0.3953 0 0 0 0
3 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.3685 6 8 6
Other Equipment?
Trenching Start Date:Q1 2017 Total work days:8
End Date:Q1 2017
2 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 97 0.3685 4 8 4 64
0 Excavators 162 0.3819 6 0 0
Other Equipment?
Building - Exterior Start Date:Q1 2017 Total work days:218 Cement Trucks? _77_ Total Round-Trips
End Date:Q4 2017
1 Cranes 226 0.2881 6 5 0.1 30 Electric? (Y/N) _N__ Otherwise assumed diesel
2 Forklifts 89 0.201 4 50 0.9 400 Liquid Propane (LPG)? (Y/N) _N__ Otherwise Assumed diesel
2 Generator Sets 84 0.74 8 22 0.8 352 Or temporary line power? (Y/N) _Y__
0 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.3685 0 0 0.0 0
2 Welders 46 0.45 4 3 0.1 24
Other Equipment?
Building - Interior/Architectural Coating Start Date:Q3 2017 Total work days:100
End Date:Q1 2018
0 Air Compressors (ALL ELECTRIC)78 0.48 0 0
4 Aerial Lift 62 0.3 6 50 3 1200
Other Equipment?
Paving Start Date:Q1 2018 Total work days:10
Start Date:Q1 2018 58.419
0 Cement and Mortar Mixers 9 0.56 0 0 0 0
0 Pavers 125 0.4154 0 0 0 0
1 Paving Equipment 130 0.3551 10 2 2 20
2 Rollers 80 0.3752 10 2 2 40
0 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.3685 0 0 0 0
Other Equipment?
Asphalt? ___ cubic yards or ____ round trips?
Complete ALL Portions in Yellow
Note the activity for VMAP is
assumed to be twice as much
except for demolition
Draft
Attachment 2: Health Impact Evaluation Methodology
A health risk assessment (HRA) for exposure to Toxic Air Contaminates (TACs) requires the application of a risk
characterization model to the results from the air dispersion model to estimate potential health risk at each sensitive
receptor location. The State of California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and
California Air Resources Board (CARB) develop recommended methods for conducting health risk assessments. The
most recent OEHHA risk assessment guidelines were published in February of 2015.1 These guidelines incorporate
substantial changes designed to provide for enhanced protection of children, as required by State law, compared to
previous published risk assessment guidelines. CARB has provided additional guidance on implementing OEHHA’s
recommended methods.2 This HRA used the recent 2015 OEHHA risk assessment guidelines and CARB guidance.
The BAAQMD has adopted recommended procedures for applying the newest OEHHA guidelines as part of
Regulation 2, Rule 5: New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants.3 Exposure parameters from the OEHHA
guidelines and the recent BAAQMD HRA Guidelines were used in this evaluation.
Cancer Risk
Potential increased cancer risk from inhalation of TACs are calculated based on the TAC concentration over the period
of exposure, inhalation dose, the TAC cancer potency factor, and an age sensitivity factor to reflect the greater
sensitivity of infants and children to cancer causing TACs. The inhalation dose depends on a person’s breathing rate,
exposure time and frequency of exposure, and the exposure duration. These parameters vary depending on the age,
or age range, of the persons being exposed and whether the exposure is considered to occur at a residential location
or other sensitive receptor location.
The current OEHHA guidance recommends that cancer risk be calculated by age groups to account for different
breathing rates and sensitivity to TACs. Specifically, they recommend evaluating risks for the third trimester of
pregnancy to age zero, ages zero to less than two (infant exposure), ages two to less than 16 (child exposure), and ages
16 to 70 (adult exposure). Age sensitivity factors (ASFs) associated with the different types of exposure are an ASF
of 10 for the third trimester and infant exposures, an ASF of 3 for a child exposure, and an ASF of 1 for an adult
exposure. Also associated with each exposure type are different breathing rates, expressed as liters per kilogram of
body weight per day (L/kg-day). As recommended in the BAAQMD guidance, 95th percentile breathing rates are used
for the third trimester and infant exposures, and 80th percentile breathing rates for child and adult exposures.
Additionally, CARB and the BAAQMD recommend the use of a residential exposure duration of 30 years for sources
with long-term emissions (e.g., roadways).
Under previous OEHHA and BAAQMD HRA guidance, residential receptors were assumed to be at their home 24
hours a day, or 100 percent of the time. In the 2015 Risk Assessment Guidance, OEHHA includes adjustments to
exposure duration to account for the fraction of time at home (FAH), which can be less than 100 percent of the time,
based on updated population and activity statistics. The FAH factors are age-specific and are: 0.85 for third trimester
of pregnancy to less than 2 years old, 0.72 for ages 2 to less than 16 years, and 0.73 for ages 16 to 70 years. Use of
the FAH factors is recommended in the BAAQMD guidance if there are no schools in the project vicinity that would
have a cancer risk of one in a million or greater assuming 100 percent exposure (FAH = 1.0).
Functionally, cancer risk is calculated using the following parameters and formulas:
Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x FAH x 106
Where:
CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group
1 OEHHA, 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program
Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.
February.
2 CARB, 2015. Risk Management Guidance for Stationary Sources of Air Toxics. July 23.
3 BAAQMD, 2016. BAAQMD Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment (HRA) Guidelines. January 2016.
Draft
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)
FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless)
Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6
Where:
Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
10-6 = Conversion factor
The health risk parameters used in this evaluation are summarized as follows:
Exposure Type Infant Child Adult
Parameter Age Range 3rd Trimester 0<2 2 < 9 2 < 16 16 - 30
DPM Cancer Potency Factor (mg/kg-day)-1 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00
Daily Breathing Rate (L/kg-day)* 361 1,090 631 572 261
Inhalation Absorption Factor 1 1 1 1 1
Averaging Time (years) 70 70 70 70 70
Exposure Duration (years) 0.25 2 14 14 14
Exposure Frequency (days/year) 350 350 350 350 350
Age Sensitivity Factor 10 10 3 3 1
Fraction of Time at Home 0.85-1.0 0.85-1.0 0.72-1.0 0.72-1.0 0.73
* 95th percentile breathing rates for 3rd trimester and infants and 80th percentile for children and adults
BAAQMD has provided screening tools for assessing impacts from stationary sources, highways and local roadways.
These tools do not incorporate the latest OEHHA guidance described above. For these sources and sources with
continuous emissions evaluated using the older 2010 guidance, BAAQMD recommends adjusting the lifetime cancer
risk upwards with a 1.3744 factor. This factor was provided by BAAQMD for use with their CEQA screening tools
that are used to predict cancer risk.4
Non-Cancer Hazards
Potential non-cancer health hazards from TAC exposure are expressed in terms of a hazard index (HI), which is the
ratio of the TAC concentration to a reference exposure level (REL). OEHHA has defined acceptable concentration
levels for contaminants that pose non-cancer health hazards. TAC concentrations below the REL are not expected to
cause adverse health impacts, even for sensitive individuals. The total HI is calculated as the sum of the HIs for each
TAC evaluated and the total HI is compared to the BAAQMD significance thresholds to determine whether a
significant non-cancer health impact from a project would occur.
Typically, for residential projects located near roadways with substantial TAC emissions, the primary TAC of concern
with non-cancer health effects is diesel particulate matter (DPM). For DPM, the chronic inhalation REL is 5
micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3).
Annual PM2.5 Concentrations
While not a TAC, fine particulate matter (PM2.5) has been identified by the BAAQMD as a pollutant with potential
non-cancer health effects that should be included when evaluating potential community health impacts under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The thresholds of significance for PM2.5 (project level and
cumulative) are in terms of an increase in the annual average concentration. When considering PM2.5 impacts, the
contribution from all sources of PM2.5 emissions should be included. For projects with potential impacts from nearby
4 Email from Virginia Lau, BAAQMD to Bill Popenuck, Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc, dated November 15, 2015.
Draft
local roadways, the PM2.5 impacts should include those from vehicle exhaust emissions, PM2.5 generated from vehicle
tire and brake wear, and fugitive emissions from re-suspended dust on the roads.
Draft
Attachment 3: SSF Construction Health Risk Information
Draft
SSF Vacant Miller Ave. Parking Lots (VMAP), South San Francisco, CA
DPM Emissions and Modeling Emission Rates - Unmitigated
Emissions Modeled Emission
Model DPM Area DPM Emissions Area Rate
Year Activity (ton/year)Source (lb/yr)(lb/hr)(g/s)(m2)(g/s/m2)
2019 Construction 0.0246 DPM 49.2 0.014981.89E-034,351 4.34E-07
2020 Construction 0.0159 DPM 31.80.009681.22E-034,351 2.80E-07
Total 0.0405 81.00.02470.0031
Operation Hours
hr/day =9 (7am - 4pm)
days/yr = 365
hours/year = 3285 PM2.5 Fugitive Dust Emissions for Modeling - Unmitigated
Modeled Emission
Construction Area PM2.5 Emissions Area Rate
Year Activity Source (ton/year)(lb/yr)(lb/hr)(g/s)(m2)g/s/m2
2019 Construction FUG 0.005511.00.003364.23E-044,351 9.73E-08
2020 Construction FUG 0.0042 8.3 0.002543.20E-044,351 7.35E-08
Total 0.009719.40.00590.0007
Operation Hours
hr/day =9 (7am - 4pm)
days/yr = 365
hours/year = 3285
DPM Construction Emissions and Modeling Emission Rates - With Mitigation
DPM
Emissions Modeled Emission
Model DPM Area DPM Emissions Area Rate
Year Activity (ton/year)Source (lb/yr)(lb/hr)(g/s)(m2)(g/s/m2)
2019 Construction 0.0115 DPM 23.00.007008.82E-044,351 2.03E-07
2020 Construction 0.0108 DPM 21.60.006588.28E-044,351 1.90E-07
Total 0.0223 44.60.01360.0017
Operation Hours
hr/day =9 (7am - 4pm)
days/yr = 365
hours/year = 3285
PM2.5 Fugitive Dust Construction Emissions for Modeling - With Mitigation
PM2.5
Modeled Emission
Construction Area PM2.5 Emissions Area Rate
Year Activity Source (ton/year)(lb/yr)(lb/hr)(g/s)(m2)g/s/m2
2019 Construction FUG 0.0046 9.2 0.002793.52E-044,351 8.09E-08
2020 Construction FUG 0.0042 8.3 0.002543.20E-044,351 7.35E-08
Total 0.008817.50.00530.0007
Operation Hours
hr/day =9 (7am - 4pm)
days/yr = 365
hours/year = 3285
Draft
SSF Vacant Miller Ave. Parking Lots (VMAP), South San Francisco, CA
Construction Health Impacts Summary - Off-Site Receptors
Maximum Impacts at Off-Site Construction MEI Location - Unmitigated
Maximum Concentrations Maximum
Exhaust Fugitive Cancer Risk Hazard Annual PM2.5
Emissions PM10/DPM PM2.5 (per million)Index Concentration
Year (μg/m3)(μg/m3)Child Adult (-)(μg/m3)
2019 0.05970.0151 9.80.2 0.0120.07
2020 0.03850.0114 6.30.1 0.0080.05
Total --16.1 0.3 --
Maximum 0.05970.0151 --0.0120.07
Maximum Impacts at Off-Site Construction MEI Location - With Mitigation
Maximum Concentrations Maximum
Exhaust Fugitive Cancer Risk Hazard Annual PM2.5
Emissions PM10/DPM PM2.5 (per million)Index Concentration
Year (μg/m3)(μg/m3)Child Adult (-)(μg/m3)
2019 0.02790.0125 4.60.1 0.0060.04
2020 0.02610.0114 4.30.1 0.0050.04
Total --8.90.2 --
Maximum 0.02790.0125 --0.0060.04
Draft
SSF VMAP, South San Francisco, CA - Without Mitigatoin
Maximum DPM Cancer Risk Calculations From Construction
Impacts at Off-Site Receptors-1.5 meter
Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x FAH x 1.0E6
Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)
FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless)
Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
10-6 = Conversion factor
Values
Infant/Child Adult
Age -->3rd Trimester 0 - 22 - 9 2 - 1616 - 30
Parameter
ASF = 10 10 33 1
CPF =1.10E+001.10E+001.10E+001.10E+001.10E+00
DBR* =3611090631572261
A =1 111 1
EF =350350350350350
AT =70 70707070
FAH =1.001.001.001.000.73
* 95th percentile breathing rates for infants and 80th percentile for children and adults
Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location
Infant/Child - Exposure Information Infant/Child Adult - Exposure Information Adult
Exposure Age Cancer Modeled Age Cancer
Exposure Duration DPM Conc (ug/m3)Sensitivity Risk DPM Conc (ug/m3)Sensitivity Risk Fugitive Total
Year (years)AgeYear Annual Factor (per million)Year Annual Factor (per million)PM2.5PM2.5
0 0.25 -0.25 - 0*--10 -----
1 1 0 - 1 20190.0597109.8120190.0597 1 0.170.01510.075
2 1 1 - 2 20200.0385106.3320200.0385 1 0.110.01140.050
3 1 2 - 3 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
4 1 3 - 4 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
5 1 4 - 5 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
6 1 5 - 6 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
7 1 6 - 7 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
8 1 7 - 8 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
9 1 8 - 9 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
10 1 9 - 10 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
11 1 10 - 11 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
12 1 11 - 12 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
13 1 12 - 13 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
14 1 13 - 14 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
15 1 14 - 15 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
16 1 15 - 16 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
17 1 16-17 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
18 1 17-18 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
19 1 18-19 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
20 1 19-20 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
21 1 20-21 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
22 1 21-22 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
23 1 22-23 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
24 1 23-24 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
25 1 24-25 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
26 1 25-26 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
27 1 26-27 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
28 1 27-28 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
29 1 28-29 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
30 1 29-30 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
Total Increased Cancer Risk 16.1 0.28
* Third trimester of pregnancy
Draft
SSF VMAP, South San Francisco, CA - With Mitigation
Maximum DPM Cancer Risk Calculations From Construction
Impacts at Off-Site Receptors-1.5 meter
Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x FAH x 1.0E6
Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)
FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless)
Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
10-6 = Conversion factor
Values
Infant/Child Adult
Age -->3rd Trimester 0 - 22 - 9 2 - 1616 - 30
Parameter
ASF = 10 10 33 1
CPF =1.10E+001.10E+001.10E+001.10E+001.10E+00
DBR* =3611090631572261
A =1 111 1
EF =350350350350350
AT =70 70707070
FAH =1.001.001.001.000.73
* 95th percentile breathing rates for infants and 80th percentile for children and adults
Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location
Infant/Child - Exposure Information Infant/Child Adult - Exposure Information Adult
Exposure Age Cancer Modeled Age Cancer
Exposure Duration DPM Conc (ug/m3)Sensitivity Risk DPM Conc (ug/m3)Sensitivity Risk Fugitive Total
Year (years)AgeYear Annual Factor (per million)Year Annual Factor (per million)PM2.5PM2.5
0 0.25 -0.25 - 0*--10 -----
1 1 0 - 1 20190.0279104.5920190.0279 1 0.080.01250.040
2 1 1 - 2 20200.0261104.2920200.0261 1 0.080.01140.038
3 1 2 - 3 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
4 1 3 - 4 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
5 1 4 - 5 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
6 1 5 - 6 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
7 1 6 - 7 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
8 1 7 - 8 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
9 1 8 - 9 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
10 1 9 - 10 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
11 1 10 - 11 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
12 1 11 - 12 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
13 1 12 - 13 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
14 1 13 - 14 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
15 1 14 - 15 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
16 1 15 - 16 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
17 1 16-17 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
18 1 17-18 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
19 1 18-19 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
20 1 19-20 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
21 1 20-21 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
22 1 21-22 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
23 1 22-23 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
24 1 23-24 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
25 1 24-25 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
26 1 25-26 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
27 1 26-27 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
28 1 27-28 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
29 1 28-29 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
30 1 29-30 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
Total Increased Cancer Risk 8.9 0.16
* Third trimester of pregnancy
Draft
V A C A N T M I L L E R A V E P A R K I N G L O T / C A D E N C E P H A S E 2 , S O U T H S A N F R A N C I S C O , C A L I F O R N I A A 1 1 .0 006.0 7 .2 0 1 8
S H A D O W S T U D Y
AUTUMN
EQUINOX
PROJECT SITE
SPRING
EQUINOX
PROJECT SITE
8 AM 10 AM 12 PM 2 PM 4 PM
MILLE
R
AVE
LUX AVE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
MILLE
R
AVE
LUX AVE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
V A C A N T M I L L E R A V E P A R K I N G L O T / C A D E N C E P H A S E 2 , S O U T H S A N F R A N C I S C O , C A L I F O R N I A A 1 1 .0 106.0 7 .2 0 1 8
S H A D O W S T U D Y
8 AM 10 AM 12 PM 2 PM 4 PM
SUMMER
SOLSTICE
PROJECT SITE
WINTER
SOLSTICE
PROJECT SITE
MILLE
R
AVE
LUX AVE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
MILLE
R
AVE
LUX AVE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
3130 La Selva Street, Suite 100 San Mateo, CA 94403 650/349-2151 Fax 650/345-4921
MEMORANDUM
Date: December 04, 2017 From: Jeff Peterson, PE
To: Ken Busch
Sares Regis
901 Mariners Island Blvd,
7th Floor
San Mateo, CA 94404
Job No.: 818-0
Re: Sanitary Sewer Evaluation for the
Vacant Miller Ave. Properties
Copies to:
Study Purpose
The purpose of this study is to update Wilsey Ham’s Sanitary Sewer Evaluation for the South
City Central Project (Ford Properties) dated February 3, 2016 (February 2016 document) to
reflect the proposed Vacant Miller Avenue Parking Lot project.
Background
Sares Regis is submitting a preliminary planning submittal package to the City of South San
Francisco for the Vacant Miller Avenue Parking Lot Project (VMAP). The VMAP project consists
of modifications to the proposed development for parcels B and C of the South City Central
redevelopment project, plus the inclusion of the parcels in between parcels B and C. The
previous South City Central project comprised four parcels, A, B, C, and D. Multifamily housing
units are currently under construction on parcels A and D which are located on the north and
south side of Miller Avenue (respectively) between Airport Boulevard and Cypress Avenue.
Additional multi-family housing was proposed for parcel C, while parcel B was proposed to
remain as a parking lot with several improvements.
The VMAP Project proposes two potential scenarios for construction that include: 1) The
construction of Phase 2A only; or 2) the construction of Phase 2A and 2B. (See the VMAP site
location below). The purpose of this memo is to update the previously prepared Sewer
Evaluation for the South City Central Project to evaluate the impact of the increased sewer flows
that result from the modified land use for parcels B and C, and the inclusion of the additional
parcels.
The VMAP project’s maximum size is a 1.1 acre site bound by Miller Avenue to the south and
Tamarack Lane to the north. The sanitary sewer from this parcel can be discharged to either
the existing 6-inch sanitary sewer on Miller Avenue or the existing 6-inch sanitary sewer on
Tamarack Lane, or can be distributed to both these line. The flows from VMAP and the
available capacity within the 6-inch sewer lines on Miller Avenue and the Tamarack Lane were
evaluated as part of this sanitary sewer capacity study.
VMAP Site
Methodology
This study utilizes and modifies the previous South City Central Sewer Study (attached). The
previous study analyzed the sewer mains within Miller Avenue and Tamarack Lane based on
the proposed flows from the 12 housing units that were proposed on parcel C and no sewer
flows from the proposed parking lot on parcel B. With the changed conditions, it is now
projected that a maximum number of 195 housing units are proposed within the VMAP project.
As stated in the earlier report, the City confirmed that the 24” sewer main within Cypress
Avenue installed in 2008 does not need to be analyzed.
Flow Monitoring
Wilsey Ham previously utilized the services of V&A Consulting Engineers to perform flow
monitoring on the 6-inch sewers in Miller Avenue and Tamarack Lane. These flow monitoring
locations are shown in Figure 1 and were pre-approved by the City. Flow monitoring was
performed for a period of 2 weeks in January, 2016. The flow monitoring results provided peak
dry weather flows (PDWF) and Peak Wet Weather Flows (PWWF) which are summarized below
in Table 1. A more detailed description of flow monitoring can be found in Appendix A of the
February 2016 document.
Location PDWF (gpm) PWWF (gpm)
Miller Avenue (Site 2) 61 334
Tamarack Lane (Site 1) 57 293
Table 1 – Flow Monitoring Results from V&A
Pipe Capacity Evaluation
Wilsey Ham performed a field survey to collect sanitary sewer inverts and to determine the pipe
slopes of the existing 6-inch sanitary sewers. Manning’s equation was then used to compute
sanitary sewer capacity at full flow and at 0.9 full. Pipe flow calculations were performed using
MS Excel and can be found in Appendix B of this document. Appendix B is updated from
February 2016 document. The pipe capacities are provided in the table below.
Location
Pipe
Size (in) Material
Manning’s
n-value Slope
Full Flow
Capacity
(gpm)
0.9 Full
Capacity
(gpm)
Miller Avenue 6 VCP 0.013 3.7% 485 516
Tamarack Lane 6 VCP 0.013 1.6% 319 341
Table 2 – Pipe Capacities
Proposed Project Flows
The development of the VMAP project will result in up to 195 residential housing units for the full
build-out of Phases 2A + 2B which will increase flows into the City’s existing sanitary sewer
system in Miller Avenue and/or Tamarack Lane. Using the residential wastewater generation
rate of 250 gpd/du used in past EIR studies prepared in the City of South San Francisco, the
total sanitary sewer generation for the project is 195 du x 250 gpd/du = 48,750 gpd or about 34
gpm. Assuming a peaking factor of 3, peak flow from the project is about 102 gpm.
Pipe Flow Evaluation
The City’s sewer criteria defines a sewer trunk as deficient if the depth of flow to pipeline
diameter (d/D) for PDWF conditions is greater than 0.9. During PWWF, a sewer trunk is
deficient if the hydraulic grade line rises to within one foot of the manhole rim elevation. In order
to provide the maximum flexibility for the final design of VMAP project, we have evaluated the
capacity of both the Miller Ave. and Tamarack Lane systems. The results for both PDWF and
PWWF are summarized in the tables below:
Location
Pre-Project
PDWF (gpm)
Project Peak
Flow (gpm)
Post-Project
PDWF (gpm)
Miller Avenue 61 102 163
Tamarack Lane 57 102 159
Table 3 – Existing and Projected PDWF Flows
Location
Pre-Project
PWWF (gpm)
Project Peak
Flow (gpm)
Post-Project
PWWF (gpm)
Miller Avenue 334 102 436
Tamarack Lane 293 102 395
Table 4 – Existing and Projected PWWF Flows
Assumptions used for Evaluation
The following assumptions were used for the evaluation of the pipelines on the Miller and
Tamarack Lane:
· No downstream and upstream pipes were evaluated other than the 6-inch pipe
segments on Miller Avenue and Tamarack Lane.
· For PDWF, actual peaking factor from flow monitoring was used but a peaking factor of
3.0 was used for the flows from the new development. The actual peaking factor from
flow monitoring was less than 2.0.
· The observed PWWF was applied to the new flows as well. Since the flows from the new
development will be from newer sewer pipes with shorter segments, it was assumed that
these segments will not contribute any additional inflow and infiltration and thus will not
contribute to PWWF.
Summary
The flow monitoring results indicate that the existing sanitary sewers in Miller Avenue and
Tamarack Lane are flowing well below capacity, even during peak, wet weather events.
However, the increase in flows resulting from the full development of the VMAP project will add
significant flows to the sewer system. As shown in Tables 3 and 4 above, the 6-inch pipeline on
Miller Avenue has capacity to take all additional flows from the new development but the
pipeline on the Tamarack Lane can only take about 48 gpm from the new development while
still meeting the City’s sewer system criteria for trunk sewers.
APPEDIX B
Pipe Flow Calculations
Flow Analysis from the New Development - 195 units @ 250 gpd/du
Base Flows Tamarack Miller Additional Flows
ADWF 29.00 35.00 33.85
PDWF 57.00 61.00 101.56
PDWF/ADWF 1.97 1.74
PWWF 293.00 334.00
PWWF-PDWF 236.00 273.00
Additional Flows to either Tamarack or Miller
ADWF 62.85 68.85
PDWF=3 for new 158.56 162.56
PWWF, PDWF=3 394.56 435.56
Additional Flows equally distributed to Tamarack and Miller
ADWF 45.35 51.27
PDWF=3 for new 107.78 111.78
PWWF, PDWF=3 343.78 384.78
Existing Capacity
Size, inches 6 6
Slope 0.0160 0.0370
Area 0.20 0.20
wetted perimeter 1.57 1.57
hydraulic radius 0.13 0.13
Capacity, Q 319 485
Capacity, Q @0.9 full 341 516
Figure 1 – Site Map & Flow Monitoring Locations
Methodology
Wilsey Ham worked with the City (Bob Hahn) to determine a strategy to accomplish the City’s
request for a sewer capacity evaluation. The following paragraphs outline that strategy and
provide our findings.
Flow Monitoring
Wilsey Ham utilized the services of V&A Consulting Engineers to perform flow monitoring on the
6-inch sewers in Miller Avenue and Tamarack Lane. These flow monitoring locations are shown
in Figure 1 and were pre-approved by the City. Flow monitoring was performed for a period of 2
weeks in January, 2016. The flow monitoring results provided peak dry weather flows (PDWF)
and Peak Wet Weather Flows (PWWF) which are summarized below in Table 1. A more
detailed description of flow monitoring can be found in Appendix A.
Location PDWF (gpm)PWWF (gpm)
Miller Avenue (Site 2)61 334
Tamarack Lane (Site 1)57 293
Table 1 – Flow Monitoring Results from V&A
Pipe Capacity Evaluation
Wilsey Ham performed a field survey to collect sanitary sewer inverts and to determine the pipe
slopes of the existing 6-inch sanitary sewers. Manning’s equation was then used to compute
sanitary sewer capacity at full flow and at 0.9 full. Pipe flow calculations were performed using
FlowMaster and can be found in Appendix B. The pipe capacities are provided in the table
below.
Location
Pipe
Size (in)Material
Manning’s
n-value Slope
Full Flow
Capacity
(gpm)
0.9 Full
Capacity
(gpm)
Miller Avenue 6 VCP 0.013 3.7%485 516
Tamarack Lane 6 VCP 0.013 1.6%319 341
Table 2 – Pipe Capacities
Proposed Project Flows
The development of Parcel C of 12 residential dwelling units will increase flows in the City’s
existing sanitary sewer system in Miller Avenue and/or Tamarack Lane. Wilsey Ham reviewed
EIR studies prepared in the City of South San Francisco and found that a water demand rate of
280 gallons per day per dwelling unit (gpd/du) for residential development is consistently used.
It is commonly assumed that 90% and water demand results in wastewater. Accordingly, the
residential wastewater generation rate is 250 gpd/du. These demand rates are consistent with
other cities in the Bay Area. The total sanitary sewer generation for the project is 12 du x 250
gpd/du = 3,000 gpd or 2.1 gpm. Assuming a peaking factor of 3, peak flow from the project is
9,000 gpd or 6.2 gpm.
Pipe Flow Evaluation
The City’s sewer criteria defines a sewer trunk as deficient if the depth of flow to pipeline
diameter (d/D) for PDWF conditions is greater than 0.9. During PWWF, a sewer trunk is
deficient if the hydraulic grade line rises to within one foot of the manhole rim elevation. In order
to provide the maximum flexibility for the final design of Parcel C, we have evaluated the
capacity of both the Miller Ave. and Tamarack Lane systems. The results for both PDWF and
PWWF are summarized in the tables below:
Location
Pre-Project
PDWF (gpm)
Project Peak
Flow (gpm)
Post-Project
PDWF (gpm)
Flow Depth/Pipe
Diameter
Miller Avenue 61 6.2 67.2 0.25
Tamarack Lane 57 6.2 63.2 0.30
Table 3 – PDWF Capacities
Location
Pre-Project
PWWF (gpm)
Project Peak
Flow (gpm)
Post-Project
PWWF (gpm)
Flow Depth/Pipe
Diameter
Miller Avenue 334 6.2 340.2 0.62
Tamarack Lane 293 6.2 299.2 0.77
Table 4 – PWWF Capacities
Summary
The flow monitoring results indicate that the existing sanitary sewers in Miller Avenue and
Tamarack Lane are flowing well below capacity, even during peak, wet weather events. The
increase in flow resulting from the development of Parcel C is less than five percent of the
overall system flows for either system. As a result, the increase in flow from Parcel C has little
impact on system performance.
As shown in Tables 3 and 4 above, the proposed project could discharge to either the Miller
Avenue system or the Tamarack Lane system while still meeting the City’s sewer system criteria
for trunk sewers. Both systems have adequate spare capacity to accommodate the
development of Parcel C.
APPENDIX A
V&A Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring
SANITARY SEWER FLOW MONITORING
AND CAPACITY STUDY
CYPRESS AVENUE IN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Prepared for: Wilsey HamWilsey HamWilsey HamWilsey Ham
3130 La Selva Street, Suite 100
San Mateo, CA 94403
Date: February 2016
Prepared by:
V&A Project No. 15-0334
V&A Project No. 15-0334 Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................ 1 1.0
METHODS AND PROCEDURES .................................................................................................... 2 2.0
2.1 Confined Space Entry .................................................................................................................. 2
2.2 Flow Meter Installation ................................................................................................................ 3
2.3 Flow Calculation .......................................................................................................................... 4
2.4 Pipeline Capacity Calculation ...................................................................................................... 5
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................. 6 3.0
3.1 Flow Monitoring ........................................................................................................................... 6
3.2 Pipeline Capacity Analysis ........................................................................................................... 7
TABLES
Table 3-1. Flow Monitoring Summary ..................................................................................................... 6
Table 3-2. Pipelines Affected by the New Development ........................................................................ 7
Table 3-3. Pipeline Capacity Summary ................................................................................................... 8
FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Location of the Study Area and the Flow Monitoring Sites .................................................. 1
Figure 2-1. Typical Installation for Flow Meter with Submerged Sensor ................................................ 3
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Detailed Flow Monitoring Data
V&A Project No. 15-0334 Introduction 1
INTRODUCTION 1.0
V&A Consulting Engineers (V&A) was retained by Wilsey Ham to perform sanitary sewer flow
monitoring and a sewer capacity study within the City of South San Francisco (City). The flow
monitoring was to support a new development project at Cypress Avenue and Miller Avenue, South
San Francisco, CA. This study identified the average and peak flows and determined the available
capacity of the 6-inch pipelines on Tamarack Lane and Miller Avenue. The new development, Parcel
C, will be connected to the sewer on either Tamarack Lane or Miller Avenue, depending on the
remaining capacity of each pipeline.
The flow monitoring was performed at two manholes for two weeks from January 15 to January 29,
2016. Figure 1-1 shows the development area, affected pipelines, and the flow monitoring locations.
Figure 1-1. Location of the Study Area and the Flow Monitoring Sites
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and Capacity Study
Cypress Avenue in South San Francisco, CA
V&A Project No. 15-0334 Methods and Procedures 2
METHODS AND PROCEDURES 2.0
2.1 Confined Space Entry
A confined space (Photo 2-1) is defined as any space that is large enough and so configured that a
person can bodily enter and perform assigned work, has limited or restricted means for entry or exit
and is not designed for continuous employee occupancy. In general, the atmosphere must be
constantly monitored for sufficient levels of oxygen (19.5% to 23.5%), and the absence of hydrogen
sulfide (H2S) gas, carbon monoxide (CO) gas, and lower explosive limit (LEL) levels. A typical
confined space entry crew has members with OSHA-defined responsibilities of Entrant, Attendant
and Supervisor. The Entrant is the individual performing the work. He or she is equipped with the
necessary personal protective equipment needed to perform the job safely, including a personal
four-gas monitor (Photo 2-2). If it is not possible to maintain line-of-sight with the Entrant, then more
Entrants are required until line-of-sight can be maintained. The Attendant is responsible for
maintaining contact with the Entrants to monitor the atmosphere using another four-gas monitor and
maintaining records of all Entrants, if there are more than one. The Supervisor is responsible for
developing the safe work plan for the job at hand prior to entering.
Photo 2-1. Confined Space Entry Photo 2-2. Typical Personal Four-Gas
Monitor
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and Capacity Study
Cypress Avenue in South San Francisco, CA
V&A Project No. 15-0334 Methods and Procedures 3
2.2 Flow Meter Installation
A Teledyne Isco 2150 meter was installed by V&A in the sewer line in each of the monitoring
manholes. Isco 2150 meters use submerged sensors with a pressure transducer to collect depth
readings and an ultrasonic Doppler sensor to determine the average fluid velocity. The ultrasonic
sensor emits high-frequency sound waves, which are reflected by air bubbles and suspended
particles in the flow. The sensor receives the reflected signal and determines the Doppler frequency
shift, which indicates the estimated average flow velocity. The sensor is typically mounted at a
manhole inlet to take advantage of smoother upstream flow conditions. The sensor may be offset to
one side to lessen the chances of fouling and sedimentation where these problems are expected to
occur. Manual level and velocity measurements were taken during installation of the flow meters
and again when they were removed and were compared to simultaneous level and velocity readings
from the flow meters to ensure proper calibration and accuracy. The pipe diameter was also verified
in order to accurately calculate the flow cross-section. The continuous depth and velocity readings
were recorded by the flow meters on 5-minute intervals. Figure 2-1 shows a typical installation for a
flow meter with a submerged sensor.
Figure 2-1. Typical Installation for Flow Meter with Submerged Sensor
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and Capacity Study
Cypress Avenue in South San Francisco, CA
V&A Project No. 15-0334 Methods and Procedures 4
2.3 Flow Calculation
Data retrieved from the flow meter was placed into a spreadsheet program for analysis. Data
analysis includes data comparison to field calibration measurements, as well as necessary
geometric adjustments as required for sediment (sediment reduces the pipe’s wetted cross-sectional
area available to carry flow). Area-velocity flow metering uses the continuity equation,
)(STAAvAvQ-==
where Q : volume flow rate
v: average velocity as determined by the ultrasonic sensor
A: cross-sectional area available to carry flow
AT: total cross-sectional area with both wastewater and sediment
AS: cross-sectional area of sediment.
For circular pipe,
----=--
D
dDdD
D
dDA W
W
W
T
21cossin
22
21cos
4
11
2
----=--
D
dDdD
D
dDA S
S
S
S
21cossin
22
21cos
4
11
2
where dW: distance between wastewater surface level and pipe invert
dS: depth of sediment
D: pipe diameter
Weekday and weekend flow patterns differ and are separated when determining average dry
weather flows (ADWF). The Overall ADWF was determined from:
×+×=--7
2
7
5
SunSatFriMonADWFADWFADWF
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and Capacity Study
Cypress Avenue in South San Francisco, CA
V&A Project No. 15-0334 Methods and Procedures 5
2.4 Pipeline Capacity Calculation
The pipeline capacity was calculated by using the Manning equation:
n
ASRAvQ×××
=×=
2
1
3
2
49.1
where
v: Flow velocity (ft/s)
A: Cross-sectional area of flow (ft2)
R: hydraulic radius (ft), calculated from flow level d and pipe diameter D, Maximum d/D = 2/3
per City Standard
S: Pipeline slope (ft/ft), provided by Wilsey Ham
n: Roughness coefficient (unitless), 0.013 for VCP pipe, 0.010 for HDPE and PVC pipes
Q: Flow rate (ft3/s)
V&A Project No. 15-0334 Results and Analysis 6
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS 3.0
3.1 Flow Monitoring
Table 3-1 lists the ADWF, peak measured flow and other calculated factors used to determine the
pipeline capacity. Capacity analysis data is presented on a site-by-site basis and represents the
hydraulic condition only at the site location. Hydraulic conditions in other areas of the collection
system will differ. Detailed graphs of the flow monitoring data are included in Appendix A.
Note:Note:Note:Note: This study took place during both dry weather and wet weather flow monitoring conditions. The
pipeline capacity analysis per adopted City standards considers only dry weather flow conditions.
Therefore, the flows stated below have been separated by wet and dry weather flow conditions. The
dry and wet periods for each site are shown in the graphs of Appendix A.
For the purposes of this study, a day was considered a “dry” day when preceded by at least 48 hours
with no rainfall. Within this study, January 25 – 29, 2016 was primarily considered as the dry period;
data within this period was used for the capacity analysis later in this study.
Table 3-1. Flow Monitoring Summary
Monitored ItemsMonitored ItemsMonitored ItemsMonitored Items Site 1Site 1Site 1Site 1
((((TamarackTamarackTamarackTamarack))))
Site 2Site 2Site 2Site 2
((((MillerMillerMillerMiller))))
Diameter (in.) 6 6
Sediment (in.) 0.0 0.0
Overall ADWF (gpm) 29 35
Peak Measured Dry Flow (gpm) 57 61
Peak Measured Dry Level (in) 1.69 3.60
Wastewater Depth/Pipe Diameter
(dry condition) 0.28 0.60
Wet Weather Flow Conditions shown below for informational purposes onlyWet Weather Flow Conditions shown below for informational purposes onlyWet Weather Flow Conditions shown below for informational purposes onlyWet Weather Flow Conditions shown below for informational purposes only
Peak Wet Flow (gpm) 293 334
Peak Measured Wet Level (in) 4.17 5.30
Wastewater Depth/Pipe Diameter
(wet condition) 0.70 0.88
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and Capacity Study
Cypress Avenue in South San Francisco, CA
V&A Project No. 15-0334 Results and Analysis 7
3.2 Pipeline Capacity Analysis
The following criteria were used to calculate the flow added by the new development to the existing
pipelines1.
• The average wastewater generation rate is 250 gal/day/residential unit approved by the City.
• The peak flow was calculated with the following formula:
Qpeak = 2.5 x (Qavg.)0.91
The estimated average flow and peak flow from the new development area are summarized
in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2. Pipelines Affected by the New Development
SegmentSegmentSegmentSegment Size/Size/Size/Size/
MaterialMaterialMaterialMaterial
Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring
SiteSiteSiteSite
New Flow New Flow New Flow New Flow
SourceSourceSourceSource
Added Average Added Average Added Average Added Average
FlowFlowFlowFlow
(gpm)(gpm)(gpm)(gpm)
Added Peak Added Peak Added Peak Added Peak
Flow (gpm)Flow (gpm)Flow (gpm)Flow (gpm)
Tamarack 6-in VCP Site 1 12 Townhomes 2.1 4.9
Miller 6-in VCP Site 2 12 Townhomes 2.1 4.9
Table 3-3 summarizes the capacity analysis. The capacity for the assessment is based only on the
slope information provided by Wilsey Ham. The following results are noted:
• Both pipelines have sufficient available capacity during dry weather flow conditions to accept
the additional flow from the proposed development.
1 Per E-mail confirmation between V&A and the City Engineer, the City of South San Francisco has agreed to use City of San Jose
capacity evaluation criteria for the purposes of this study. All stated standards in the remainder of this study were taken from City of
San Jose development study criteria.
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and Capacity Study
Cypress Avenue in South San Francisco, CA
V&A Project No. 15-0334 Results and Analysis 8
Table 3-3. Pipeline Capacity Summary
ItemItemItemItem TamarackTamarackTamarackTamarack MillerMillerMillerMiller
CapacityCapacityCapacityCapacity
Pipe Diameter (inch) 6 6
Slope (%) 1.6 3.7
Full-Pipe Capacity (gpm) 319 485
City Allowable Peak Flow by Level (inch) 4 4
2/3-Full Peak Allowable Flow per City Standard (gpm) 252 383
Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF)Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF)Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF)Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF)
Measured ADWF (gpm) 29 35
Estimated Additional ADWF from the Development (gpm) 2.1 2.1
Total Estimated ADWF (gpm) 31 37
Peak Dry Weather Flow (PDWF)Peak Dry Weather Flow (PDWF)Peak Dry Weather Flow (PDWF)Peak Dry Weather Flow (PDWF)
Measured PDWF (gpm) 57 61
Estimated Additional PDWF (gpm) 4.9 4.9
Total Estimated PDWF (gpm): 62 66
Available CapacityAvailable CapacityAvailable CapacityAvailable Capacity
Available Flow (City Peak Allowable Flow less Total
Estimated PDWF in gpm): 190 317
Has Capacity? Yes Yes
V&A Project No. 15-0334 Appendix A A-1
APPENDIX A. FLOW MONITORING
PHOTOS AND DATA GRAPHS
(15-MINUTE INTERVAL)
Site 1 Plan View Photo Site 1 Street View Photo
Site 1 Vicinity Map Site 1 Sanitary Map
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and Capacity Study
Cypress Avenue in South San Francisco, CA
V&A Project No. 15-0334 Appendix A A-2
Site 2 Plan View Photo Site 2 Street View Photo
Site 2 Vicinity Map Site 2 Sanitary Map
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and Capacity Study
Cypress Avenue in South San Francisco, CA
V&A Project No. 15-0334 Appendix A A-3
Site 1 Flow Monitoring Details (1/15/2016-1/21/2016)
Wet Weather
Dry
Weather
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and Capacity Study
Cypress Avenue in South San Francisco, CA
V&A Project No. 15-0334 Appendix A A-4
Site 1 Flow Monitoring Details (1/22/2016-1/28/2016)
Wet Weather Dry Weather
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and Capacity Study
Cypress Avenue in South San Francisco, CA
V&A Project No. 15-0334 Appendix A A-5
Site 2 Flow Monitoring Details (1/15/2016-1/21/2016)
Wet Weather
Dry
Weather
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and Capacity Study
Cypress Avenue in South San Francisco, CA
V&A Project No. 15-0334 Appendix A A-6
Site 2 Flow Monitoring Details (1/22/2016-1/28/2016)
Wet Weather Dry Weather
APPEDIX B
FlowMaster Pipe Flow Calculations
Project Description
Friction MethodManning Formula
Solve ForFull Flow Capacity
Input Data
Roughness Coefficient 0.013
Channel Slope 0.03700 ft/ft
Normal Depth 0.50 ft
Diameter 0.50 ft
Discharge 1.08 ft³/s
Results
Discharge 1.08ft³/s
Normal Depth 0.50ft
Flow Area 0.20ft²
Wetted Perimeter 1.57ft
Hydraulic Radius 0.13ft
Top Width 0.00ft
Critical Depth 0.48ft
Percent Full 100.0%
Critical Slope 0.03219ft/ft
Velocity 5.50ft/s
Velocity Head 0.47ft
Specific Energy 0.97ft
Froude Number 0.00
Maximum Discharge 1.16ft³/s
Discharge Full 1.08ft³/s
Slope Full 0.03700ft/ft
Flow TypeSubCritical
GVF Input Data
Downstream Depth 0.00 ft
Length 0.00 ft
Number Of Steps 0
GVF Output Data
Upstream Depth 0.00 ft
Profile Description
Profile Headloss 0.00 ft
Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 %
Miller Avenue - Full Capacity
2/3/2016 9:29:32 AM
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries1) [08.11.01.03]
27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-16662of1Page
Project Description
Friction MethodManning Formula
Solve ForDischarge
Input Data
Roughness Coefficient 0.013
Channel Slope 0.03700 ft/ft
Normal Depth 0.45 ft
Diameter 0.50 ft
Results
Discharge 1.15ft³/s
Flow Area 0.19ft²
Wetted Perimeter 1.25ft
Hydraulic Radius 0.15ft
Top Width 0.30ft
Critical Depth 0.48ft
Percent Full 90.0%
Critical Slope 0.03685ft/ft
Velocity 6.18ft/s
Velocity Head 0.59ft
Specific Energy 1.04ft
Froude Number 1.38
Maximum Discharge 1.16ft³/s
Discharge Full 1.08ft³/s
Slope Full 0.04203ft/ft
Flow TypeSuperCritical
GVF Input Data
Downstream Depth 0.00 ft
Length 0.00 ft
Number Of Steps 0
GVF Output Data
Upstream Depth 0.00 ft
Profile Description
Profile Headloss 0.00 ft
Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 %
Normal Depth Over Rise 90.00 %
Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s
Miller Ave - 0.9 Full
2/3/2016 9:36:09 AM
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries1) [08.11.01.03]
27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-16662of1Page
Project Description
Friction MethodManning Formula
Solve ForFull Flow Capacity
Input Data
Roughness Coefficient 0.013
Channel Slope 0.01600 ft/ft
Normal Depth 0.50 ft
Diameter 0.50 ft
Discharge 0.71 ft³/s
Results
Discharge 0.71ft³/s
Normal Depth 0.50ft
Flow Area 0.20ft²
Wetted Perimeter 1.57ft
Hydraulic Radius 0.13ft
Top Width 0.00ft
Critical Depth 0.42ft
Percent Full 100.0%
Critical Slope 0.01510ft/ft
Velocity 3.61ft/s
Velocity Head 0.20ft
Specific Energy 0.70ft
Froude Number 0.00
Maximum Discharge 0.76ft³/s
Discharge Full 0.71ft³/s
Slope Full 0.01600ft/ft
Flow TypeSubCritical
GVF Input Data
Downstream Depth 0.00 ft
Length 0.00 ft
Number Of Steps 0
GVF Output Data
Upstream Depth 0.00 ft
Profile Description
Profile Headloss 0.00 ft
Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 %
Tamarack Lane - Full Capacity
2/3/2016 9:46:07 AM
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries1) [08.11.01.03]
27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-16662of1Page
Project Description
Friction MethodManning Formula
Solve ForDischarge
Input Data
Roughness Coefficient 0.013
Channel Slope 0.01600 ft/ft
Normal Depth 0.45 ft
Diameter 0.50 ft
Results
Discharge 0.76ft³/s
Flow Area 0.19ft²
Wetted Perimeter 1.25ft
Hydraulic Radius 0.15ft
Top Width 0.30ft
Critical Depth 0.44ft
Percent Full 90.0%
Critical Slope 0.01657ft/ft
Velocity 4.06ft/s
Velocity Head 0.26ft
Specific Energy 0.71ft
Froude Number 0.91
Maximum Discharge 0.76ft³/s
Discharge Full 0.71ft³/s
Slope Full 0.01817ft/ft
Flow TypeSubCritical
GVF Input Data
Downstream Depth 0.00 ft
Length 0.00 ft
Number Of Steps 0
GVF Output Data
Upstream Depth 0.00 ft
Profile Description
Profile Headloss 0.00 ft
Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 %
Normal Depth Over Rise 90.00 %
Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s
Tamarack Lane - 0.9 Full
2/3/2016 9:47:15 AM
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries1) [08.11.01.03]
27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-16662of1Page
Project Description
Friction MethodManning Formula
Solve ForNormal Depth
Input Data
Roughness Coefficient 0.013
Channel Slope 0.03700 ft/ft
Diameter 0.50 ft
Discharge 0.15 ft³/s
Results
Normal Depth 0.13ft
Flow Area 0.04ft²
Wetted Perimeter 0.53ft
Hydraulic Radius 0.07ft
Top Width 0.43ft
Critical Depth 0.19ft
Percent Full 25.2%
Critical Slope 0.00720ft/ft
Velocity 3.86ft/s
Velocity Head 0.23ft
Specific Energy 0.36ft
Froude Number 2.28
Maximum Discharge 1.16ft³/s
Discharge Full 1.08ft³/s
Slope Full 0.00071ft/ft
Flow TypeSuperCritical
GVF Input Data
Downstream Depth 0.00 ft
Length 0.00 ft
Number Of Steps 0
GVF Output Data
Upstream Depth 0.00 ft
Profile Description
Profile Headloss 0.00 ft
Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 %
Normal Depth Over Rise 25.17 %
Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s
Miller Ave - PDWF
2/3/2016 10:03:02 AM
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries1) [08.11.01.03]
27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-16662of1Page
Project Description
Friction MethodManning Formula
Solve ForNormal Depth
Input Data
Roughness Coefficient 0.013
Channel Slope 0.01600 ft/ft
Diameter 0.50 ft
Discharge 0.14 ft³/s
Results
Normal Depth 0.15ft
Flow Area 0.05ft²
Wetted Perimeter 0.58ft
Hydraulic Radius 0.09ft
Top Width 0.46ft
Critical Depth 0.19ft
Percent Full 30.2%
Critical Slope 0.00717ft/ft
Velocity 2.81ft/s
Velocity Head 0.12ft
Specific Energy 0.27ft
Froude Number 1.50
Maximum Discharge 0.76ft³/s
Discharge Full 0.71ft³/s
Slope Full 0.00063ft/ft
Flow TypeSuperCritical
GVF Input Data
Downstream Depth 0.00 ft
Length 0.00 ft
Number Of Steps 0
GVF Output Data
Upstream Depth 0.00 ft
Profile Description
Profile Headloss 0.00 ft
Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 %
Normal Depth Over Rise 30.23 %
Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s
Tamarack Lane - PDWF
2/3/2016 9:57:33 AM
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries1) [08.11.01.03]
27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-16662of1Page
Project Description
Friction MethodManning Formula
Solve ForNormal Depth
Input Data
Roughness Coefficient 0.013
Channel Slope 0.03700 ft/ft
Diameter 0.50 ft
Discharge 0.76 ft³/s
Results
Normal Depth 0.31ft
Flow Area 0.13ft²
Wetted Perimeter 0.90ft
Hydraulic Radius 0.14ft
Top Width 0.49ft
Critical Depth 0.44ft
Percent Full 61.8%
Critical Slope 0.01662ft/ft
Velocity 5.95ft/s
Velocity Head 0.55ft
Specific Energy 0.86ft
Froude Number 2.05
Maximum Discharge 1.16ft³/s
Discharge Full 1.08ft³/s
Slope Full 0.01825ft/ft
Flow TypeSuperCritical
GVF Input Data
Downstream Depth 0.00 ft
Length 0.00 ft
Number Of Steps 0
GVF Output Data
Upstream Depth 0.00 ft
Profile Description
Profile Headloss 0.00 ft
Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 %
Normal Depth Over Rise 61.79 %
Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s
Miller Ave - PWWF
2/3/2016 10:03:49 AM
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries1) [08.11.01.03]
27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-16662of1Page
Project Description
Friction MethodManning Formula
Solve ForNormal Depth
Input Data
Roughness Coefficient 0.013
Channel Slope 0.01600 ft/ft
Diameter 0.50 ft
Discharge 0.67 ft³/s
Results
Normal Depth 0.38ft
Flow Area 0.16ft²
Wetted Perimeter 1.07ft
Hydraulic Radius 0.15ft
Top Width 0.42ft
Critical Depth 0.41ft
Percent Full 77.0%
Critical Slope 0.01390ft/ft
Velocity 4.11ft/s
Velocity Head 0.26ft
Specific Energy 0.65ft
Froude Number 1.17
Maximum Discharge 0.76ft³/s
Discharge Full 0.71ft³/s
Slope Full 0.01412ft/ft
Flow TypeSuperCritical
GVF Input Data
Downstream Depth 0.00 ft
Length 0.00 ft
Number Of Steps 0
GVF Output Data
Upstream Depth 0.00 ft
Profile Description
Profile Headloss 0.00 ft
Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 %
Normal Depth Over Rise 76.98 %
Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s
Tamarack Lane - PWWF
2/3/2016 10:00:50 AM
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries1) [08.11.01.03]
27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-16662of1Page
PHASE I
ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
204 to 216 Miller Avenue and
405 Cypress Avenue
South San Francisco, California
May 2018
Prepared for
SSF Miller Cypress PRI, LLC
901 Mariners Island Boulevard, Suite 700
San Mateo, CA 94404
Prepared by
711 Grand Avenue, Suite 220
San Rafael, California 94901
415/460-6770 Fax 415/460-6771
main@westenvironmental.com
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
204 TO 216 MILLER AVENUE AND 405 CYPRESS AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
i
5/18
1.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................1
1.1 PURPOSE ...............................................................................................................................................................1
1.2 DETAILED SCOPE-OF-SERVICES ............................................................................................................................1
1.3 LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS .............................................................................................................................2
1.4 SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................3
1.5 USER RELIANCE ....................................................................................................................................................3
1.6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..........................................................................................................................................3
1.6.1 Background ................................................................................................................................................3
1.6.2 Findings ......................................................................................................................................................4
1.6.3 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................8
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................9
2.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGIC AND HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING .........................................................................................9
2.2 SURFACE WATER ..................................................................................................................................................9
2.3 CURRENT USES OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES ........................................................................................................10
3.0 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION ................................................................................11
3.1 TITLE RECORDS ..................................................................................................................................................11
3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL LIENS OR ACTIVITY AND USE LIMITATIONS ............................................................................11
3.3 SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE ..................................................................................................................................11
3.4 VALUATION REDUCTION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ......................................................................................11
3.5 COMMONLY KNOWN OR REASONABLY ASCERTAINABLE SITE INFORMATION .....................................................12
3.6 DEGREE OF OBVIOUSNESS ..................................................................................................................................12
3.7 OTHER ................................................................................................................................................................12
4.0 RECORDS REVIEW ..........................................................................................................13
4.1 STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD SOURCES ...............................................................................................13
4.2 ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS SOURCES ...........................................................................................13
4.3 PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCES ..............................................................................................................................14
4.4 HISTORICAL USE INFORMATION ON THE SITE ......................................................................................................14
4.5 HISTORICAL USE INFORMATION ON ADJOINING PROPERTIES ..............................................................................14
5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE ................................................................................................15
5.1 METHODOLOGY AND LIMITING CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................15
5.2 GENERAL SITE SETTING ......................................................................................................................................15
6.0 INTERVIEWS .....................................................................................................................16
6.1 INTERVIEW WITH OWNER ...................................................................................................................................16
6.2 INTERVIEW WITH PROPERTY MANAGER ..............................................................................................................16
6.3 INTERVIEW WITH OCCUPANTS.............................................................................................................................17
6.4 INTERVIEWS WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS...........................................................................................17
6.5 INTERVIEWS WITH OTHERS .................................................................................................................................17
7.0 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................18
8.0 DEVIATIONS ......................................................................................................................20
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
204 TO 216 MILLER AVENUE AND 405 CYPRESS AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
ii
5/18
9.0 ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATIONS..................................................................................21
10.0 DATA GAPS.........................................................................................................................22
11.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES ................................................................................................23
12.0 QUALIFICATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS ..............................24
13.0 REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................25
14.0 DISTRIBUTION LIST ........................................................................................................26
TABLES
FIGURES
APPENDICES
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
204 TO 216 MILLER AVENUE AND 405 CYPRESS AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
iii
5/18
LIST OF TABLES
Table 7-1 Summary of Recognized Environmental Conditions
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Site Location Map
Figure 2-1 Site Plan and Historical Use
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Standard Environmental Records Sources
Appendix B Historical Records Sources
Appendix C Site Photographs
Appendix D Interview Documentation
Appendix E Phase II ESA Findings
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
204 TO 216 MILLER AVENUE AND 405 CYPRESS AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
SIGNATURE PAGE
In conformance with 40 CFR 312, the undersigned "declare that, to the best of our professional
knowledge and belief, we meet the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in §
312.10 of40 CFR 312."
"We have the specific qualifications based on education, training and experience to assess a
property of the nature, history and setting of the subject property. We have developed and
performed the all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth
in 40 'CFR Part 312."
ter E. Morris
California Professional Geologist (7084)
Date
California Registered Civil Engineer ( 44031)
IV
5//8
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
204 TO 216 MILLER AVENUE AND 405 CYPRESS AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
1
5/18
1.0 INTRODUCTION
West Environmental Services & Technology, Inc. (WEST), prepared this Phase I Environmental
Site Assessment (“Phase I ESA”) for the properties located at 204 to 216 Miller Avenue and 405
Cypress Avenue in South San Francisco, California (“the Site;” Figure 1 -1). This Phase I ESA
was conducted in accordance with: 1) the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s
(USEPA’s) Chapter 40 Code of Federal (CFR) Regulations Part 312, S tandards and Practices
for All Appropriate Inquiry: Final Rule (40 CFR 312); and 2) ASTM Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process E 1527-13
(ASTM E 1527).
1.1 PURPOSE
The objective of performing the Phase I ESA was to identify recognized environmental
conditions (RECs) at the Site related to the previous ownership and uses of the Site and adjoining
properties. RECs, as applied in the scope of this work, are the presence or likely presence of any
hazardous substance or petroleum products in, on or at the Site: (1) due to any release to the
environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under
conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment.
1.2 DETAILED SCOPE-OF-SERVICES
The work followed the guidelines as outlined in 40 CFR 312 and ASTM E 1527, except as
otherwise noted. Specifically, WEST performed the following activities:
WEST obtained and reviewed reasonably ascertainable background data on the
characteristics and previous uses of the Site. The work included reviewing selected
historical aerial photographs, topographic maps and reasonably ascertainable data on the
geology and hydrogeology of the Site and vicinity;
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
204 TO 216 MILLER AVENUE AND 405 CYPRESS AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
2
5/18
WEST conducted a Site reconnaissance of accessible exterior portions of the grounds and
performed a drive-by reconnaissance of the surrounding neighborhood;
WEST requested information from local regulatory agency representatives regarding the
previous and current uses of the Site;
WEST searched pertinent regulatory records concerning potential releases of hazardous
materials at the Site and surrounding properties that may have impacted soil and/or
groundwater quality. Representatives of appropriate regulatory agencies were contacted
regarding regulatory records for the Site and surrounding area;
The findings were evaluated to develop opinions regarding whether they represented
recognized environmental conditions; and
WEST performed a data gap analysis.
The scope of the Phase I ESA did not include evaluations for possible natural hazards such as
naturally occurring radon gas, methane gas or the potential for earthquake or flood damage.
1.3 LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS
The observations and conclusions presented in this report are professional opinions based on the
activities conducted and the information obtained during the environmental assessment described
herein. Opinions presented here apply only to the observed Site conditions existing at the time of
the assessment and cannot necessarily apply to Site conditions or changes of which this office is
not aware or has not had the opportunity to evaluate. Any conclusions drawn from this data rely
on the integrity of the information available at the time of the investigation and an absolute
determination of environmental risks cannot be made.
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
204 TO 216 MILLER AVENUE AND 405 CYPRESS AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
3
5/18
1.4 SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
No special terms and conditions were indicated by the User for this Phase I ESA.
1.5 USER RELIANCE
The Phase I ESA report is for the exclusive use of the User and its designees. Use of this report
by any other party shall be at such party’s sole risk.
1.6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
We have prepared this Phase I ESA in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM E
1527. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 8.0 of this
report. This assessment revealed no evidence of current recognized environmental conditions in
connection with the Site; except for those listed in Table 7-1. Consistent with 40 CFR 312 and
ASTM E 1527, no data gaps of historical records were identified. A summary of the Phase I
ESA is presented below.
1.6.1 Background
The Site is comprised of five properties located along the north side of Miller Avenue between
Cypress Avenue to the east and Linden Avenue to the west: 405 Cypress; 204 Miller Avenue;
208 Miller Avenue; 212-214 Miller Avenue and 216 Miller Avenue (City of South San Francisco
parking lot). The Assessors Parcel Numbers for the Site are: 012-314-100; 012-314-110; 012-
314-180; 012-314-190; and 012-314-220. The Site is bounded by: Miller Avenue to the south;
Cypress Avenue to the east; Tamarack Lane to the north; and 226-230 Miller Avenue to the west.
Current uses of the Site include: construction trailers, offices and staging areas at 405 Cypress
Avenue and 204 Miller Avenue; union hall at 208 Miller Avenue; Montecino’s Cleaning and
Janitorial Services at 214 Miller Avenue; and a parking lot at 216 Miller Avenue. The 212
Miller Avenue property is vacant.
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
204 TO 216 MILLER AVENUE AND 405 CYPRESS AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
4
5/18
1.6.2 Findings
The Site properties have been developed separately since the 1900s (EDR, 2018). Areas of soil
disturbance were observed on historical aerial photographs in the area of the Miller Avenue
parking lot and 212-214 Miller Avenue from the 1940s and 1950s. In the 1960s, the Site was
fully developed with the current buildings and parking lot.
1.6.2.1 216 MILLER AVENUE-PARKING LOT
The Miller Avenue parking lot parcel has been undeveloped and used as a parking l ot since the
1900s (EDR, 2018). The lot was unpaved and vacant during the 1940s and 1950s. Areas of soil
disturbance were observed on historical aerial photographs from the 1940s and 1950s. Since the
1960s, the lot appeared paved and used for vehicle storage and/or parking (EDR, 2018).
In 2015, soil, soil gas and groundwater samples were collected as part of a Phase II
Environmental Site Assessment (Phase II ESA)(Appendix E).Lead was detected in soil up to
11,700 mg/kg, which is above the California Regional Water Quality Control Board- San
Francisco Bay Region (Regional Water Board) Environmental Screening Level (ESL) of 80
milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) and its Total Threshold Limit Concentration (TTLC) of 1,000
mg/kg.Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were detected in soil gas including
tetrachloroethene up to 380 micrograms per cubic meter (g/m3). VOCs and petroleum
hydrocarbons were not detected in groundwater samples collected at the Miller Avenue parking
lot. In July 2015, the San Mateo County Environmental Health, Groundwater Protection
Program (GPP) identified the City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency as a potential
responsible party due to the presence of lead in soil (GPP, 2015).
1.6.2.2 212-214 MILLER AVENUE
212-214 Miller Avenue was an undeveloped lot in the 1940s and 1950s (WEST, 2016). Areas of
soil disturbance were observed on historical aerial photographs from the 1940s and 1950s (EDR,
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
204 TO 216 MILLER AVENUE AND 405 CYPRESS AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
5
5/18
2018). In the 1960s, the current building was constructed at 212 -214 Miller Avenue. The
building was constructed along Miller Avenue with two commercial tenant spaces 212 and 214
Miller Avenue on the ground floor and a paved parking lot along Tamarack Lane. The upper
floors include residential apartments.
Since the 1960s, commercial tenants at the Site have included: Safeway Investments; Tape
Recorder Services; Redi Marine; The Pet Set; Bobbys Grooming; EXP Graphics; Mikes Barber
Shop; DAV TC & Electronics; Montecino Maintenance; and Scardino & Associates Real Estate.
At the time of the Site visit, 212 Miller Avenue was vacant; Montecinos Cleaning and Janitorial
Services occupied 214 Miller Avenue. Montecinos Cleaning and Janitorial Services stores
janitorial supplies and chemicals (paint thinner, small gasoline cans, carpet cleaner); paints; and
equipment. The 212 Miller Avenue commercial tenant space is currently vacant.
In 2016, soil and soil gas samples were collected at the Site as part of a Phase II Environmental
ESA. Laboratory analysis of the soil samples revealed arsenic up to 6 milligrams per kilogram
(mg/kg), which is consistent with the range of background arsenic concentrations up to 11 mg/kg
for the San Francisco Bay Area (Appendix E) (Duverge, 2011). Lead was detected in the soil
samples up to 98.8 mg/kg (MA-5 at 1-foot below ground surface), which is above its Regional
Water Board ESL of 80 mg/kg (Appendix E).
Three soil gas samples were collected from borings MA-2, MA-4 and MA-5 (Figure 2-1).
Laboratory analysis of the soil gas samples detected: PCE up to 15.3 g/m3; benzene up to 34.3
g/m3; toluene up to 218 g/m3; ethyl benzene up to 18 g/m3; and xylenes up to 73.3 g/m33,
which are below their respective Regional Water Board ESLs (Appendix E).
1.6.2.3 208 MILLER AVENUE
208 Miller Avenue was an undeveloped lot in the 1940s (WEST, 2016). Areas of soil
disturbance were observed on historical aerial photographs from the 1940s. In the 1950s, 208
Miller Avenue was developed with a two-story building that covered the entire lot between
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
204 TO 216 MILLER AVENUE AND 405 CYPRESS AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
6
5/18
Miller Avenue and Tamarack Lane. The building has been used as a workers union hall for: steel
workers; butchers; department store workers; retail clerks; sausage makers; and food &
commercial workers since at least the 1970s (EDR, 2018).
1.6.2.4 204 MILLER AVENUE
204 Miller Avenue is an approximately 7,600 square-foot property and was undeveloped
between the 1900s and the 1940s (WEST, 2016). Between the 1940s and the 2000s, an
approximately 720 square-foot building was constructed adjacent to Miller Avenue for a dry
cleaning operation (Superior Laundry and Dry Cleaners) (WEST, 2016). In 2017, Devcon
Construction renovated the vacant building as a satellite construction office for the adjacent
Cadence development project to the east. Construction trailers were also placed on the
undeveloped portion of 204 Miller Avenue.
In 2015, soil, soil gas and groundwater samples were collected adjacent to 204 Miller Avenue to
evaluate potential for releases of petroleum products and hazardous substances from historical
operations (Appendix E). Laboratory analysis of the soil gas samples collected from borings
advanced adjacent to 204 Miller Avenue revealed the presence of VOCs including PCE but at
levels below their respective laboratory-reporting limits or applicable screening levels (WEST,
2016). Groundwater samples collected from the 401-407 Cypress Avenue property and within
Miller Avenue downgradient from 204 Miller Avenue did not reveal the presence of VOCs
above their laboratory-reporting limits or Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)(Appendix E).
1.6.2.5 405 CYPRESS AVENUE
Between the 1900s and 1970s, a hotel was present at 405 Cypress Avenue, which is located
adjacent and to the east of the Site (WEST, 2016). In 1980, the hotel was demolished. Since
1980, the Site has been used as a parking lot. In 2015, laboratory analysis o f soil samples
collected at 405 Cypress Avenue revealed lead up to 812 mg/kg, which is above its screening
level of 80 mg/kg (WEST, 2016). In 2017, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
204 TO 216 MILLER AVENUE AND 405 CYPRESS AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
7
5/18
approved a Response Plan to address lead in soil at 405 C ypress Avenue associated with the
nearby Cadence development project located between Cypress Avenue and Airport Boulevard
(WEST, 2017). The approved response action included excavation of soil containing lead above
80 mg/kg for off-Site disposal.
1.6.2.6 ADJACENT 226-230 MILLER AVENUE
The 226-230 Miller Avenue property was undeveloped and vacant up until the 1950s when the
current building was constructed (EDR, 2018). Previous tenants since the 1970s have included:
printing and graphics operations and marine electronics servicing (EDR, 2018). Pyramid
Printing & Graphics conducting printing operations at 226-230 Miller Avenue between the 1990s
and 2000s (EDR, 2018). Regulatory database records indicated that Pyramid Printing &
Graphics generated and recycled waste oil/solvents and stores motor vehicle fuels or waste oils
(EDR, 2018). Currently, Biotech Equipment Sales, Inc. occupies 226 Miller Avenue and South
City Pawn occupies 230 Miller Avenue.
1.6.2.7 DOWNGRADIENT PROPERTIES
Historical operations were also identified during this Phase I ESA on properties located to the
east and hydraulically downgradient of the Site including: automobile sales, service and repair
(315, 401 and 411 Airport Boulevard); gasoline service stations (315 and 401 Airport
Boulevard); residential dwellings (309 and 411 Airport Boulevard); and a blacksmith, restaurant
hotel and bowling alley (421 Airport Boulevard) (WEST, 2016). Investigations conducted on the
downgradient properties between the 1980s and 2015 revealed releases of hazardous substances
and petroleum products to soil, soil gas and/or groundwater. Based on the hydraulically
downgradient location of the other properties, further discussions regarding the historical
activities and releases at 309, 315, 401, 411 and 421 Airport Boulevard were not included as part
of this Phase I ESA.
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
204 TO 216 MILLER AVENUE AND 405 CYPRESS AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
8
5/18
1.6.3 Conclusions
Based on the findings and opinions, this assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized
environmental conditions in connection with the Site and on adjacent properties, except for those
identified below.
Presence of lead in Site soil on the Miller Avenue parking lot, 212 -214 Miller Avenue
and 405 Cypress Avenue properties above its applicable residential screening level of 80
mg/kg;
Potential presence of lead in soil on the 208 and 204 Miller Avenue properties;
Potential migration beneath the Site of VOCs in soil gas from releases at 226-230 Miller
Avenue;
Details of the findings, opinions and conclusions are presented in Table 7-1. Consistent with 40
CFR 312 and ASTM E 1527, no data gaps of historical records were identified. Based on the
findings, opinions and conclusions, additional investigations appear warranted to further
characterize the Site soil conditions.
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
204 TO 216 MILLER AVENUE AND 405 CYPRESS AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
9
5/18
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
The Site is comprised five properties: 405 Cypress; 204 Miller Avenue; 208 Miller Avenue; 212-
214 Miller Avenue; and 216 Miller Avenue, located along the north side of Miller Avenue
between Cypress Avenue to the east and Linden Avenue to the west. The Assessors Parcel
Numbers for the Site are: 012-314-100;012-314-110; 012-314-180; 012-314-190; and 012-314-
220. The Site is bounded by: Miller Avenue to the south; Cypress Avenue to the east; Tamarack
Lane to the north; and 226-230 Miller Avenue to the west.
Current uses of the Site include: construction trailers, offices and staging areas at 401-40-7
Cypress Avenue and 204 Miller Avenue; union hall at 208 Miller Avenue; Montecino’s Cleaning
and Janitorial Services at 214 Miller Avenue; and the City of South San Francisco parking lot at
216 Miller Avenue. The 212 Miller Avenue tenant space is vacant.
2.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGIC AND HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING
The Site is located within the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin, San Mateo Subbasin
portion of the San Francisco Bay (DWR, 2004). The subsurface geology at and near the Site is
comprised of Quaternary alluvial fan and stream deposits and the Santa Clara Formation. The
geology encountered in borings advanced at the Site is comprised of interbedded an
unconsolidated sands, silts and clays (WEST, 2017).
The depth to groundwater was measured in former monitoring wells installed near the Site at
approximately 10-feet below ground surface. The groundwater flow direction near the Site is to
the southeast (WEST, 2017).
2.2 SURFACE WATER
The San Francisco Bay is located approximately 4,000-feet east of the Site.
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
204 TO 216 MILLER AVENUE AND 405 CYPRESS AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
10
5/18
2.3 CURRENT USES OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES
The Site is located within a mixed commercial and residential area of South San Francisco,
California. Commercial businesses and offices are located to the south. A residential
development is currently under construction to the east across Cypress Avenue. Residential
apartments and commercial businesses are located to the north and west. Commercial businesses
are located to the west.
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
204 TO 216 MILLER AVENUE AND 405 CYPRESS AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
11
5/18
3.0 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION
WEST submitted a questionnaire to the User to assist in identifying the known recognized
environmental conditions in connection with the Site. A copy of the User Questionnaire is
included in Appendix A.
3.1 TITLE RECORDS
A preliminary title report was not provided by the User for review as part of the Phase I ESA.
3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL LIENS OR ACTIVITY AND USE LIMITATIONS
The User indicated there are no activity and use limitations or environmental liens recorded
against the property. A copy of the User questionnaire is included in Appendix A. An
Environmental Lien Search Report was obtained from Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
(EDR) of Milford, Connecticut (EDR, 2018). The Environmental Lien Search Report did not
identify environmental liens or activity use limitations associated with the Site. A copy of the
EDR Environmental Lien Search Report is included in Appendix A.
3.3 SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE
The User indicated no specialized knowledge or experience related to the Site.
3.4 VALUATION REDUCTION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
The User indicated the purchase price for the Site reasonably reflects the fair market value of
property.
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
204 TO 216 MILLER AVENUE AND 405 CYPRESS AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
12
5/18
3.5 COMMONLY KNOWN OR REASONABLY ASCERTAINABLE SITE INFORMATION
The User indicated awareness of past Site uses but no awareness of chemicals present or
previously present, past spills and releases or environmental cleanups.
3.6 DEGREE OF OBVIOUSNESS
The User indicated no knowledge and experience regarding obvious indicators that pointed to the
presence or likely presence of releases at the Site (Appendix A).
3.7 OTHER
The User did not indicate the reason for performing the Phase I ESA; however, pursuant to
ASTM E 1527 Section 6.8, it is assumed that the purpose of the Phase I ESA is to qualify for
bona fide purchaser protection pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The User indicated that the current property
zoning and future planned development are for residential.
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
204 TO 216 MILLER AVENUE AND 405 CYPRESS AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
13
5/18
4.0 RECORDS REVIEW
A records review was conducted to identify recognized environmental conditions at and near the
Site. The records searched for this Phase I ESA consisted of standard federal and state
environmental record sources as defined in ASTM E 1527. Historical records searched as part of
the Phase I ESA included: aerial photographs; topographic maps; and city directories. Relevant
historical uses associated with the Site and surrounding areas are depicted on Figure 2 -1 and
discussed in Table 7-1.
4.1 STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD SOURCES
An environmental database report was prepared by EDR and consisted of a review of federal and
state regulatory listings for sites within the search radii established under the ASTM E 1527
(EDR, 2018). Sites listed in the EDR environmental database report located: greater than 1,000 -
feet distance from the Site; at topographically lower elevations; and/or hydraulically
downgradient or cross-gradient from the Site, were reviewed but not considered relevant to the
identification of recognized environmental conditions. Discussions of the relevant findings from
the environmental database report, e.g., sites within approximately 1,000-feet and hydraulically
upgradient of the Site have been included, as appropriate, in Table 7 -1. A copy of the EDR
environmental database report is included in Appendix A.
4.2 ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS SOURCES
Additional environmental records including previous environmental reports, permits and
correspondence were requested from: Regional Water Board; Department of Toxics Substances
Control (DTSC); Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD); SMCEH GPP; and
City of South San Francisco. Electronic databases were also accessed from the California State
Water Resources Control Board’s Geotracker database. Discussions of the relevant findings
from the additional environmental record sources have been included in Table 7-1. Copies of the
relevant documents have been included in Appendix B.
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
204 TO 216 MILLER AVENUE AND 405 CYPRESS AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
14
5/18
4.3 PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCES
The 1947, 1950, 1956, 1968, 1973, 1980, 1995, 1996 and 2012 San Francisco South United
States Geological Service (USGS) 7.5 Minute Quadrangle topographic maps were reviewed to
identify geologic, hydrogeologic, hydrologic and topographic features of the Site and surrounding
area. Copies of the USGS topographic maps are included in Appendix B.
4.4 HISTORICAL USE INFORMATION ON THE SITE
The objective for reviewing historical sources regarding past uses of the Site was to develop
information regarding history of previous uses of the Site and surrounding area to identify the
likelihood of past uses having led to recognized environmental con ditions in connection with the
Site. Reasonably ascertainable historical sources including aerial photographs, city directories,
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps and topographic maps were reviewed. Locations of relevant
historical uses of the Site are identified on Figure 2-1. Copies of the historical aerial
photographs, Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps and topographic maps are included in Appendix B.
4.5 HISTORICAL USE INFORMATION ON ADJOINING PROPERTIES
The information sources used for evaluating the historical use of the Site were reviewed to
identify historical uses of adjoining properties. Locations of relevant historical uses of adjoining
properties are identified on Figure 2-1.
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
204 TO 216 MILLER AVENUE AND 405 CYPRESS AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
15
5/18
5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE
A Site reconnaissance was performed by WEST on March 14, 2018.A representative of WEST
conducted the reconnaissance. The objective of the reconnaissance was to obtain information
indicating the likelihood of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Site.
The reconnaissance included a visual observation of the Site and adjoining properties. A
summary of the relevant conditions observed during the Site reconnaissance is included in Table
7-1. Photographs and documentation of observations of the Site are included in Appendix C.
5.1 METHODOLOGY AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
As part of the reconnaissance, accessible portions of the Site were observed visually. Accessible
physical conditions included: pathways, access roads and walkways located on the perimeter of
the Site as well. Adjoining properties were also visually observed, where possible.
5.2 GENERAL SITE SETTING
Observations were made during the Site reconnaissance to identify whether the current uses of
the Site and adjoining properties are likely to involve the use, treatment, storage, disposal or
generation of hazardous substances or petroleum products. A summary of the relevant findings
from the Site reconnaissance is included in Table 7-1.
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
204 TO 216 MILLER AVENUE AND 405 CYPRESS AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
16
5/18
6.0 INTERVIEWS
The objective of the interviews was to obtain information indicating recognized environmental
conditions in connection with the Site.
6.1 INTERVIEW WITH OWNER
The current Site owner representative for 216 Miller Avenue and 405 Cypress Avenue, Mr. Ken
Busch of Sares-Regis Homes of Northern California, was contacted for an interview. A copy of
the interview questionnaire is included in Appendix A. The current Site owner representative for
212-214 Miller Avenue, Ms. Nancy Garcia, was previously contacted for an interview in
September 2016. At the time of this Phase I ESA, an updated interview had not been completed
for 212-214 Miller Avenue. A copy of the previous interview questionnaire is included in
Appendix A. The current Site owner representative for 208 Miller Avenue, Ms. Nancy Anderson
for UFCW Local 5, was contacted for an interview. A copy of the previous interview
questionnaire is included in Appendix A.
The current Site owner representative for 204 Miller Avenue, Mr. Gary Fillizetti of Devcon
Construction, was contacted for an interview. A copy of the previous interview questionnaire is
included in Appendix A. A copy of the interview questionnaire is included in Appendix A.
Discussions of the relevant findings from the Site owner representative interviews have been
included in Table 7-1.
6.2 INTERVIEW WITH PROPERTY MANAGER
The Property Manager representative was not identified; therefore, the Property Manager
representative was not interviewed.
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
204 TO 216 MILLER AVENUE AND 405 CYPRESS AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
17
5/18
6.3 INTERVIEW WITH OCCUPANTS
Site occupant representatives were not identified; therefore, occupant representatives were not
interviewed.
6.4 INTERVIEWS WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
File review requests were sent to the following regulatory agencies: Regional
Water Board; DTSC; BAAQMD; SMCEH GPP; and the City of South San Francisco.
Discussions of the relevant findings from the local government agencies have been included in
Table 7-1.
6.5 INTERVIEWS WITH OTHERS
Other knowledgeable individuals regarding the Site uses and conditions were not identified;
therefore, were not interviewed.
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
204 TO 216 MILLER AVENUE AND 405 CYPRESS AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
18
5/18
7.0 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
WEST has performed a Phase I ESA in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM E
1527 of the Site. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 8.0
of this report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of RECs in connection with the Site;
except for those listed in Table 7-1. A summary of the findings, opinions and conclusions is
presented in Table 7-1.
In accordance with Section 12.5 of ASTM E 1527, a summary of the history, relevant
information obtained during the Phase I ESA, potential chemicals present, the known or suspect
recognized environmental condition, as well as controlled RECs, historical recognized
environmental conditions and de minimis conditions have been identified and provided in Table
7-1.
In accordance with Section 12.6 of ASTM E 1527, the opinions including WEST’s rationale for
concluding that the known or suspect RECs identified in the findings section are or are not
currently RECs are presented in Table 7-1.
In accordance with Section 12.7 of ASTM E 1527, WEST’s data gap analysis is pr esented in
Section 10.0 of this report.
In accordance with Section 12.8 of ASTM E 1527, the conclusions based on WEST’s opinions
and rationale regarding recognized environmental conditions are presented in Table 7-1.
As used in this Phase I ESA, the following definitions apply:
Pursuant to Section 3.2.18 of ASTM E 1527, a controlled REC is an REC resulting from
a past release that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory
authority, e.g., issuance of no further action letter or equivalent, or meeting risk-based
criteria, with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
204 TO 216 MILLER AVENUE AND 405 CYPRESS AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
19
5/18
subject to implementation of required controls including property use restrictions, activity
and use limitations or engineering controls.
Pursuant to Section 3.2.22 of ASTM E 1527,de minimis conditions, i.e., conditions that
generally does not present a threat to human health or the environment and that generally
would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention o f
appropriate governmental agencies, are not considered RECs.
Pursuant to Section 3.2.42 of ASTM E 1527, an historical REC is a past release of any
hazardous substances or petroleum products that has occurred in connection with the
property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority
or meeting unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without
subjecting the property to any required controls, i.e., property use restrictions. Prior to
concluding that a past release is an historical REC, the environmental professional must
determine whether the past release is a REC at the time of the Phase I ESA, e.g., if there
has been a change in regulatory criteria. If the past release is determined to be an R EC at
the time of the Phase I ESA, then the condition shall be deemed an REC.
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
204 TO 216 MILLER AVENUE AND 405 CYPRESS AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
20
5/18
8.0 DEVIATIONS
There were no deviations from the ASTM Practice E 1527 standard while conducting this Phase
I ESA except for the following:
Historical aerial photographs were not reviewed in five-year increments; and
Site tax files were not reasonably ascertainable.
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
204 TO 216 MILLER AVENUE AND 405 CYPRESS AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
21
5/18
9.0 ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATIONS
Consistent with 40 CFR 312 Section 312.31 and ASTM E 1527 Section 12.6.1, an evaluation
was conducted to identify whether additional investigations are needed to obtain greater certainty
with regard to Site conditions. Based on the evaluation, additional investigations are warranted
to obtain greater certainty regarding the presence and/or absence of residual chemicals from
historical activities and releases the Site and/or at adjacent properties.
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
204 TO 216 MILLER AVENUE AND 405 CYPRESS AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
22
5/18
10.0 DATA GAPS
Consistent with 40 CFR 312 Section 312.20(g) and ASTM E 1527 Section 12.7, a data gap
analysis was performed. No significant data gaps associated with information for the Phase I
ESA were identified.
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
204 TO 216 MILLER AVENUE AND 405 CYPRESS AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
23
5/18
11.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES
No additional services were contracted or performed as part of this Phase I ESA.
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
204 TO 216 MILLER AVENUE AND 405 CYPRESS AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
24
5/18
12.0 QUALIFICATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS
This report has been prepared under the direction of Peter M. Krasnoff, P.E., a registered Civil
Engineer with over 25 years of environmental assessment and evaluation experience. Mr.
Krasnoff received his Master of Science from the University of California at Berkeley in
Environmental Engineering and his Bachelor of Civil Engineering from the Georgia Inst itute of
Technology. Mr. Krasnoff has extensive experience in environmental investigations and
remediation and has conducted reviews of over 100 sites involving hazardous materials and
waste disposal activities. Mr. Krasnoff was supported by Mr. Peter Morris, P.G., a Professional
Geologist.
Mr. Morris, a Professional Geologist with over 20 years of environmental assessment and
investigating experience, also prepared this Phase I ESA. Mr. Morris received his Bachelors of
Science degree from the University of California at Davis in Geology and his Masters of Science
degree in Civil and Environmental Engineering from George Washington University. Mr. Morris
has conducted and supervised numerous site investigations involving the evaluation of hazardous
materials and wastes with emphasis on soil and groundwater characterization and remediation.
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
204 TO 216 MILLER AVENUE AND 405 CYPRESS AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
25
5/18
13.0 REFERENCES
ASTM,Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment Process, ASTM E 1527-13,November 1, 2013 (ASTM E 1527).
Cambria Environmental Technology, Inc.,Investigation Report, Former Chevron Station No. 9-
0645, 401 Airport Boulevard, South San Francisco,January 15, 1996 (Cambria, 1996).
Cambria Environmental Technology, Inc.,Investigation Report, Former Chevron Station No. 9-
0645, 401 Airport Boulevard, South San Francisco,March 25, 1996 (Cambria, 1996b).
County of San Mateo Health System, Groundwater Protection Program,Letter to City of South
San Francisco, Parking Lot, 220 Miller Avenue, south San Francisco, Cali fornia, July
15, 2015 (GPP, 2015).
County of San Mateo Health System, Groundwater Protection Program,Letter to City of South
San Francisco, Parking Lot, 220 Miller Avenue, south San Francisco, California , May 3,
2016 (GPP, 2016).
CSS Environmental Services, Inc., Test America Analytical Report, Test America Job ID: 720-
36294-1, July 21, 2011 (CSS, 2011).
Department of Water Resources,California Groundwater Bulletin 118, Santa Clara Valley
Groundwater Basin, San Mateo Subbasin, Groundwater Basin Number: 2-9.03, February
27, 2004 (DWR, 2004).
Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR),The EDR Radius Map Report with Geocheck®, 214
Miller Avenue, South San Francisco, California, February 22, 2018 (EDR, 2018).
Rockridge Geotechnical,Draft Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Residential Development,
Ford Properties, South San Francisco, California, December 18, 2015 (Rockridge,
2015).
West Environmental Services & Technology, Inc.,Phase I Environmental Site Assessment,
Airport Boulevard Properties, South San Francisco, California, December 2016 (WEST,
2016).
West Environmental Services & Technology, Inc.,Final Response Plan, Airport Boulevard
Properties, South San Francisco, California, March 2017 (WEST, 2017).
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
204 TO 216 MILLER AVENUE AND 405 CYPRESS AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
26
5/18
14.0 DISTRIBUTION LIST
Mr. Ken Busch
SSF Miller Cypress PRI, LLC
901 Mariners Island Boulevard, Suite 700
San Mateo, CA 94404
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
204 TO 216 MILLER AVENUE AND 405 CYPRESS AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
TABLES
TABLE 7-1
SUMMARY OF RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Miller Avenue
South San Francisco, California
Page 1 of 5
Ma
p
I
D
(
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
1
)
Location
FINDINGS (ASTM 1527-13; Section 12.5)OPINIONS (ASTM 1527-13; Section 12.6)
History
Chemicals
Re
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y
C
l
o
s
u
r
e
Co
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
R
E
C
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
R
E
C
Rationale
Yes No
TP
H
VO
C
s
SV
O
C
s
Pe
s
t
i
c
i
d
e
s
Me
t
a
l
s
PC
B
s
Kn
o
w
n
Su
s
p
e
c
t
No
1 Site
X X X X Y X
X Y X
X X N X
CONCLUSIONS
(Sec. 12.8)
Known or suspect
environmental
conditions
Add'l
Invest.
Rec.
(Sec.
12.6.1)
(Y/N)
Environmental
Condition
de
m
i
n
i
m
i
s
2016 Miller
Avenue-
Parking Lot
216 Miller has been undeveloped and used as a parking lot since the 1900s (WEST, 2016). The lot was
unpaved and vacant during the 1940s and 1950s. Areas of soil disturbance were observed on historical aerial
photographs from the 1940s and 1950s. Since the 1960s, the lot appeared paved and used for vehicle storage
and/or parking (EDR, 2018). Commercial office and retail businesses were located adjacent to 216 Miller
Avenue beginning in the 1950s.
In 2015, soil, soil gas and groundwater samples were collected to evaluate the potential presence of hazardous
substances and petroleum products in the subsurface from historical uses. Soil observed in borings advanced
on the parking revealed fill material including, debris, glass and gravel. A geotechnical report indicated that
loose sands are present near the southeast corner (Rockridge, 2015). Laboratory analysis of soil samples did
not reveal TPHg, TPHd or VOCs above their respective laboratory-reporting limits (Appendix E). PAHs
were detected in the soil samples including BaP up to 13.5 micrograms per kilogram (ug/kg), but at levels
below their respective Regional Water Board ESLs. Lead was detected up to 11,700 mg/kg between 1-foot
and 7-feet below ground surface, which is above the Regional Water Board ESL of 80 mg/kg and its Total
Threshold Limit Concentration (TTLC) of 1,000 mg/kg (Appendix E). Laboratory analysis of the soil gas
samples revealed PCE at 49 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) and 380 ug/m3, which are below and above
its Regional Water Board ESL of 240 ug/m3. Laboratory analysis of the groundwater samples did not reveal
TPH or VOCs above their respective laboratory-reporting limits (Appendix E; WEST, 2016).
In July 2015, the San Mateo County Health Department, Groundwater Protection Program (GPP) issued a
directive, identifying the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SSFRA) as a potential responsible
party for soil contamination (e.g., lead at 11,000 mg/kg) on the parking lot property (GPP, 2015). In May
2016, due to failure to responded to the July 2015 directive, the GPP entered the parking lot property into the
Corrective Acton Unified Program agency (UPA) to pursue enforcement action against the SSFRA or have
the SSFRA enter into a voluntary cleanup program to address the presence of lead in soil (GPP, 2016).
Potential presence
of petroleum
products and
hazardous
substances in soil
Based on the soil data, the
presence of fill material and the
GPP directives, the presence of
lead in soil above its applicable
screening criterion represents a
recognized environmental
condition (REC).
Potential presence
of VOCs in soil
gas
Based on the soil gas data, the
presence of PCE above its
applicable screening criterion
represents a REC.
Potential presence
of petroleum
products and
hazardous
substances in
groundwater
Based on the groundwater data,
the potential presence of TPH
and VOCs in groundwater
represents a de minimis
condition, i.e., a condition that
generally does not present a
threat to human health or the
environment and that generally
would not be the subject of an
enforcement action if brought to
the attention of appropriate
governmental agencies, and
therefore does not represent a
recognized environmental
condition, and not a REC
TABLE 7-1
SUMMARY OF RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Miller Avenue
South San Francisco, California
Page 2 of 5
Ma
p
I
D
(
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
1
)
Location
FINDINGS (ASTM 1527-13; Section 12.5)OPINIONS (ASTM 1527-13; Section 12.6)
History
Chemicals
Re
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y
C
l
o
s
u
r
e
Co
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
R
E
C
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
R
E
C
Rationale
Yes No
TP
H
VO
C
s
SV
O
C
s
Pe
s
t
i
c
i
d
e
s
Me
t
a
l
s
PC
B
s
Kn
o
w
n
Su
s
p
e
c
t
No
CONCLUSIONS
(Sec. 12.8)
Known or suspect
environmental
conditions
Add'l
Invest.
Rec.
(Sec.
12.6.1)
(Y/N)
Environmental
Condition
de
m
i
n
i
m
i
s
2 Site
X Y X
X N X
212-214
Miller
Avenue
212-214 Miller Avenue was an undeveloped lot in the 1940s and 1950s (WEST, 2016). Areas of soil
disturbance were observed on historical aerial photographs from the 1940s and 1950s. In the 1960s, the
current building was constructed at 212-214 Miller Avenue. The building was constructed along Miller
Avenue with a paved parking lot along Tamarack Lane. The upper floor includes residential apartments with
two commercial tenant spaces on the ground floor. The commercial businesses have included: Safeway
Investments; Tape Recorder Services; Redi Marine; The Pet Set; Bobbys Grooming; EXP Graphics; Mikes
Barber Shop; DAV TC & Electronics; Montecino Maintenance; and Scardino & Associates Real Estate. At
the time of the Site visit, 212 Miller Avenue was vacant; Montecino Maintenance occupied 214 Miller
Avenue and stored janitorial supplies and chemicals (paint thinner, small gasoline cans, carpet cleaner);
paints; and equipment.
In December 2016, soil and soil gas samples were collected from six borings MA-1 to MA-6 at the Site
(WEST, 2016). Soil samples were collected for metals analysis based on the potential presence of lead in
soil on the previous undeveloped lot and due to the detection of lead in soil beneath the adjacent parking lot
(WEST, 2016). Laboratory analysis of the soil samples revealed arsenic up to 6 milligrams per kilogram
(mg/kg), which is consistent with the range of background arsenic concentrations up to 11 mg/kg for the San
Francisco Bay Area (Appendix E) (Duverge, 2011). Lead was detected in the soil samples up to 98.8 mg/kg
(MA-5 at 1-foot below ground surface), which is above its screening level of 80 mg/kg (Appendix E). Other
metals were detected in the soil samples including, barium, copper, cobalt, nickel, vanadium and zinc, but at
concentrations below their respective DTSC-SLs (Appendix E).
Three soil gas samples were collected from borings MA-2, MA-4 and MA-5 in December 2016. The soil gas
samples were collected to characterize the presence VOCs due to: potential releases from the janitorial
service; and the presence of tetrachloroethene (PCE) detected in soil gas samples previously collected from
the adjacent parking lot. Laboratory analysis of the soil gas samples detected: PCE up to 15.3 micrograms
per cubic meter (ug/m3); benzene up to 34.3 ug/m3; toluene up to 218 ug/m3; ethyl benzene up to 18 ug/m3;
and xylenes up to 73.3 ug/m3, which are below their respective screening levels (Appendix E).
Potential presence
of metals in soil
from historical
Site use
Based on the soil data and the
historical soil disturbance areas,
the presence of lead in soil
above its screening criterion of
80 mg/kg represents a REC.
Potential presence
of VOCs in soil
gas
Based on the soil gas data
collected during the Phase II
ESA sampling, the presence of
VOCs in soil gas represents a de
minimis condition and not a
REC.
TABLE 7-1
SUMMARY OF RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Miller Avenue
South San Francisco, California
Page 3 of 5
Ma
p
I
D
(
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
1
)
Location
FINDINGS (ASTM 1527-13; Section 12.5)OPINIONS (ASTM 1527-13; Section 12.6)
History
Chemicals
Re
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y
C
l
o
s
u
r
e
Co
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
R
E
C
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
R
E
C
Rationale
Yes No
TP
H
VO
C
s
SV
O
C
s
Pe
s
t
i
c
i
d
e
s
Me
t
a
l
s
PC
B
s
Kn
o
w
n
Su
s
p
e
c
t
No
CONCLUSIONS
(Sec. 12.8)
Known or suspect
environmental
conditions
Add'l
Invest.
Rec.
(Sec.
12.6.1)
(Y/N)
Environmental
Condition
de
m
i
n
i
m
i
s
3 Site X Y X
4 Site
X Y X
X N X
208 Miller
Avenue
208 Miller Avenue was an undeveloped lot in the 1940s (WEST, 2016). Areas of soil disturbance were
observed on historical aerial photographs from the 1940s. In the 1950s, 208 Miller Avenue was developed
with a two-story building that covered the entire lot between Miller Avenue and Tamarack Lane. The
building has been used as a workers union hall for: steel workers; butchers; department store workers; retail
clerks; sausage makers; and food & commercial workers since at least the 1970s (EDR, 2018).
Potential presence
of metals in soil
from historical
Site use
Based on the historical uses, the
potential for lead in soil from the
observed disturbed soil
represents a suspect REC.
204 Miller
Avenue
204 Miller Avenue, an approximately 7,600 square-foot property was undeveloped between the 1900s and the
1940s (WEST, 2016). Between the 1940s and the 2000s, an approximately 720 square-foot building was
constructed adjacent to Miller Avenue for a dry cleaning operation (Superior Laundry and Dry Cleaners)
(WEST, 2016; CSSF, 2015). The building at 204 Miller Avenue is currently used as a construction office for
the development project located to the east (WEST, 2016). The remaining portion of the 204 Miller Avenue
property has been vacant and undeveloped p until 2016 and is currently occupied by construction trailers for
the adjacent development project. Information regarding type(s) of chemicals used, stored or disposed during
the dry cleaner operation and the subsurface conditions at 204 Miller Avenue was not reasonably
ascertainable.
In 2015, soil, soil gas and groundwater samples were collected adjacent to 204 Miller Avenue to evaluate
potential for releases of petroleum products and hazardous substances from historical Site operations (WEST,
2016). Laboratory analysis of the soil gas samples collected from borings advanced adjacent to 204 Miller
Avenue (Lot5-1 to Lot5-4) revealed the presence of VOCs including PCE but at levels below their respective
laboratory-reporting limits or applicable screening levels (WEST, 2016). Groundwater samples collected
from the Cypress Avenue property and within Miller Avenue downgradient from the Site did not reveal the
presence of VOCs above their laboratory-reporting limits or Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)(WEST,
2016).
Potential releases
of lead to soil
Based on the lack of soil data
and the presence of lead in soil
on other portions of the Site, the
potential presence of lead in soil
represents a suspect REC.
Potential for
releases of dry
cleaning solvents
to soil gas and
groundwater.
Based on the presence of VOCs
in soil gas concentrations below
screening criteria and the
absence of solvents in
groundwater, the potential
release of dry cleaner solvent at
204 Miller Ave. does not
represent a REC to the Site.
TABLE 7-1
SUMMARY OF RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Miller Avenue
South San Francisco, California
Page 4 of 5
Ma
p
I
D
(
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
1
)
Location
FINDINGS (ASTM 1527-13; Section 12.5)OPINIONS (ASTM 1527-13; Section 12.6)
History
Chemicals
Re
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y
C
l
o
s
u
r
e
Co
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
R
E
C
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
R
E
C
Rationale
Yes No
TP
H
VO
C
s
SV
O
C
s
Pe
s
t
i
c
i
d
e
s
Me
t
a
l
s
PC
B
s
Kn
o
w
n
Su
s
p
e
c
t
No
CONCLUSIONS
(Sec. 12.8)
Known or suspect
environmental
conditions
Add'l
Invest.
Rec.
(Sec.
12.6.1)
(Y/N)
Environmental
Condition
de
m
i
n
i
m
i
s
5 Site X N X
6 X X X X X X N X
405 Cypress
Avenue
Between the 1900s and 1970s, a hotel was present at 405 Cypress Avenue (WEST, 2016). In 1980, the hotel
was demolished (CSSF, 2015). Since 1980, 401-407 Cypress Avenue has been used as a parking lot. In
2015, laboratory analysis of soil samples collected at 405 Cypress Avenue (WEST, 2016). In 2017, the
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) approved a Response Plan to address lead in soil at 405
Cypress Avenue under a voluntary California Land Revitalization and Reuse Act (CLRRA) agreement. The
response action included excavating soil containing lead above 80 mg/kg for off-Site disposal.
Presence of lead
in soil
Based on the soil data, the
presence of lead in soil
represents a REC.
309, 315,
401, 411 and
421 Airport
Boulevard
Less than
1/8-mile
east of
Site
Historical operations were conducted between the at least the 1900s to the 2000s on properties located to the
east and hydraulically downgradient of the Site. The historical activities included: automobile sales, service
and repair (315, 401 and 411 Airport Boulevard); gasoline service stations (315 and 401 Airport Boulevard);
residential dwellings (309 and 411 Airport Boulevard); and a blacksmith, restaurant, hotel and bowling alley
(421 Airport Boulevard) (WEST, 2016).
Investigations that were conducted on the downgradient properties between the 1980s and 2015 revealed
releases of hazardous substances and petroleum products to soil, soil gas and/or groundwater (WEST, 2016).
In addition underground storage tanks (USTs) were present at 315 and 401 airport Boulevard for the former
gasoline service stations and automobile sales and service activities. The USTs were closed by the Santa
Mateo County Health System, Groundwater Protection Program in 2001 (SMCGPP, 2001abc). The Site is
located hydraulically upgradient of historical activities and releases at 309, 315, 401, 411 and 421 Airport
Boulevard.
Potential for
releases of
hazardous
substances and
petroleum
products from
historical
activities to
migrate beneath
the beneath the
Site
Based on the hydraulically
upgradient location of the Site
with respect to the properties
located at 309, 315, 401, 411
and 421 Airport Boulevard, the
potential for releases of
hazardous substances and
petroleum products to migrate
beneath the Site doe not
represent a recognized
environmental condition to the
Site.
TABLE 7-1
SUMMARY OF RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Miller Avenue
South San Francisco, California
Page 5 of 5
Ma
p
I
D
(
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
1
)
Location
FINDINGS (ASTM 1527-13; Section 12.5)OPINIONS (ASTM 1527-13; Section 12.6)
History
Chemicals
Re
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y
C
l
o
s
u
r
e
Co
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
R
E
C
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
R
E
C
Rationale
Yes No
TP
H
VO
C
s
SV
O
C
s
Pe
s
t
i
c
i
d
e
s
Me
t
a
l
s
PC
B
s
Kn
o
w
n
Su
s
p
e
c
t
No
CONCLUSIONS
(Sec. 12.8)
Known or suspect
environmental
conditions
Add'l
Invest.
Rec.
(Sec.
12.6.1)
(Y/N)
Environmental
Condition
de
m
i
n
i
m
i
s
7
X X Y X
X X N X
226-230
Miller
Avenue
Adjacent
to the
Miller
Avenue
Parking
Lot
portion of
the Site
Pyramid Printing & Graphics conducting printing operations at 226-230 Miller Avenue between the 1990s
and 2000s (EDR, 2018). Regulatory database records indicated that Pyramid Printing & Graphics generated
and recycled waste oil/solvents and stores motor vehicle fuels or waste oils (EDR, 2018).
Raytheon Service Company also operated at 226 Miller Avenue during the 1990s (EDR, 2018). Information
regarding Raytheon Service Company operation was not reasonably ascertainable.
Redi Marine Electronics Company operated at 226 Miller Avenue during the 1980s (EDR, 2018).
Information regarding Redi Marine Electronics Company's operation was not reasonably ascertainable.
Vernon Graphics operated at 226 Miller Avenue during at least the 1970s (EDR, 2018). Information
regarding Vernon Graphics operation was not reasonably ascertainable.
Soil gas samples collected in 2015 from the Site on the adjacent Miller Avenue parking lot revealed PCE up
to 380 ug/m3 in sample Lot 6-1 collected near 226-230 Miller Avenue, which is above its Regional Water
Board ESL of 240 ug/m3. Other VOCs were detected in the soil gas samples but at concentrations below
their respective Regional Water Board ESLs (Appendix E). Laboratory analysis of groundwater samples
collected from the Site on the adjacent Miller Avenue parking lot did not detect VOCs above their respective
laboratory-reporting limits.
Potential for
releases to soil
gas of hazardous
substances and
petroleum
products at 226-
230 Miller
Avenue to
migrate beneath
the Site
Based on the historical
management of waste oils and
solvents and detection of PCE
above its applicable screening
level, the potential for releases
of hazardous substances to
migrate beneath the Site
represents a suspect REC to the
Site.
Potential for
releases to
groundwater of
hazardous
substances and
petroleum
products at 226-
230 Miller
Avenue to
migrate beneath
the Site
Based on the groundwater data
collected from the Site, the
potential for releases of
hazardous substances to migrate
beneath the Site does not
represent a REC to the Site.
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
204 TO 216 MILLER AVENUE AND 405 CYPRESS AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
FIGURES
101
South SanFrancisco
10000FEET
SITE
Cy
p
r
es
s
A
ven
u
e
Li
n
d
e
n
A
ven
u
e
Air
po
r
t B
o
u
l
e
va
r
d
Miller A
venue
Lux Ave
Cy
p
r
es
s
A
ven
u
e
Li
n
d
e
n
A
ven
u
e
Air
po
r
t B
o
u
l
e
va
r
d
Miller A
venue
4th Lan
e
Tamarack Lane Lux Ave
Miller Avenue, South San Francisco, California
Figure 1-1 SITE LOCATION MAP
May 2018
1000FEET
Cy
p
r
es
s
A
ven
u
e
Lin
d
e
n
A
ven
u
e
Air
po
r
t B
o
u
l
e
va
r
d
Miller A
venue
4th Lan
e
Tamarack Lane
Lux Ave
Former
Fuel Islands
Former
Gas USTs
Former
Waste Oil USTsFormer
Waste Oil
USTs (100 gal.)
REC (See Table 7-1)
Phase II Sample Location (WEST, 2015)
Phase II Soil Sample Location (WEST, 2015)
Phase II Soil Sample Location (WEST, 2016)
EXPLANATION
NON-REC (See Table 7-1)
Former
Waste Oil
USTs (300 gal.)
Gas Station
(1920s-1980s)
Auto Sa
l
e
s
&
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
(1920s-
2
0
0
0
s
)
Gas Station
(1950s)
Abandoned
In-Place USTs
204
208
212-214
226-230
Parking
L
o
t
40
1
40
1
-
4
0
7
40
1
31
5
411
42
1
110
Former
B
l
a
c
k
s
m
i
t
h
(1890s-
1
9
1
0
s
)
Dry Clean
e
r
(1940s-2
0
0
0
s
)
Site
Boundary
Lines
101
Residential
(1910s-1950s)
Tire Repair (1950s)
Auto Sales &
Service
Hotel
(1890s-1910s)
Restaurant
(1950s-1990s
Parking Lot
(1990s-Present)
Hotel
(1900s-1980s)
Parking Lot
(1980s-Present)
2
2
5
4
2
7
3
1
6
6
6
4
2
7 1
6
6
309-3
Lot 6-1
Lot 6-1C
Lot 6-1B
Lot 6-1C
Lot 6-1A
Lot 6-3
Lot 6-4
Lot 6-4B
Lot 6-4A
Lot 6-4C
Lot 6-2Lot 6-5
Lot 5-3
Lot 5-2
Lot 5-1
Lot 5-4 Lot 5-1C
Lot 5-1BLot 5-1A
MA-4
MA-1
MA-2
MA-3
MA-6
MA-5
Lot 4-3
Lot 4-1
Lot 3-1
Lot 3-4
Lot 2-4
Lot 2-3
Lot 2-2Lot 2-1
Lot 3-2
Lot 1-2
Lot 1-1
Lot 1-4
Lot 2-1
Lot 4-4
Lot 4-2
309-3 Lot 1-3
Lot 3-3
309-2
Undeveloped
(1940s-1950s)
Commercial/Residential
(1960s-Present)
Undeveloped
(1890s-1950s)
Parking Lot
(1950s-Present)
SITE
Figure 2-1 SITE PLAN AND HISTORICAL USE
Miller Avenue, South San Francisco, CaliforniaMay 2018
11-1
CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SECTION 11.1 Introduction
South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR
SCH No. 2013102001
Final EIR
January 2015
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
11.1 INTRODUCTION
The Final Environmental Impact Report for the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific
Plan Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2013102001 identified mitigation measures to reduce the adverse
effects of the proposed project in the areas of air quality, biological resources, cultural resources,
greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, public services, recreation, and
transportation/traffic.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that agencies adopting environmental
impact reports ascertain that feasible mitigation measures are implemented, subsequent to project
approval. Specifically, the lead or responsible agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for
mitigation measures incorporated into a project or imposed as conditions of approval. The program must
be designed to ensure compliance during applicable project timing, e.g. design, construction, or operation
(Public Resources Code Section 21081.6).
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will be used by City of South San Francisco
staff responsible for ensuring compliance with mitigation measures associated with the proposed Plan.
Monitoring will consist of review of appropriate documentation, such as plans or reports prepared by the
party responsible for implementation or by field observation of the mitigation measure during
implementation.
11.2 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MATRIX
Table 11-1 (Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix) identifies the mitigation measures by
resource area. The table also provides the specific mitigation monitoring requirements, including
implementation documentation, monitoring activity, timing and responsible monitoring party.
Verification of compliance with each measure is to be indicated by signature of the mitigation monitor,
together with date of verification.
11-2
CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR
SCH No. 2013102001
Final EIR
January 2015
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency
or Party
AIR QUALITY
MM4.2-1 Construction emissions for all future development under the Specific Plan shall be
quantified prior to the start of construction. For projects where construction emissions are
anticipated to exceed the most recent City-adopted thresholds, in addition to the BAAQMD
Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, construction activities shall implement the BAAQMD
Additional Construction Mitigation Measures to reduce construction emissions of criteria air
pollutants to below significance criteria. Mitigation reductions shall be quantified prior to the start
of construction to demonstrate that adequate measures have been identified to reduce project
emissions. The Additional Construction Mitigation Measures include the following:
1. All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil
moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture probe.
2. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind
speeds exceed 20 mph.
3. Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively
disturbed areas of construction. Wind breaks should have at maximum 50 percent air
porosity.
4. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in
disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is
established.
5. The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-disturbing construction
activities on the same area at any one time shall be limited. Activities shall be phased to
reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time.
6. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.
7. Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12-
inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel.
8. Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public
roadways from sites with a slope greater than 1 percent.
9. Minimizing the idling time of diesel powered construction equipment to two minutes.
10. The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than
50 horsepower) to be used in the construction project (i.e., owned, leased, and
subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a project wide fleet-average 20 percent NOX
reduction and 45 percent PM reduction compared to the most recent California ARB fleet
average. Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late model engines,
low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after -treatment
Verification of
construction plan
Prior to issuance of
grading permit
Developer Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
11-3
CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR
SCH No. 2013102001
Final EIR
January 2015
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency
or Party
products, add-on devices such as particulate filters, and/or other options as such become
available.
11. Use low-ROG coatings beyond the local requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3:
Architectural Coatings).
12. All construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators shall be equipped with Best
Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOX and PM.
13. All contractors shall use equipment that meets California ARB’s most recent certification
standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines.
MM4.2-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit for future development projects under the
Specific Plan, the applicant shall demonstrate implementation of recommended BAAQMD
operational mitigation measures as necessary to reduce operational emissions of criteria a ir
pollutants to below significance criteria. Operational emissions and mitigation reductions will be
quantified prior to issuance of the building permit to demonstrate that adequate measures have
been identified to reduce project emissions. The recommended measures include, but are not
limited to, any of the following:
1. Increase on-street parking fees.
2. Daily parking charge for employees.
3. Provide a parking “cash-out” incentive for employees who use alternative transportation to
commute.
4. Provide subsidized or free transit passes to employees.
5. Encourage alternative compressed work schedules and telecommuting.
6. Provide a ridesharing program.
Verification of
construction plan
Prior to issuance of
grading permit
Developer Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
MM4.2-3 Siting Sensitive Receptors near Potential TAC Source. A Health Risk Assessment
(HRA) shall be prepared by a qualified air quality professional for development of a project that
would introduce new sensitive receptors in the study area within the siting distance for any use
listed in ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook Table 1-1 (reproduced here as Table 4.2-11
[Recommendations on Siting New Sensitive Land Uses]). Sensitive receptors include day care
centers, schools, retirement homes, hospitals, medical patients in residential homes, or other
facilities that may house individuals with health conditions that would be adversely impacted by
changes in air quality. Such a project shall not be considered for approval until an HR A has
been completed and approved by the City. The methodology for the HRA shall follow the Office
of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and BAAQMD guidelines for the preparation of
HRAs. If a potentially significant health risk is identified, the HRA shall identify appropriate
measures to reduce the potential health risk to below a significant level or the sensitive receptor
shall be sited in another location.
Preparation and
approval of Health
Risk Assessment
Prior to issuance of
grading permit
Developer Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
11-4
CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR
SCH No. 2013102001
Final EIR
January 2015
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency
or Party
Table 4.2-11 Recommendations on Siting New Sensitive
Land Uses
Source Category Advisory Recommendations
Freeways and High-
Traffic Roads
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway,
urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000
vehicles/day.
Distribution Centers
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution
center (that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than
40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units (TRUs) per day,
or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week)
Take into account the configuration of existing distribution centers
and avoid locating residences and other new sensitive land uses
near entry and exit points.
Rail Yards
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a major
service and maintenance rail yard.
Within 1 mile of a rail yard, consider possible siting limitations and
mitigation approaches.
Ports
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of ports
in the most heavily impacted zones. Consult local air districts or the
ARB on the status of pending analyses of health risks.
Refineries
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of
petroleum refineries. Consult local air districts or the ARB on the
status of pending analyses of health risks.
Chrome Platers Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a chrome
plater.
Dry Cleaners Using
Perchloroethylene
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry
cleaning operation. For operations with two or more machines
provide 500 feet. For operations with three or more machines consult
with the local air district.
Do not site new sensitive land uses in the same building with
perchloroethylene dry cleaning operations.
11-5
CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR
SCH No. 2013102001
Final EIR
January 2015
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency
or Party
Gasoline
Dispensing
Facilities
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gas
station (defined as a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons
per year or greater). A 50-foot separation is recommended for typical
gas dispensing facilities.
SOURCE: California Air Resources Board, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A
Community Health Perspective (April 2005).
These recommendations are advisory. Land use agencies have to balance other
considerations, including housing and transportation needs, economic development
priorities, and other quality of life issues.
Recommendations are based primarily on data showing that the air pollution exposures
addressed here (i.e., localized) can be reduced as much as 80% with the
recommended separation.
The relative risk for these categories varies greatly. To determine the actual risk near a
particular facility, a site-specific analysis would be required. Risk from diesel PM will
decrease over time as cleaner technology phases in.
These recommendations are designed to fill a gap where information about existing
facilities may not be readily available and are not designed to substitute for more
specific information if it exists. The recommended distances take into account other
factors in addition to the available health risk data.
Site-specific project design improvements may help reduce air pollution exposures and
should also be considered when siting new sensitive land uses.
This table does not imply that mixed residential and commercial development in
general is incompatible. Rather it focuses on known problems like dry cleaners using
perchloroethylene that can be addressed with reasonable preventative actions.
11-6
CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR
SCH No. 2013102001
Final EIR
January 2015
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency
or Party
MM4.2-4 Siting of New Toxic Air Contaminant Sources Near Sensitive Receptors. Prior to
approval of any project that includes potential sources of significant TAC emissions that is not
subject to a BAAQMD permit, that is proposed in a close proximity to a sensitive receptor, a
Health Risk Assessment (HRA) shall be prepared by a qualified air quality professional. The
land uses listed in ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook Table 1-1 (reproduced above as
Table 4.2-11 [Recommendations on Siting New Sensitive Land Uses]), shall be considered
potentially significant sources of TAC emissions. Such a proposed project will be considered in
close proximity to a sensitive receptor if it would be located within the siting distance outline for
the use in Table 1-1 of the ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook. Sensitive receptors
include day care centers, schools, retirement homes, hospitals, medical patients in residential
homes, or other facilities that may house individuals with health conditions that would be
adversely impacted by changes in air quality. Such a project shall not be considered for
approval until an HRA has been completed and approved by the City. The methodology for the
HRA shall follow the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and BAAQMD
guidelines for the preparation of HRAs. If a potentially significant health risk is identified, the
HRA shall identify appropriate measures to reduce the potential health risk to below a
significant level, or the proposed facility shall be sited in another location.
Preparation and
approval of Health
Risk Assessment
Prior to issuance of
first building permit
Developer Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
MM4.2-5 Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for new industrial land uses identified in
the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines or ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook as a typical source
of odors, the applicant shall demonstrate implementation of best management practices to
minimize odors. Best management practices vary by industrial type. In all cases, exhaust vents
should be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible. Best management practices
recommended by the BAAQMD in the CEQA Guidelines shall be implemented as applicable,
and may include the following:
■ Vapor Recovery Systems
■ Injection of masking odorants into process streams
■ Thermal oxidation
■ Carbon absorption
■ Scrubbers
■ Catalytic oxidation
Verification of
implementation of best
management
practices to control
odors
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy
Developer Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
11-7
CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR
SCH No. 2013102001
Final EIR
January 2015
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency
or Party
CULTURAL RESOURCES
MM4.3-1 Prior to development activities that would demolish or otherwise physically affect
buildings or structures 45 years old or older, the project applicant shall retain a cultural resource
professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for
Architectural History to determine if the project would cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The
investigation shall include, as determined appropriate by the cultural resource professional and
the City of South San Francisco, the appropriate archival research, including, if necessary, an
updated records search of the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical
Resources Information System and a pedestrian survey of the proposed development area to
determine if any significant historic-period resources would be adversely affected by the
proposed development. The results of the investigation shall be documented in a technical
report or memorandum that identifies and evaluates any historical resources within the
development area and includes recommendations and methods for eliminating or reducing
impacts on historical resources. The technical report or memorandum shall be sub mitted to the
City of South San Francisco for approval. As determined necessary by the City, environmental
documentation (e.g., CEQA documentation) prepared for future development within the project
site shall reference or incorporate the findings and recommendations of the technical report or
memorandum. The project applicant shall be responsible for implementing methods for
eliminating or reducing impacts on historical resources identified in the technical report or
memorandum.
Historic resource
evaluation and report
Plan check Developer Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
11-8
CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR
SCH No. 2013102001
Final EIR
January 2015
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency
or Party
MM4.3-2 Prior to any earth-disturbing activities (e.g., excavation, trenching, grading) that could
encounter previously undisturbed soils, the project applicant shall retain a City approved
archaeologist to determine if the project could result in a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The
results of the cultural resources investigation shall be documented in a technical report or
memorandum that identifies and evaluates any archaeological resources within the
development area and includes recommendations and methods for avoiding impacts on
archaeological resources or reducing impacts to a less-than-significant level. The technical
report or memorandum shall be submitted to the City of South San Francisco for approval. The
project applicant shall be responsible for implementing methods for avoiding or reducing
impacts on archaeological resources identified in the technical report or memorandum. Projects
under the Specific Plan that would not encounter previously undisturbed soils and would
therefore not be required to retain an archaeologist shall demonstrate non-disturbance to the
City through the appropriate construction plans or geotechnical studies prior to any earth -
disturbing activities. Projects that would include any earth disturbance (disturbed or undisturbed
soils) shall comply with mitigation measure MM4.3-3.
Archaeological
resource evaluation
and report
Prior to issuance of
first building permit
Developer Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
MM4.3-3 If evidence of an archaeological site or other suspected historical resource as defined
by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, are discovered during any project-related earth-
disturbing activities (including projects that would not encounter undisturbed soils), all earth-
disturbing activity within 100 feet of the find shall be halted and the City of South San Francisco
shall be notified. The project applicant shall retain a City-approved archaeologist to assess the
significance of the find. Impacts to any significant resources shall be mitigated to a less-than-
significant level through methods determined adequate by the archaeologist as approved by the
City.
Cessation of
construction activities
and archaeological
investigation
Ongoing during
construction
Developer/contractor Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
MM4.3-4 Prior to start of construction, all construction personnel involved in ground-disturbing
activities and the supervision of such activities will undergo worker environmental awareness
training. The archaeological resources training components will be presented by a City-
approved cultural resources consultant. The training will describe the types of archaeological
resources that may be found in the proposed study area and how to recognize such resources;
the protocols to be followed if archaeological resources are found, including communication
protocols; and the laws relevant to the protection of archaeological resources and the
associated penalties for breaking these laws. Additionally, prior to construction, City-approved
archaeological resources consultants will meet with the applicant’s grading and excavation
contractors to provide comments and suggestions concerning monitoring plans and to discuss
excavation and grading plans.
Verification of worker
environmental
awareness training
Prior to
commencement of
construction activities
Developer/contractor Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
11-9
CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR
SCH No. 2013102001
Final EIR
January 2015
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency
or Party
MM4.3-5 Prior to any earth-disturbing activities (e.g., excavation, trenching, grading) that could
encounter undisturbed soils, the project applicant shall retain a professional paleontologist to
determine if the project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature. The results of the investigation shall be documented in a
technical report or memorandum that identifies the paleontological sensitivity of the
development area and includes recommendations and methods for avoiding or reducing
impacts to a less-than-significant level for paleontological resources or unique geologic
features. The technical report or memorandum shall be submitted to the City for approval. The
project applicant shall be responsible for implementing methods for avoiding or reducing
impacts on paleontological resources or unique geologic features identified in the technical
report or memorandum. Projects that would not encounter undisturbed soils and would
therefore not be required to retain a paleontologist shall demonstrate non-disturbance to the
City through the appropriate construction plans or geotechnical studies prior to any earth-
disturbing activities. Projects that would include any earth disturbance (disturbed or undisturbed
soils) shall comply with mitigation measure MM4.3-6.
Paleontological
investigation and
report
Prior to issuance of
first building permit
Developer Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
MM4.3-6 Should paleontological resources (i.e., fossil remains) or unique geologic features be
identified at a particular site during project construction, construction shall cease within 100 feet
of the find and the City of South San Francisco shall be notified. The project applicant shall
retain a City approved paleontologist to assess the significance of the find. Impacts to any
significant resources shall be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through methods
determined adequate by the paleontologist, and as approved by the City.
In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting paleontologist, the City of
South San Francisco staff shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light
of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, applicable regulations, policies
and land use assumptions, and other considerations. If avoidance is unnecessary or infeasible,
other appropriate measures (e.g., monitoring and/or data recovery) shall be instituted.
Cessation of
construction and
paleontological
investigation
Ongoing during
construction
Developer/contractor Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
11-10
CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR
SCH No. 2013102001
Final EIR
January 2015
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency
or Party
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
MM4.4-1 All construction projects shall incorporate, to the greatest extent feasible, the most
recent Best Management Practices for Greenhouse Gas Emissions as indicated by the
BAAQMD.1 Best Management Practices to reduce GHG emissions during construction may
include, but are not limited to:
■ Use of alternative-fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment of at
least 15 percent of the fleet
■ Using local building materials of at least 10 percent
■ Recycle at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition materials
Verification of GHG
best management
practices
Prior to issuance of
first building permit
Developer Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
MM4.4-2 Support Expansion of Public and Private Transit Programs to Reduce Employee
Commutes (1.2). Employers within the study area shall subscribe to the South San Francisco
TDM Ordinance such that a minimum of 25 percent of all employees are included. The South
San Francisco TDM Ordinance requires that all nonresidential developments producing 100
average trips per day or more meet a 28 percent non-drive-alone peak hour requirement with
fees assessed for noncompliance.
Verification of
compliance with TDM
ordinance
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy
Developer Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
MM4.4-3 Reduce Dependence on Autos through Smart Parking Policies (1.3). This measure
would implement Smart Parking Policies, such as shared parking, to reduce available parking
by 10 percent.
Implementation of
Smart Parking Policies
Plan check Developer Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
MM4.4-4 Expand the Use of Alternative-Fuel Vehicles (2.1). Nonresidential and residential land
uses can encourage the use of alternative-fueled vehicles by providing charging stations. In
support of this measure, development within the study area shall ensure that a minimum of 60
electric vehicle chargers are installed within nonresidential land uses and within the residential
units electric charging capabilities are available for a minimum of 200 vehicles.
Verification of
inclusion of charging
stations
Plan check Developer Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
MM4.4-5 Reduce Emissions from Off-Road Vehicles and Equipment (2.2). In support of this
measure, development within the study area shall ensure that a minimum of 25 percent of all
lawnmowers and leaf blowers acquired/used within the study area would be electric. This
requires that there be sufficient electrical outlets outside of all residential and nonresidential
units to encourage the use of non-gas-fueled lawn maintenance equipment.
Verification of
electrical plans
Plan check Developer Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
1 Above BMPs are subject to change over time. Bay Area Air Quality Management District will post updates to this list at www.baaqmd.gov.
11-11
CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR
SCH No. 2013102001
Final EIR
January 2015
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency
or Party
MM4.4-6 Maximize Energy Efficiency in the Built Environment through Standards and the Plan
Review Process (3.1). All new development within the study area shall, at a minimum, comply
with the CALGreen Tier 1 standards and exceed 2013 Title 24 by a minimum of 10 percent.
Verification of
compliance
Plan check Developer Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
MM4.4-7 Address Heat Island Issues and Expand the Urban Forest (3.4). At a minimum,
322,000 square feet of all new nonresidential development and 75 new residential units shall
address heat island effect issues by using high albedo surfaces and technologie s identified in
the voluntary CALGreen Standards. This is in addition to the requirements of all new
development to plant trees in accordance with Zoning Code Chapter 13.30 with placement used
to maximize building shading.
Verification of
compliance
Plan check Developer Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
MM4.4-8 Promote Energy Information Sharing and Educate the Community about Energy-
Efficient Behaviors and Construction (3.5). Develop as part of the Specific Plan an educational
information packet that will be distributed to residential and nonresidential land owners. These
information packets shall detail potential behavioral changes that can be instituted to save
energy, such as unplugging appliances, air-drying clothes, and daylighting strategies.
Verification of
compliance
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy
Developer Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
MM4.4-9 Energy Reduction (4.1). In addition to complying with MM4.4-6, the development
within the study area shall include the use of solar panels such that a minimum of
35,000 square feet of nonresidential land use roof space is converted to solar panels, 205
residential units are equipped with solar hot water heaters, and the electricity of an additional 75
dwelling units is offset by solar panel arrays associated with the new residential development.
Verification of
compliance
Plan check Developer Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
MM4.4-10 Water Reduction (6.1). Nonresidential and residential land uses shall reduce per
capita water consumption by 40 gallons per day. Measures to be implemented to reduce water
consumption may include, but are not limited to:
■ Limiting turf area in commercial and multi-family projects
■ Restricting hours of irrigation to between 3:00 AM and 2 hours after sunrise (suggestion to
be included in the energy information saving package)
■ Installing irrigation controllers with rain sensors
■ Landscaping with native, water-efficient plants
■ Installing drip irrigation systems
■ Reducing impervious surfaces
■ Installing high-efficiency, water-saving appliances
Verification of
compliance
Plan check Developer Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
11-12
CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR
SCH No. 2013102001
Final EIR
January 2015
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency
or Party
NOISE
MM4.6-1 HVAC Mechanical Equipment Shielding. Prior to the approval of building permits for
non-residential development, the applicant shall submit a design plan for the project
demonstrating that the noise level from operation of mechanical equipment will not exceed the
exterior noise level limits for a designated receiving land use category as specified in Noise
Ordinance Section 8.32.030. Noise control measures may include, but are not limited to, the
selection of quiet equipment, equipment setbacks, silencers, and/or acoustical louvers.
Verification of
compliance
Plan check Developer Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
MM4.6-2 Site-Specific Acoustic Analysis—Nonresidential Development. Prior to the approval of
building permits for new non-residential land uses where exterior noise level exceeds 70 dBA
CNEL, an acoustical analysis shall be performed to determine appropriate noise reduction
measures such that exterior noise levels shall be reduced to be below 70 dBA CNEL, unless a
higher noise compatibility threshold (up to 75 dBA CNEL) has been determined appropriate by
the City of South San Francisco. The analysis shall detail the measures that will be
implemented to ensure exterior noise levels are compatible with the proposed use. Measures
that may be implemented to ensure appropriate noise levels include, but are not limited to,
setbacks to separate the proposed nonresidential structure from the adjacent roadway, or
construction of noise barriers on site.
Completion and
approval of acoustical
analysis
Plan check Developer Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
11-13
CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR
SCH No. 2013102001
Final EIR
January 2015
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency
or Party
MM4.6-3 Site-Specific Acoustic Analysis—Multifamily Residences. Prior to the approval of
building permits for the following uses, an acoustical analysis shall be performed to ensure that
interior noise levels due to exterior noise sources shall be below 45 dBA CNEL:
■ Multifamily residences where exterior noise levels exceed 65 dBA CNEL or where noise
contours identified in the General Plan Noise Element project a CNEL between 65 and
70 dBA
■ Multifamily residential units that are located within the same building as commercial
development
■ Multifamily residential units located near a structure requiring an HVAC system
■ Building plans shall be available during design review and shall demonstrate the accurate
calculation of noise attenuation for habitable rooms. For these areas, it may be necessary
for the windows to be able to remain closed to ensure that interior noise levels meet the
interior standard of 45 dBA CNEL. Consequently, based on the results of the interior
acoustical analysis, the design for buildings in these areas may need to include a ventilation
or air conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment with the windows
closed. Additionally, for new multifamily residences on properties where train horns and
railroad crossing warning signals are audible, the acoustical analysis shall ensure that
interior noise levels during crossing events do not exceed the Interior Noise Standards in
Noise Ordinance Section 8.32.040.
Completion and
approval of acoustical
analysis
Plan check Developer Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
MM4.6-4 Construction Vibration. For all construction activities within the study area, the
construction contractor shall implement the following measures during construction:
a. The construction contractor shall provide, at least three weeks prior to the start of
construction activities, written notification to all residential units and nonresidential tenants
within 115 feet of the construction site informing them of the estimated start date and
duration of vibration-generating construction activities.
b. Stationary sources, such as temporary generators, shall be located as far from off-site
receptors as possible.
c. Trucks shall be prohibited from idling along streets serving the construction site.
Verification of
compliance
Prior to issuance of
first building permit
Developer/contractor Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
11-14
CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR
SCH No. 2013102001
Final EIR
January 2015
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency
or Party
MM4.6-5 Rail Line Groundborne Vibration. Implement the current FTA and Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) guidelines, where appropriate, to limit the extent of exposure that sensitive
uses may have to groundborne vibration from trains. Specifically, Category 1 uses (vibration-
sensitive equipment) within 300 feet from the rail line, Category 2 uses (residences and
buildings where people normally sleep) within 200 feet, and Category 3 uses (institutional land
uses) within 155 feet of the rail line shall require a site-specific groundborne vibration analysis
conducted by a qualified groundborne vibration specialist in accordance with the current FTA
and FRA guidelines prior to obtaining a building permit. Vibration control measures deemed
appropriate by the site-specific groundborne vibration analysis to meet 65 VdB, 72 VdB, and
75 VdB respectively for Category 1, Category 2, and Category 3 uses, shall be implemented by
the project applicant and approved by the City prior to receiving a building permit.
Completion and
approval of
groundborne vibration
analysis
Prior to issuance of
first building permit
Developer Department of
Economic and
Community
Development
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
MM4.10-1 A signal timing adjustment to redistribute green time to better serve future vehicle
volumes would reduce delay at the intersection, and improve operations at #1 Miller
Avenue/Linden Avenue. This would cause the intersection to operate at an acceptable LOS D in
the PM peak hour.
Completion of timing
adjustment
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy for project
triggering
unacceptable delay
Developer Department of
Public Works
MM4.10-2 Convert one westbound through lane to a second westbound left-turn lane, and
retime and optimize the traffic signal at E. Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard.
Completion of street
improvements
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy for project
triggering
unacceptable delay
Developer Department of
Public Works
MM4.10-3 Modify the eastbound approach to include one left-turn pocket and one through-right
shared lane, and retime and optimize the traffic signal at Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard to
reallocate green time.
Completion of street
improvements
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy for project
triggering
unacceptable delay
Developer Department of
Public Works
MM4.10-4 Add a southbound left-turn pocket by removing existing parking and retime and
optimize the traffic signal at Baden Avenue/Linden Avenue to reallocate green time to better
serve future volumes.
Completion of street
improvements
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy for project
triggering
unacceptable delay
Developer Department of
Public Works
11-15
CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR
SCH No. 2013102001
Final EIR
January 2015
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency
or Party
MM4.10-5 Modify the westbound approach to add a left-turn pocket, modifying the approach to
include three left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one right-turn lane, and optimize the traffic
signal at San Mateo Avenue/Airport Boulevard to reallocate green time to better serve future
volumes.
Completion of street
improvements
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy for project
triggering
unacceptable delay
Developer Department of
Public Works
MM4.10-6 Include an additional westbound through lane, add a second southbound right-turn
pocket, and retime and optimize the traffic signal at South Airport Boulevard/Gateway
Boulevard to reallocate green time to better serve future traffic volumes.
Completion of street
improvements
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy for project
triggering
unacceptable delay
Developer Department of
Public Works
MM4.10-7 A signal timing adjustment to redistribute green time to better serve future vehicle
volumes would reduce queuing at the southbound right-turn movement. This would cause the
intersection to operate at an acceptable LOS D and with acceptable queue lengths during the
PM peak hour.
Completion of street
improvements
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy for project
triggering
unacceptable delay
Developer Department of
Public Works
MM4.10-8 intentionally omitted
2MM4.10-9 Repurpose the eastbound and westbound approaches to include one left-turn
pocket and one through-right shared lane, and retime and optimize the traffic signals at Miller
Avenue/Linden Avenue. This lane modification would not require any additional right-of-way.
Completion of street
improvements
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy for project
triggering
unacceptable delay
Developer Department of
Public Works
MM4.10-10 A signal timing adjustment to optimize cycle length and redistribute green time to
better serve future vehicle volumes would reduce delay at the intersection, and improve
operations at this intersection.
Completion of street
improvements
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy for project
triggering
unacceptable delay
Developer Department of
Public Works
MM4.10-11 A signal timing adjustment to redistribute green time to better serve future vehicle
volumes would reduce delay at the intersection, and improve operations at this intersection.
This would cause the intersection to operate at an acceptable LOS D during the PM peak hour.
2 Mitigation measures MM4.10-9 through MM4.10-19 were not renumbered in the Final EIR to account for the elimination of MM4.10-8 since publication of the DEIR.
11-16
CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR
SCH No. 2013102001
Final EIR
January 2015
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency
or Party
MM4.10-12 Construct an additional northbound right-turn lane, southbound left-turn lane,
southbound right-turn pocket, and retime and optimize the traffic signals at E. Grand
Avenue/Gateway Boulevard.
MM4.10-13 Convert the westbound approach to include one left-turn lane and one through-right
shared lane.
Completion of street
improvements
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy for project
triggering
unacceptable delay
Developer Department of
Public Works
MM4.10-14 Modify the eastbound and westbound approach to each have one left-turn pocket
and one through-right shared lane, and retime and optimize the traffic signals at Grand
Avenue/Linden Avenue.
Completion of street
improvements
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy for project
triggering
unacceptable delay
Developer Department of
Public Works
MM4.10-15 Modify the eastbound approach to include one left-turn pocket, one through lane,
and one right-turn pocket, and retime and optimize the traffic signals at Grand Avenue/Airport
Boulevard. This lane modification and signal timing adjustment would reduce vehicle delay at
the intersection, and improve operations at #10 Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard.
Completion of street
improvements
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy for project
triggering
unacceptable delay
Developer Department of
Public Works
MM4.10-16 Retime and optimize the traffic signals at Baden Avenue/Linden Avenue. Completion of street
improvements
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy for project
triggering
unacceptable delay
Developer Department of
Public Works
MM4.10-17 Construct an additional westbound left-turn lane, provide a northbound right-turn
pocket, and retime and optimize the traffic signals at San Mateo Avenue/Airport Boulevard.
Completion of street
improvements
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy for project
triggering
unacceptable delay
Developer Department of
Public Works
MM4.10-18 Construct an additional northbound left-turn lane, and retime and optimize the traffic
signals at So. Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard.
Completion of street
improvements
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy for project
triggering
unacceptable delay
Developer Department of
Public Works
11-17
CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR
SCH No. 2013102001
Final EIR
January 2015
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency
or Party
MM4.10-19 Modify the eastbound approach to include two left-turn lanes, one through-left
shared lane, and one right-turn lane, and retime and optimize the traffic signal at US-101
NB/So. Airport Boulevard Off Ramp/So. Airport Boulevard to reallocate green time to better
serve future volumes.
Completion of street
improvements
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy for project
triggering
unacceptable delay
Developer Department of
Public Works
11-18
CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SECTION 11.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR
SCH No. 2013102001
Final EIR
January 2015
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]